More WWII Myths-The Tuskegee Airmen

[wjho...@aol.com]

Two recent articles, one in a national magazine, the other
online, have recently noted a number of myths with regard
to the popular conception of the wartime record of the
famous WWII Tuskegee Airmen. These myths are
apparently the result of politically-correct but fictionalized
portrayals of the segregated USAAF's 332nd Fighter Group
in the press stories and motion pictures over the years,
including one movie in 1995 titled "The Tuskegee Airmen,"
and one as recently as January of this year titled "Red
Tails."

As is well-known, in WWiI a segregated base was set
up in Tuskegee, Alabama to train African-Americans to
become pilots in the Army Air Corps. Some 400 men were eventually
trained at that facility. Although some of the
pilots were assigned to bomber groups, those with the
332nd Fighter Group, being considered the most glamourous,
have become the ones receiving the most public and media
attention over the years, including considerable hype
because of current social obsessions with regard to race
and racism.

In 1995 HBO released the film "The Tuskegee Airmen"
which received a favorable public reception and a litany of
politically-correct reviews in the media. Early this year, the
film "Red Tails." was released along the same lines, both
films apparently perpetuating the same myths among which
were that the individual Tuskegee airmen shot down more
enemy planes than their record shows, that they never lost
a bomber they escorted (they lost more than 25) and other
myths which Dr. Daniel l. Haulman, Chief, Organizational
Historics Branch, Air Force Historic Research Agency, has
listed in his October 2011 article titled "Nine Myths about the
Tuskegee Airmen" at this URL. http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/explore/Nine_Myths_About_
the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf

In addition, Dr. Roger McGrath, military historian, has
confirmed some of Dr. Haulmann's myths along with other
details in his article "The Tuskegee Airmen" in the April issue
of Chronicles Magazine.

Both articles are an interesting revelation in how WWII
historical accuracy can suffer at the hands of factual
misrepresentation motivated by socio/political expediency,

WJH

[Bill]

In article <bdf2f49a-7ca9-4b57-bf99-a8586aca50a6
@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, wjho...@aol.com says...

>
> Two recent articles, one in a national magazine, the other
> online, have recently noted a number of myths with regard
> to the popular conception of the wartime record of the
> famous WWII Tuskegee Airmen.

<snip>

> Both articles are an interesting revelation in how WWII
> historical accuracy can suffer at the hands of factual
> misrepresentation motivated by socio/political expediency,

Stay well away from U-571 and 'Objective Burma'.

Otherwise someone will claim that they're lying propaganda that shows
white Americans winning WWII when they didn't...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Duwop]

On Apr 1, 12:14 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <bdf2f49a-7ca9-4b57-bf99-a8586aca50a6

> @k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, wjhopw...@aol.com says...

> Stay well away from U-571 and 'Objective Burma'.
>
> Otherwise someone will claim that they're lying propaganda that shows
> white Americans winning WWII when they didn't...
>

Pshah! Everyone knows that feel good stories about white America
aren't PC or

> an interesting revelation in how WWII
> historical accuracy can suffer at the hands of factual
> misrepresentation motivated by socio/political expediency,

Not this new jibber-jabber with it's modern facts, knowledge and
perspective.

[Alan Meyer]

On 04/01/2012 01:12 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> Two recent articles, one in a national magazine, the other
> online, have recently noted a number of myths with regard
> to the popular conception of the wartime record of the
> famous WWII Tuskegee Airmen. These myths are
> apparently the result of politically-correct but fictionalized
> portrayals of the segregated USAAF's 332nd Fighter Group
> in the press stories and motion pictures over the years,

...

I wouldn't get too exercised about the fact that Hollywood has portrayed
black airmen as heroes in part because they were black. The plain fact
is that Hollywood, and most film industries in most countries, loves to
portray heroes. It's great box office. And if the heroes are underdogs
for some reason, that's even better.

How many movies about World War II are really accurate? Very few of the
films made during the war are anything more than propaganda and an awful
lot of the films made after the war aren't much better.

As for the Tuskegee Airmen, are they heroes? In my view, they are. In
my view all of the men of all colors who climbed into an airplane, or a
foxhole, or a tank, or a submarine, or whatever, and faced death to
fight for their country and against fascism are heroes.

And as for the white/black issue, in addition to giving the Tuskegee
Airmen credit for fighting the enemy, I give them some credit for
standing up for their own humanity against racism, which was very strong
in those days and very virulent. And I also give credit to the white
men who stood up with and for them.

One of the outcomes of World War II was to show us where virulent racism
leads. We saw what the ideology of Nazism comes to, from the Nuremberg
laws, to the Gestapo torture chambers, to the death camps. Maybe it's
not a bad idea to remind those of us who live in the U.S. that the
struggle against Nazism was also a struggle against racism in our own
country and the experience of the Tuskegee Airmen was a lesson for all
of us.

I haven't seen the movies and can't say anything about how well they
were made or how historically accurate they are, but the idea of
recognizing all of the heroes who fought the war, not just the white
ones, doesn't sound bad to me.

Alan

[james]

I'm wondering if the myths propogated during the war itself or
afterwards, when the push for integration of the US armed forces came
along. Probably a bit of both.

Myth making though was not just occuring on one side, every party
during the war created myths for their own purposes, and in this case
it was relatively benign. Consider the myths the Japanese spread about
how Japanese civilians would be treated, which convinced many on
Okinawa to commit suicide.

