My thoughts exactly. I guess my biggest fear is that most of us don't trust the government 100%, nor should we. So if a government we don't trust implicitly is recording information about us that they don't have a warrant to obtain, and someone who is unscrupulous uses that information for nefarious reasons.....

Pete, I accept your pointed example of how my disagreement of warrant less wiretaps leaves us in a precarious position. The question I have is, where do we draw the line? Who is to say that the information gathered can't be used to hurt innocent people who have done nothing wrong? Where is that line, and who gets to determine where it is drawn?

Do I think the past administration had our best intentions in mind when this was developed? Absolutely!! But do I trust the current administration, ie Attorney General Holder, to not use information obtained in a manner to hurt political adversaries of the current POTUS, if he thought it was justified? He has already proven he can't be trusted as far as I am concerned. Why would I give someone such as him that kind of power?

Actually they weren't completely Warrentless. It was just a system set up to speed the permission to Wire Tap up. Instead of going thru the process of getting a Warrant. The request was presented to a panel of Judges on call 24/7. It was used for emergency situations. It was monitored by these Judges. It wasn't just LEO'S deciding on their own to Tap a phone. The Media made us believe it was like that. There was or is actually a process in place.

When is a concentration camp not a concentration camp?
 

My point is that if we're going to review the history of American civilization and compare it to the history of other civilizations, we shouldn't just look at the highlights. How many 'dark spots' need to be documented before we admit to ourselves that our past has not always been as exceptional as we would like? The writing of the story of American freedom has seen the inkwell spilled on many occasions.

In regards to the "naive" assertion that the concentration camps in America were not in the same category as those in Europe, I ask "Who determines the categories? What is the standard of measurement?" Yes, there's a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, the fact that we have to make that distinction when we're discussing our own recent past speaks for itself.

I will hold our "Evils" up to comparison with the "Evils" of any other Country and not think twice about weighing them in light of "Greater" vs. "Lesser" - and that includes our treatment of the American Indians and the entire institution of slavery. The difference is - I'm not about to apply modern sensibilities to the discussion. I do believe in American Exceptionalism - unashamedly. Sometimes growth is a messy business. The ancient adages about omelets and sausage come to mind. To our credit the stumbles along the way have generally occasioned the type of soul searching afchic is presently engaged in - to the betterment of all.

Compare the death rates for the Japanese-Americans detained against the camp residents of the Nazis (or the Soviets), or for that matter, the U.S. guests of the Emperor of Japan.

Targeting of German population centers began as a reprisal for Nazi targeting of British cities. Both Germany and Japan dispersed their industries in population centers to protect them, and as I am sure you are aware, weapon CEP was measured in miles rather than feet. It took 1,000 planes to hit a target that a pair of B-2s could eliminate today with conventional weapons.

I seriously doubt that American soldiers in WW II returned as Nazis or worse, unless they left as racists, or fought the Japanese, who fought a different type of war with no quarter asked, or given. On behalf of my family and friends who served in that war, I resent that implication.

My impression is that the New Deal social programs are the underlying cause of the big government problems we face today.

I think that if we are going to engage in a what if, the Soviets would have been hard pressed to defeat the Nazis, had they not been engaged with the Brits and ourselves elsewhere. We also would have been able to play a bigger role in the ETO had the Japanese not redirected our attention temporarily by a savage sneak attack against not just Hawaii, but the Phillipines and across the Pacific. I would maintain that we were significantly more helpful against the Nazis than the USSR was against the Japanese, until the final weeks of the war. North Africa and the Italian campaigns were not diversions. Many American vehicles and aircraft served in the Red Army, care of the U.S. taxpayers. The question is not a simple, "who really defeated the Nazis?" A good discussion can be had over it though.

TR

I don't suffer from collective guilt, especially when there is none. I am very well aware of the dark sides of the US history, so your point is?


Again, to compare the US Internment camps with Auschwitz is beyond the pale.