As for the "White Americans" not winning the war, if you think there
wasn't enough propaganda about that, you should check out "Why We
Fight", which you can often find in the cheap DVD bins at Walmart etc.

[David Wilma]

An additional source of mythology is the veterans themselves.
Dad often commented how they lost 50 planes one night
over The Hump in a typhoon in January 1945. A better
accounting decades later places the losses at about 22. The
story tellers love the drama of statistics like that and print
the drama.

None of this should detract from the valor and competence
of any warrior and certainly not from the African
Americans whose service fed one of the most constructive
developments in U.S. History, civil rights to all.

[Stephen Graham]

On 4/2/2012 1:04 PM, David Wilma wrote:
> An additional source of mythology is the veterans themselves.
> Dad often commented how they lost 50 planes one night
> over The Hump in a typhoon in January 1945. A better
> accounting decades later places the losses at about 22. The
> story tellers love the drama of statistics like that and print
> the drama.

That's the key point: we could run through the popular conception of any
number of World War Two units and find similar myths. If we look at the
nine myths addressed by Haulman's article, most of them originate either
during the war or immediately afterwards.

The nine myths are:

1. Blacks are inferior (pre-war)
2. Never lost a bomber (March 1945 magazine)
3. Conspiracy to deny ace status (1955 book)
4. First to shoot down a jet (modern)
5. Sank a German destroyer (wartime)
6. Great Train Robbery (not clear - may have wartime origin)
7. Best escort group (related to 2, stems in part from bomber group
veterans, may partially be based on 1945 Gillem report, but has modern
component)
8. All black. Status as a myth is tenuous and is based on white trainers
and initial white commanding officers. (wartime)
9. Tuskegee Airmen were all fighter pilots and flew P-51s (mixed). The
477th Bombardment Group is pretty obscure, partially because it never
deployed overseas. Even during the war, most people would have heard
only about the fighter group.

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/1/2012 1:12 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> As is well-known, in WWiI a segregated base was set
> up in Tuskegee, Alabama to train African-Americans to
> become pilots in the Army Air Corps.

Here's a myth, the Tuskegee facilities weren't segregated. There were
white officers and civilian trainers at the bases as well. This is
covered in the link you provided us in the 3rd paragraph of this post.
Didn't you bother to follow the link and read the article?

Alan

[Don Phillipson]

"Alan Nordin" <alan_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jld3f0$u4u$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/1/2012 1:12 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
>> As is well-known, in WWiI a segregated base was set
>> up in Tuskegee, Alabama to train African-Americans to
>> become pilots in the Army Air Corps.
>
> Here's a myth, the Tuskegee facilities weren't segregated. There were
> white officers and civilian trainers at the bases as well. This is
> covered in the link you provided us in the 3rd paragraph of this post.

This misunderstands how segregation worked when segregation
was US Army policy (since the civil war, when black soldiers were
first trained for combat by the US Army -- under white officers.)
When US Selective Service began black enlistees were not
allowed to apply for all types of specialization or training open
to white soldiers. This changed progressively in the course of
the war, and postwar desegregation (ordered by Pres. Truman)
proceeded at different speeds in the four armed services (inc.
USMC.) During WW2 all black troops were commanded and
trained by white officers and senior NCOs.

Perhaps because of propinquity, the Canadian forces in
1939 refused to enlist black volunteers. A major policy change
prohibiting this discrimination was ordered in about 1941.
Folklore has it that RCAF recruiters who had been turning
down British West Indies volunteers for aircrew training
reported to the RAF in Britain that they were losing good
men by following the British rule barring blacks from the
RAF -- only to be told that there was no such rule, and the
RAF recruited regardless of colour.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Bill]

In article <jld7s9$g7e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca
says...

only to be told that there was no such rule, and the
> RAF recruited regardless of colour.

And promoted quite high.

Subroto Mukerjee became a Group Captain, although he was 'Indian Air
Force'...

But KK Majundar was a Squadron leader and he was certainly in the RAF.

More here:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Pilots.html

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/2/2012 6:15 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Alan Nordin"<alan_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jld3f0$u4u$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> On 4/1/2012 1:12 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
>>> As is well-known, in WWiI a segregated base was set
>>> up in Tuskegee, Alabama to train African-Americans to
>>> become pilots in the Army Air Corps.
>>
>> Here's a myth, the Tuskegee facilities weren't segregated. There were
>> white officers and civilian trainers at the bases as well. This is
>> covered in the link you provided us in the 3rd paragraph of this post.
>
> This misunderstands how segregation worked when segregation
> was US Army policy (since the civil war, when black soldiers were
> first trained for combat by the US Army -- under white officers.)

Mr. Hopwood's statement that the base was segregated, indicates to me he
is saying the base was all black. This was not the case as the article
he refers to clearly states. You are misunderstanding what I was
saying. Please don't read more into what I write than what is written.

> During WW2 all black troops were commanded and
> trained by white officers and senior NCOs.

Not true of the 332nd, 447th and their subordinate squadrons, they
started out with white officers commanding {mostly during training} but
ended up all black. If you read the article provided by Mr. Hopwood,
you will see this.

Alan

[Don Kirkman]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:13:10 -0400, Stephen Graham
<gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:

[Re: Myths of War]

[. . .]

>8. All black. Status as a myth is tenuous and is based on white trainers
>and initial white commanding officers. (wartime)

This applies equally to the WW II Nisei units, which had white
officers and one Asian, Colonel Young-Oak Kim, a Korean who also
served during the Korean War. During his military service he was
awarded 19 medals, including the Distinguished Service Cross, two
Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Medal of
Military Valor, a Légion d'honneur, a Croix de guerre, and
(posthumously) the Korean Taeguk Cordon of the Order of Military
Merit.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Stephen Graham]

On 4/2/2012 3:44 PM, Bill wrote:
> In article<jld7s9$g7e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca
> says...
>
> only to be told that there was no such rule, and the
>> RAF recruited regardless of colour.
>
> And promoted quite high.
>
> Subroto Mukerjee became a Group Captain, although he was 'Indian Air
> Force'...
>
> But KK Majundar was a Squadron leader and he was certainly in the RAF.

Majumder was also IAF, but was seconded to the RAF later in the war.

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 2, 11:13 am, Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> I wouldn't get too exercised about the fact
> that Hollywood has portrayed black airmen
> as heroes in part because they were black.
> The plain fact is that Hollywood, and most
> film industries in most countries, loves to
> portray heroes. It's great box office. And
> if the heroes are underdogs for some reason,
> that's even better.

That's true, but the problem is not whether
members of minority groups should receive
credit for their service or for individual exploits
above and beyond the call of duty, but whether
their service and/or exploits should be hyped
because of their race.
There are unintended consequences to
such myth-making. Over time the myths
become baked into the system and when
repeated often enough people accept them as
fact. Consequently, younger generations
"learn" history that is not history at all, but
fiction. As military historian, Dr. Roger
McGrath, (a former Marine officer whom I
previously cited) wrote:
"i was teaching a course in WWII...when
the "Tuskegee Airman" aired...several of my
students watched the movie and...asked me
about the black pilots never losing a bomber
they were protecting from enemy aircraft.
Since it was in the movie, my students thought
it must be true. To this day not one of the
many reviews...mention that the claim is false..."

But the Tuskegee Airmen are not the only
group about which fictionalized claims have been
made and repeated so often as to be believed by
those who know, or should know, better. For
instance, The famous Japanese-American
100/442d Regimental Combat Team is another
case in point.
That they were a top-notch combat team
has never been disputed and to exaggerate their
war record is to discredit them. Nevertheless,
claims of the awards made to that group have
been challenged on a number of occasions.
For example: In December of 1946, over
18 months after the war in Europe ended, the
Washington Infantry Journal Press published an
article titled "Amereicans:The Story of the 442d
Combat Team" and listed all individual awards
to the team, issued and pending. The total was
5,025 and included 1 Medal of Honor, 1 DSC,
and 3600 Purple Hearts. Yet today those numbers
have mysteriously managed to balloon to more
than three times that many.

The 442d RCT is now widely credited in
media circles as having received more than
18,000 individual awards and decorations. Often
used as a source for such exaggerated figures
are the Japanerse-American National Museum
(claiming 18,143 "individual decorations for valor")
and the National Japanese American Historical
Society ("over 18,000 individual decorations for
bravery (and) 9,600 Purple Hearts.")
Sources for such figures were not given.
by either institution. The latter institution even
claims that 33,000 Japanese Americans served
in U.S. forces in WWII (the actual number being approximately 16,000)
and that among them were
6,000 in the Pacific Theater (actually the number
in the Pacific Theater was closer to half that many).
A Los Angeles memorial to Japanese-Americans
who actually did serve the U.S. in WWii carries
some 16,000 names.

And, of course, more recently (in 2,000) we
had upgrades to Congressional Medal of Honor for
21 Japanese-Americans of the 442d team as the
result of a special Congressional review of WWii
award recommendations made ONLY for those of
Asian Americans and Pacific island heritage. The established 3 year
statute of limitations for award
reviews was lifted for that particular review. Hence
any Caucasion and African-American who received
or was recommended for a DSC in WWii and who
who otherwise might have been included for upgrade review were not
eligible solely because of their race.
Referred to by many as "Affirmative Action" upgrades, this
race-based mass award of Medals
of Honor to 21 Japanese-American members of the famous 442d (living
and dead) more than half a
century after the war ended has been widely
considered to have been politically-motivated and
was not well received by many WWII veterans.

WJH

[David H Thornley]

wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:13 am, Alan Meyer wrote:
>> I wouldn't get too exercised about the fact
>> that Hollywood has portrayed black airmen
>> as heroes in part because they were black.
>> The plain fact is that Hollywood, and most
>> film industries in most countries, loves to
>> portray heroes. It's great box office. And
>> if the heroes are underdogs for some reason,
>> that's even better.
>
> That's true, but the problem is not whether
> members of minority groups should receive
> credit for their service or for individual exploits
> above and beyond the call of duty, but whether
> their service and/or exploits should be hyped
> because of their race.

That's been going on a long time, if I can throw
nationality into the mix.

You are aware, of course, that the US won WWII,
with some help from the gallant British and
some Soviet help at Stalingrad.

And that the Soviets won it all by themselves; one
children's history I saw just dropped everything
in the Pacific War from before the Battle of
Midway until the US needed the Soviets to attack
at the end of the war.

And, of course, the US was criminally late coming
into the war, except that it really had no business
interfering in the mess the Europeans had made,
and so on.

> There are unintended consequences to
> such myth-making. Over time the myths
> become baked into the system and when
> repeated often enough people accept them as
> fact. Consequently, younger generations
> "learn" history that is not history at all, but
> fiction.

Guess what: when I was young, I read books about
the Eastern Front that were at least highly
fictionalized. We're not getting away from myths
and preconceptions.