From my perspective you sound like someone who is very comfortable calling the shots from your armchair. For me, I have seen my generation slandered for doing their duty, serving honorable, dieing in a foreign country so some could call them names, insult them and consider their sacrifices as something meaningless. It is easy to set at a nice clean table, eating fine foods, enjoy civil conversation while bloviating about the person who is living in the mud, on very limited food and water in a very hostile environment fighting a enemy who knows no humanity, and yet those at home calls that soldier/Marine the evil doer.

BTW, I am one of those Viet-Nam Evil doers, accused of things we never did.

I will take the actions of any US service person over that of our enemy any day. Those serving are paying a high price and so are their families so we can all enjoy a fine dinner with friends and a civil conversation while those at home only see their actions as evil.


BTW over 99% of the Chinese POWs did not survive the Japanese Prisoner of War camps. I personally find it offensive that you try to paint the actions of the US with the nazis who butchered millions in death camps and the Japanese who where no better and some say worse.

Excellent point. Would anyone care to point out an American atrocity equivalent to "The Rape of Nanking"?

:eek: - I don't think this is what anyone was trying to do here - certainly not someone with the historiographic background of Sigaba - and I took his original point to be in reference to the early KZs - as well as our internment camps for US Citizens of Japanese ancestry - both of which were originally designed for a collecting and removal of government labeled undesirables from society.

What the KZs eventually went on to become vs how we eventually returned our citizens to society - although many Nisei families suffered great personal, social, and economic losses - is where the path to what might have been diverges.

I grew up with many Japanese farm families who had been interred and they never fully trusted the US Government after that time - even when their elected representatives were honorable people like Matsui.

If anyone woulld like to review the history of the American internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2 vs perpetuating the myths associated with it all, a couple of good books I would recommend are Jewel of the Desert by Sandra Taylor and The Great Betrayal by Audrie Girdner and Anne Loftis.

This is a part of the myth left over from WW2 - and many prominent historians have reviewed the documentation and shown it to be otherwise. And as far as dispersing their industrial base into population centers - the facts are that the population centers had grown up around the German industrial base and transportation hubs during the first and second industrial revolutions, and Germany actually sought to disperse its important industries away from their population centers during WW2 in an attempt to hide and protect them from the unrelenting allied bombing campaign.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard you could also add the Japanese Americans who fought in Europe was one of the most highly decorated units. Very Honorable and patriotic Americans. As I mentioned internment was a dark spot in our history, but no way comparable to the death camps in Europe.

War does not bring out the best in people, but it is strange that you can also see the greatest of humanity too. Discussion like this, shows that American do wrestle with the negative aspects of waging war. Considering the barbarity of the Japanese and nazis, I really can not feel for them. Any acts committed by our soldiers that were less than noble, I just can not get excited about. It is not a American bias, or a bias for Americans, it is from understanding human nature. Considering how the Japanese and nazis treated civilians, our allies and our own POW, one might say our soldiers handled themselves in great resolve.

My Dad was in the China Fleet (USS ALDEN) during the invasion of China and was off of the Philippines when war broke out. In the ports of China he also witness the act of Japanese barbarity against the Chinese people. My mother had family in Europe. Two of my uncles survived the nazi's camps. Over time and with friendship developing between Japanese and Germans with American people, may be there is a need to water down history. Maybe especially for the Japanese and Germans. I don't think we need to water down our dark spots either, all in all, our fellow Americans had conducted themselves with honor in waging all out war against a barbaric enemy. Just like today, there are those who equate our Soldiers/Marines as worse than the tangos for political reasons. That equation is just wrong and leads to the culture of defeat and self loathing for our Military just like in the Viet-Nam war.


As for the Soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese, I know why some developed a sour taste for the Japanese. Personally I am glad, that over time, we have moved on as a people.


Back to topic at hand, Our system is based on checks and balances, I do have a good respect for SCOTUS. I took a year of Constitutional law and gained a large respect for how the court works. Also a good friend taught Constitutional Law at a local law school. Our system is not perfect but, it is not the government that tin foil hat types drone about.