I'm not sure it's all that important. Some people
like to know what really happened, but other people
seem to do just fine with the myths, like Washington
and the cherry tree or the American Civil War being
all about slavery/state's rights.

As military historian, Dr. Roger
> McGrath, (a former Marine officer whom I
> previously cited) wrote:
> "i was teaching a course in WWII...when
> the "Tuskegee Airman" aired...several of my
> students watched the movie and...asked me
> about the black pilots never losing a bomber
> they were protecting from enemy aircraft.
> Since it was in the movie, my students thought
> it must be true.

We're not getting away from this, either.

When we see something, we tend to believe it.
Until the Twentieth Century, there was really
nothing wrong with that, since we generally saw
what actually happened (whether we interpreted
it properly or not). With the advent of
photography and motion photography, we can see
things that never happened.

Movies are typically made to sell, and there are
certain things that work very well commercially,
including making heroes of people (or much bigger
heroes of people who weer actually heroes).

Again, I'm not sure it's all that harmful,
considering all the other stuff going on.

I do hope, however, that Dr. McGrath put some of
the movie exaggerations and distortions on his
tests. People who can't learn properly shouldn't
get good grades in classes.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Rich Rostrom]

Alan Nordin <alan_...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Mr. Hopwood's statement that the base was segregated, indicates to me he
> is saying the base was all black.

You misunderstand the meaning of "segregated".

The Navy was segregated, too. But that
did not mean that black and white sailors
did not serve at the same bases or on the
same ships.

Rather, it meant that there were separate
accommodations for blacks and whites.

Separate sleeping quarters, mess areas,
showers and toilets baths, and clubs or
rec halls.

The degree of segregation could vary
depending on the size of the facility.

AIUI, blacks were rarely assigned to any
facility that was not large enough to
have separate accommodations.

At the segregated air bases, there were
white commanders, instructors and senior
NCOs. But they lived in separate accommodations
from the black airmen on the bases, even
those of equal rank.
--
| Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdes. |
| -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870. |

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 2, 6:45 pm, Alan Nordin wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 6:15 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> > This misunderstands how segregation
> > worked when segregation was US Army
> > policy (since the civil war, when black
> > soldiers were first trained for combat by
> > the US Army -- under white officers.)
>
> Mr. Hopwood's statement that the base was
> segregated, indicates to me he is saying the
> base was all black.

Then you got it wrong. Perhaps if you
were more familiar with the time period and the
lingo then used to describe he Tuskegee airmen
and the Japanese-American 442nd RCT you
would know what is meant when one refers to
them as "segregated" even if trained by whites
at a regular military camp or base.
The so-called Tuskegee Airmen were
restricted from serving in other Army flight units
because of their race. The Japanese-Ameerican
442d RCT, was, except for its officer corps,
composed almost entirely of Japanese-Americans restricted from serving
in other Army units for
reasons related to the cultural, religions, and family relationship
they had as a group with our enemy
nation, Japan.
Hence the two groups were called
"segregated" even though such units were trained
by white officers at non-segregated bases and the
442nd was led into combat by white officers, who composed over two-
thirds of its officer corps.
The 442d officer statistics are interesting.
Of a total of 369 officers, 273 (73%) were white while
only 96 (27%) were Japanese-American. Also
interesting were the Purple Hearts awarded. Of the
273 white officers, 215 or 78% of them received a
PH. Of the 96 JA officers, 52 (54%) received a PH.

WJH

[Bill]

In article <265b1f0f-95b3-4aaf-ac01-
d90cf7...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, wjho...@aol.com says...

>
> On Apr 2, 11:13 am, Alan Meyer wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't get too exercised about the fact
> > that Hollywood has portrayed black airmen
> > as heroes in part because they were black.
> > The plain fact is that Hollywood, and most
> > film industries in most countries, loves to
> > portray heroes. It's great box office. And
> > if the heroes are underdogs for some reason,
> > that's even better.
>
> That's true, but the problem is not whether
> members of minority groups should receive
> credit for their service or for individual exploits
> above and beyond the call of duty, but whether
> their service and/or exploits should be hyped
> because of their race.

Why not?

It's not as if majority groups don't do it...

I already mentioned 'Objective Burma' and 'U-571' as examples of
Hollywood's efforts to 'air brush' the UK out of the history of WWII.

This is pretty constant, the only mention of the British in 'Saving
Private Ryan' is derogatory.

Reality doesn't put 'bums on seats' in a theatre.

Good stories do...

[Michael Emrys]

On 4/2/12 9:10 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> There are unintended consequences to such myth-making. Over time the
> myths become baked into the system and when repeated often enough
> people accept them as fact. Consequently, younger generations
> "learn" history that is not history at all, but fiction.

I couldn't agree more. And I share your anxiety over the consequences of
such actions. But just to keep some perspective, this is exactly what we
white people have been doing for centuries. Let's not be complacent
about that either.

Michael

[Roman W]

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:43:41 PM UTC+1, David H Thornley wrote:
> That's been going on a long time, if I can throw
> nationality into the mix.
>
> You are aware, of course, that the US won WWII,
> with some help from the gallant British and
> some Soviet help at Stalingrad.
>
> And that the Soviets won it all by themselves; one
> children's history I saw just dropped everything
> in the Pacific War from before the Battle of
> Midway until the US needed the Soviets to attack
> at the end of the war.
>
> And, of course, the US was criminally late coming
> into the war, except that it really had no business
> interfering in the mess the Europeans had made,
> and so on.

History is always a story. Without a story, you'd have just a bare
collection of facts devoid of meaning (giving them meaning means
writing your own story). I think Pynchon put it best:

"Who claims Truth, Truth abandons. History is hir'd, or coerc'd, only
in Interests that must ever prove base. She is too innocent, to be
left within the reach of anyone in Power,- who need but touch her,
and all her Credit is in the instant vanish'd, as if it had never
been. She needs rather to be tended lovingly and honorably by fabulists and counterfeiters, Ballad-Mongers and Cranks of ev'ry
Radius, Masters of Disguise to provide her the Costume, Toilette, and
Bearing, and Speech nimble enough to keep her beyond the Desires,
or even the Curiosity, of Government."

> When we see something, we tend to believe it.
> Until the Twentieth Century, there was really
> nothing wrong with that, since we generally saw
> what actually happened (whether we interpreted
> it properly or not).

True, but even then people needed history to tell them what they saw.

"Speaking of the capitulation of Bulgaria, an event decisive to the
outcome of the First World War and therefore to the end of a
civilisation, Count Karolyi writes that while he was living through
it he did not realise its importance, because "at that moment, 'that
moment' had not yet become 'that moment'". The same is true in
fiction for Fabrizio del Dongo, concerning the battle of Waterloo:
while he is fighting it, it does not exist. In the pure present, the
only dimension, however, in which we live, there is no history. At no
single instant is there such a thing as the Fascist period or the
October revolution, because in that fraction of a second there is
only the mouth swallowing saliva, the movement of a hand, a glance at
the window."(Claudio Magris)

RW

[Don Phillipson]

"Alan Nordin" <alan_...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:jld9pi$4br$1...@dont-email.me...

> Mr. Hopwood's statement that the base was segregated, indicates to me he
> is saying the base was all black.

This is not the way we usually use the language. When we say a certain
place was segregated in year X, this does not imply the place was all
white or all black.

>> During WW2 all black troops were commanded and
>> trained by white officers and senior NCOs.
>
> Not true of the 332nd, 447th and their subordinate squadrons, they started
> out with white officers commanding {mostly during training} but ended up
> all black.

Two sentences earlier (snipped) we read US Army segregation
"changed progressively in the course of the war . . ."

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/3/2012 12:13 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> Then you got it wrong. Perhaps if you
> were more familiar with the time period and the
> lingo then used to describe he Tuskegee airmen
> and the Japanese-American 442nd RCT you
> would know what is meant when one refers to
> them as "segregated" even if trained by whites
> at a regular military camp or base.

My apologies for getting it wrong.

I wondered how long it would be before you dragged your hobby horse out.
I believe most of us realized this Tuskegee post of yours was nothing
more than an intro into your favorite subject.

Alan

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 2, 5:13 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:
> On 4/2/2012 1:04 PM, David Wilma wrote:
>
> > An additional source of mythology is the

> > veterans themselves..The story tellers l
> > love the drama of statistics like that...

>
> That's the key point: we could run through
> the popular conception of any number of
> World War Two units and find similar myths.
> If we look at the nine myths addressed by
> Haulman's article, most of them originate
> either during the war or immediately
> afterwards.

I think you paint with too broad a
brush. Of the 9 myths listd by Dr. Haulman,
only 3 (#'s 2,5,and 9) appear to have
originated during the war or "immediately
afterwards."
Number 6 could possibly be added,
but just when the remaining 5 myths
originated seems clearly to have been either
pre-war or long after the war ended.
I agree that many WWII myths
originated around other groups during and/or
shortly after the war. But I can't recall any
which have continued to have such a long
life span as those myths surrounding the
Tuskegee airmen and the 100/442d RCT.
Can you? Why do you think that has
happened?

> The nine myths are:
>
> 1. Blacks are inferior (pre-war)

Originated long before the war

> 2. Never lost a bomber (March 1945
> magazine)

Wartime origin.

> 3. Conspiracy to deny ace status (1955
> book)

Surfaced ten years after the war. .

> 4. First to shoot down a jet (modern)

Origin long after the war

> 5. Sank a German destroyer (wartime)

Origin probably during the war but not
clear

> 6. Great Train Robbery (not clear - may
> have wartime origin)

Origin unknown.

> 7. Best escort group (related to 2, stems in
> part from bomber group veterans, may
> partially be based on 1945 Gillem report, but
> has modern component)

Origin unknown

> 8. All black. Status as a myth is tenuous and
> is based on white trainers and initial white
> commanding officers. (wartime)

Not commonly considered a myth.

> 9. Tuskegee Airmen were all fighter pilots and

> flew P51s (mixed). The 477th Bombardment

> Group is pretty obscure, partially because it
> never deployed overseas. Even during the war,
> most people would have heard only about the
> fighter group.

Wartime origin.

WJH

[narrl...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:38:13 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> This is pretty constant, the only mention of the British in 'Saving
> Private Ryan' is derogatory.

Well, I only recall Captain Miller's remark 'that guy[Monty]'s overrated.' Are there other instances of Brit-derogation in SPR?

Narr

[Bill]

In article <AWbGS.A.4...@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>,
narrl...@hotmail.com says...

I think that's the only one.

[David H Thornley]

Bill wrote:
> In article <AWbGS.A.4...@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>,
> narrl...@hotmail.com says...
>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:38:13 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
>>> This is pretty constant, the only mention of the British in 'Saving
>>> Private Ryan' is derogatory.
>> Well, I only recall Captain Miller's remark 'that guy[Monty]'s overrated.' Are there other instances of Brit-derogation in SPR?
>>

The movie was about US soldiers, and AFAICT that was a fairly common
attitude at the time for them. Unlike a good chunk of the movie,
that was historically accurate.