A good site on the myths of the Viet-Nam. A good read to see how many myths a person accepts as fact. Many of the myths are assumed to be general knowledge and true.

http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm



Comparisons are important and need to be close or they paint one side much worse and the other side much better.

A small high-jack here.

Not that I can compare any experience to what you and my father experienced as VN Vets upon returning home, but recently I had the displeasure of experiencing similar action in a person whom I considered to be a reasonable human being.

I guess what I'm saying is the freaky ultra-left, with their out-there "thinking" is still alive and well. No kidding.

I have a friend who runs a school that trains young people in cross cultural situations and then provides a off the beaten track "service abroad" experience, a gap year service. Needless to say she has a lot of influence over the minds of these young people.

Recently I "caught" her posting on a board about the atrocities of the US SOLDEIRS in Iraq and how many babies they had killed (sounds familiar). Needless to say I was shocked having known and worked on and off with this individual for 8 years.

Now having a good relationship with her, I approached her and tried to uncover this misunderstanding. She denied it and after a couple more attempts at reasonable conversation she cut off all comms.

Not only is the Ultra-Left BS still alive it's still gutless.

High Jack over.

Hollis--

With all due respect, I don't think it is appropriate for you to take me to task for your own inferences. Yes, the questions I posed are open ended but it is you who decided to make the exercise of comparing America to other combatants instead of comparing America to her own standards of that era.

In essence, what you're doing is taking the question "Am I ____?" and answering "I'm not as ____ as the other guy."

Your broad swipes at my legitimacy are at best curious when one looks at how you establish yours.
In essence, you are suggesting that what you learned as a young person from people you knew is of greater intellectual value than the many pathways traveled by historians on several continents working with archival sources, private papers, oral history interviews, memoirs, and other forms of evidence.

Historians ask themselves and each other tough even unpleasant questions, not because they don't respect the past and the people who made it, but because they do.

No that's not what he said, he said he spoke to the men that made history, not those that wrote it or taught it. He said he spoke to men with a high moral code and learned from warriors what he might expect from war.

These men would not have used a term of "greater intellectual value" as they know we're all created equal. As "Honorable and patriotic Americans" have almost always maintained the moral high-ground.

It's one thing to read about war and another to be there. Sort of like some of the "reality" shows on TV, some actually believe that how life is, others know better, they have lived it.

HOLLIS: The 442d RCT was THE most decorated unit in WWII. Its ironic that their patch was Lady Liberty's arm holding the "Torch of Freedom".

And, like TS says. I'd rather listen to the ones that actually made the history vs those that would interpret it.

Experience, memory, and history
 

TS--

With respect, I agree that the military history of the Second World War must center around the battlefields and the people who fought. I disagree that the history of the Second World War was made by warriors alone.

In regards to the former, in 1942, S.L.A. Marshall was on Kwajalein as part of the general staff's efforts to find ways to chronicle the army's combat operations. Marshall was interviewing one soldier about an engagement when another chimed in with a drastically different account. It was not until after Marshall had interviewed the rest of the two men's platoon that he felt confident in his reconstruction of the previous night's actions. From this experience, the army began its practice of conducting multiple oral interviews.*

Acknowledging the differences among such accounts did not (and does not) imply a lack of character or integrity of the soldiers involved. Instead, recognizing the differences and seeking to reconcile them into a single narrative reflect the fact that human beings remember shared experiences differently and that memories may change over time.

I understand that many warriors question the propriety, value, and utility of interpretations of the history of war, contemporaneous military affairs, and the armed services offered by civilians. I accept this skepticism.

However, what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences? Are only African Americans allowed to offer views on the experiences of blacks in the United States? Are only lawyers and judges to comment upon the law?


____________________________________________
* S. L. A. Marshall, Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, ed. by Cate Marshall (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1979), 71-72. To clarify, I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding Marshall's life and career. In this specific instance, I am unaware of any evidence that should cast into doubt Marshall's experiences with post-combat oral interviews.

I think it was SLA Marshall who intoned that if a million men went into battle and all of them returned - there would be a million different narratives of what actually happened.

Richard