Montgomery brought some of this on himself, with his assurances
about things going according to plan. When things inevitably
weren't going according to plan, it made him look like he
was screwing up. In fact, Montgomery was good at finding ways
to win once the plan became a casualty, but he didn't seem to
emphasize that in his PR.

It might have been better to leave the comment out entirely, but
it does belong in the period.

[Bill]

In article <pd2dnY3xp5XWDODS...@posted.visi>,
da...@thornley.net says...

>
> Bill wrote:
> > In article <AWbGS.A.4...@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>,
> > narrl...@hotmail.com says...
> >> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 11:38:13 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> >>> This is pretty constant, the only mention of the British in 'Saving
> >>> Private Ryan' is derogatory.
> >> Well, I only recall Captain Miller's remark 'that guy[Monty]'s overrated.' Are there other instances of Brit-derogation in SPR?
> >>
> The movie was about US soldiers, and AFAICT that was a fairly common
> attitude at the time for them. Unlike a good chunk of the movie,
> that was historically accurate.
>
> Montgomery brought some of this on himself, with his assurances
> about things going according to plan. When things inevitably
> weren't going according to plan, it made him look like he
> was screwing up. In fact, Montgomery was good at finding ways
> to win once the plan became a casualty, but he didn't seem to
> emphasize that in his PR.
>
> It might have been better to leave the comment out entirely, but
> it does belong in the period.

So does the fact that the US didn't send a crack unit of rangers. The
reality is that they sent a chaplain.

Now his wanderings would have made an excellent film, what we got was
the usual heroic nonsense with better special effects than usual...

[Michele]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:MPG.29e7a3d7a...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
the US didn't send a crack unit of rangers. The
> reality is that they sent a chaplain.

So the US army chaplains would have a complaint coming. The Royal Navy
servicemen, OTOH, do have a complaint coming when the reality is that nearly
all the enigma machines captured from U-Boote were captured by, well, you
know. Saving Pvt. Ryan did not steal a British feat; U-571, as you
mentioned, did.

[Rich]

On Apr 5, 8:34 am, David H Thornley <da...@thornley.net> wrote:
> The movie was about US soldiers, and AFAICT that was a fairly common
> attitude at the time for them. Unlike a good chunk of the movie,
> that was historically accurate.

Not from anything I've ever seen in contemporary or near contemporary
accounts. Most American ***soldiers*** had an opinion of British
***troops*** that was pretty positive and likely their perceptions of
Monty were fed by wartime propaganda and not personal knowledge. Even
the perceptions of American leadership of Monty changed during the
campaign and began as being highly positive. AFAICS only Tedder's
opinion of Monty ended as it began - negative in the extreme.

Cheers!

[Bill]

In article <4f7dbb91$0$1383$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it>,
SPAMmiarmelNOT!@tln.it says...

My point is that popular entertainment, especially film, very rarely
reflects reality on any level beyond the trivial.

To pick out a unit of black US servicemen in WWII as a particular
example of distortion, and to claim that this is an example of
'political correctness' ( a term that I have only ever seen used as a
criticism) seems to say more about the poster than about the subject.

Movies are NOT a good way to learn about history.

They remain an excellent way to learn about what people think...

[Chris Morton]

In article <jlak93$svo$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Meyer says...

>I wouldn't get too exercised about the fact that Hollywood has portrayed
>black airmen as heroes in part because they were black. The plain fact
>is that Hollywood, and most film industries in most countries, loves to
>portray heroes. It's great box office. And if the heroes are underdogs
>for some reason, that's even better.

What this is (for the most part) is a correction (overcorrection?) away from the
1930s and 1940s film portrayals of Blacks as child-like buffoons. It's also a
delayed reaction to the anti-Black propaganda of those like Senator Bilbo who
fought inclusion of Blacks into combat units (never mind INTEGRATED combat
units) on the basis of the alleged inherent inferiority and cowardice of Blacks.

Hollywood rarely gets ANY history right. They're just getting it wrong on the
other side of the coin.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, Bill wrote:
>
> My point is that popular entertainment,
> especially film, very rarely reflects reality
> on any level beyond the trivial.
>
> To pick out a unit of black US servicemen
> in WWII as a particular example of
> distortion, and to claim that this is
> an example of 'political correctness'( a
> term that I have only ever seen used as
> a criticism) seems to say more
> about the poster than about the subject.

Your point about popular entertainment is
well taken. But you seem to overlook the
fact that there are some films, often those
with a historical background, which are
produced with the intent, not only to
entertain, but also to promote some sort of
current social agenda or "message."
Not to recognize that the
Tuskegee films contained a "message" other
than purely "popular entertainment" is to be
in a state of denial. The intent In the
Tuskegee films was to show that the
performance of the airmen was better than
average despite racial discrimination against
them. Historical accuracy was sacrificed
to make that point.
Accordingly, when reputable
historians take note of thist, one could
legitimately use the term "politically correct"
(as the phrase is commonly understood) to
define this aspect of the films' genesis. To
object to such a definition as unfounded is a
"politically correct" reaction in itself.
I think it fair to say that we can
probably find many films lauding the
performance of all-white WWii units, some
equally as historically distorted or
exaggerated as were the Tuskegee films.
However, I believe it would be difficult to find
any such films which emphasized that the
stellar performance of the individuals in such
units was because they were white. Therein
lies the difference.

WJH

[Bill]

In article <0a76f933-5ffd-46bd-8b35-6d8eff900be9
@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, wjho...@aol.com says...

>
> On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, Bill wrote:
> >
> > My point is that popular entertainment,
> > especially film, very rarely reflects reality
> > on any level beyond the trivial.
> >
> > To pick out a unit of black US servicemen
> > in WWII as a particular example of
> > distortion, and to claim that this is
> > an example of 'political correctness'( a
> > term that I have only ever seen used as
> > a criticism) seems to say more
> > about the poster than about the subject.
>
> Your point about popular entertainment is
> well taken. But you seem to overlook the
> fact that there are some films, often those
> with a historical background, which are
> produced with the intent, not only to
> entertain, but also to promote some sort of
> current social agenda or "message."

I'm fully aware of that.

I already mentioned 'U-571' and 'Objective Burma' both of which seem
designed to belittle any British contribution to WWII.

Airbrushing the British out of WWII is a preoccupation of Hollywood. It
prefers its Britons to be villains or idiots.

I draw your attention to the recent blockbuster 'Warhorse' which spends
its time being very nasty about the British officer class.

The idea that British cavalry was so hidebound and its officers so
stupid that cavalry went into action in WWI without any firearms isn't
just laughable, it is actually insulting.

The officers may not have been that bright but they'd worked out that a
man on a horse needed something that went bang before they fought
Napoleon.

> Not to recognize that the
> Tuskegee films contained a "message" other
> than purely "popular entertainment" is to be
> in a state of denial. The intent In the
> Tuskegee films was to show that the
> performance of the airmen was better than
> average despite racial discrimination against
> them. Historical accuracy was sacrificed
> to make that point.

So what?

It happens all the time.

I hesitate to bring up Braveheart and its effect on Scottish nationalism
but Mel Gibson's violently anti British films are notorious.

> Accordingly, when reputable
> historians take note of thist, one could
> legitimately use the term "politically correct"
> (as the phrase is commonly understood) to
> define this aspect of the films' genesis. To
> object to such a definition as unfounded is a
> "politically correct" reaction in itself.

The use of the term 'Politically correct' makes your statement suspect
in itself.

It is a term only ever used by the 'right' to criticise the 'left'.

That being the case it is obviously as useless a description as
'reactionary' when applied to the views of someone like yourself.

> I think it fair to say that we can
> probably find many films lauding the
> performance of all-white WWii units, some
> equally as historically distorted or
> exaggerated as were the Tuskegee films.

True.

> However, I believe it would be difficult to find
> any such films which emphasized that the
> stellar performance of the individuals in such
> units was because they were white.

You mean like in '55 Days in Peking' where the Japanese contribution
(They were the main defenders and were also the first relieving troops
to reach the besieged diplomatic quarter) was more or less airbrushed
out in favour of rewriting the siege as a US victory?

Or do you mean in 'Zulu' where the British just seem to fight harder?

(Actually that may be unfair as that film does reflect reality pretty
closely)

Or just about any US movie where Amerindians get slaughtered in largish
numbers for no terribly good reason?

Have they ever made a film about 'Red Cloud's War'?

I could go on.

Films are made to make money, and nobody ever made any money by saying
'They were just average'.

[Stephen Graham]

On 4/3/2012 2:26 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> On Apr 2, 5:13 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:

>> That's the key point: we could run through
>> the popular conception of any number of
>> World War Two units and find similar myths.
>> If we look at the nine myths addressed by
>> Haulman's article, most of them originate
>> either during the war or immediately
>> afterwards.
>
> I think you paint with too broad a
> brush. Of the 9 myths listd by Dr. Haulman,
> only 3 (#'s 2,5,and 9) appear to have
> originated during the war or "immediately
> afterwards."

#1 was in force during the war and should count. #8 was clearly wartime.

#3 is immediately after the war; the book may date from 1955 but the
ideas within it were brought up in 1946 and 1947 according to what I
know. Plus, 1955 is soon after the war. It's hardly in the heyday of
political correctness as you claim.

The only clearly modern myth is #4, first to shoot down a jet.

So it's pretty clear that most of the myths stem from the period. With
only one really dating after the mid-1980s, the charge that these are
politically correct myths doesn't hold up.

> Number 6 could possibly be added,
> but just when the remaining 5 myths
> originated seems clearly to have been either
> pre-war or long after the war ended.
> I agree that many WWII myths
> originated around other groups during and/or
> shortly after the war. But I can't recall any
> which have continued to have such a long
> life span as those myths surrounding the
> Tuskegee airmen and the 100/442d RCT.
> Can you? Why do you think that has
> happened?

We could, for instance, work through the myths associated with the 1st
Marine Division or the US 1st Infantry Division. Or the British 51st
Infantry Division. Or certain German units.

The simple fact is that people like myths more than they like history.
Real history is inconveniently messy. Plus Americans have a fondness for
the perceived underdogs.

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 6, 4:10 pm, Bill wrote:
>wjhopw...@aol.com says...

>
> > Your point about popular entertainment is
> > well taken. But you seem to overlook the
> > fact that there are some films, often those
> > with a historical background, which are
> > produced with the intent, not only to
> > entertain, but also to promote some sort of
> > current social agenda or "message."
>
> I'm fully aware of that.
> I already mentioned 'U-571' and 'Objective
> Burma' both of which seem designed to belittle

> any British contribution to WWII... Airbrushing

> the British out of WWII is a preoccupation of
> Hollywood. It prefers its Britons to be villains

> or idiots...'Warhorse' ...spends its time being

> very nasty about the British officer class.

That may be, but in the current sociological
vernacular to which Hollywood subscribes,
all of that is OK because the Brits are not
considered to be an ethnic or racial minority
and thus can be dismissed as irrelevant.
However, had the British been, say, primarily
Black or Asian, the plots would likely have
been written so as to give them not only
the credit they deserved but additional credit
as well.

> > Not to recognize that the
> > Tuskegee films contained a "message" other
> > than purely "popular entertainment" is to be
> > in a state of denial. The intent In the
> > Tuskegee films was to show that the
> > performance of the airmen was better than
> > average despite racial discrimination against
> > them. Historical accuracy was sacrificed
> > to make that point.
>
> So what? It happens all the time.

More the reason to expose such shenanigans
for what they are so that the young and those
with limited intellectual resources are
enlightened, not brainwashed.

> The use of the term 'Politically correct' makes
> your statement suspect in itself. It is a term
> only ever used by the 'right' to criticise the 'left'.
> That being the case it is obviously as useless
> a description as 'reactionary' when applied to
> the views of someone like yourself.

Well, the term "politically correct" fits quite well in situations
where liberally-motivated hypocrisy is involved. Such as when those
who profess to
abhor "racism" in any form have no problem
giving preferential treatment because of race to some persons but
denying it to those of another
race who were identically situated.
Ready examples from WWII come to mind. i've already pointed
out cases where even Medals
of Honor have been presented on the basis of
race. Another egregious case involved civilian internment. Some
legally interned enemy aliens
were paid reparations after the war solely because
of their race, while other enemy aliens who were identically situated,
often sitting side-by-side in the same camps as those who were paid,
were denied equal treatment. If being opposed to such racial
discrimination is "reactionary," I have no problem wearing that
badge.

> > I think it fair to say that we can probably find
> > many films lauding the performance of
> > all-white WWii units, some equally as
> > historically distorted or exaggerated as were
> > the Tuskegee films.
>
> True.
>
> > However, I believe it would be difficult to find
> > any such films which emphasized that the
> > stellar performance of the individuals in such
> > units was because they were white.
>

> You mean like in '55 Days in Peking' ,,, Or just

> about any US movie where Amerindians get

> slaughtered...I could go on.

You can go back to the Peloponnesian War if
you wish, but my reference to all-white units
(above) was confined to those in WWII.
My point, which you apparently
misinterpreted, was that the Tuskegee films
were distorted in order to make the Tuskegee airmen look better than
life because they were
black, That was the "politically correct" difference from WWII films
about all-white units which were
not noteworthy for trying to make all-white units
look better than life just because they were
"white."

WJH

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 6, 6:19 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:

> On 4/3/2012 2:26 PM, wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I think you paint with too broad a
> > brush. Of the 9 myths listd by Dr. Haulman,
> > only 3 (#'s 2,5,and 9) appear to have
> > originated during the war or "immediately
> > afterwards."
>
> #1 was in force during the war and should count.

OK if you want to count it, but the statement

of yours to which I was responding said:
"If we look at the nine myths addressed
by Haulman's article, most of them originate
either during the war or immediately afterwards."

I was taking you at your word as to time frame.

> #3 is immediately after the war; the book may
> date from 1955 but the ideas within it were
> brought up in 1946 and 1947 according to what
> I know.

Haulman doesn't confirm that. IIRC he
said the idea first surfaced in the 1955 book.
What do you know which contests that?

>....1955 is soon after the war.

Well, yes, but it's not '"immediately afterward"
which was your claim I was addressing. Ten
years is quite awhile. But have it as you wish.

> It's hardly in the heyday of
> political correctness as you claim.

I believe you misunderstand the
connotation here. It's is not whether the
myths themselves originated "in the
"heyday of political correctness" or long
before, that matters. It is that the myths,
regardless of when they did originate
(which is really irrelevant) are now being
treated as fact to support an ideology.
It is the motivation of the people
who treat the myths as fact in order to
promote the particular ideology they
subscibe to which causes such treatment
to be considered "politically correct."

> The only clearly modern myth is #4, first to
> shoot down a jet.

I agree that it's clearly of modern origin.

> So it's pretty clear that most of the myths
> stem from the period. With only one really
> dating after the mid-1980s, the charge that
> these are politically correct myths doesn't
> hold up.

We have clear disagreements on the dates
of origination but the principal mistake on
your part is to contend that I claimed the
"myths" are "politically correct." Again, It is
the treatment of the myths by those who
would do so in an effort to enhance the
performance record of the Tuskegee
airman that is politically correct, not the
myths themselves.

> The simple fact is that people like myths
> more than they like history. Real history is
> inconveniently messy.

People like a good story, true enough, but
I don't think they prefer a story that's
dishonest even if all the hype around it
urges them to do so. The public doesn't
like to be lied to and made fools of by
ideologues with their own social agendas.

> Plus Americans have a fondness for
> the perceived underdogs.

But who likes it when it becomes clear that
the perception they have been programmed
by the government and/or media to acquire
may be founded on false or misleading
premises?

WJH

[Bill]

In article <849635ba-fe7c-478a-873d-9f73064eba27
@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, wjho...@aol.com says...

>
> > The use of the term 'Politically correct' makes
> > your statement suspect in itself. It is a term
> > only ever used by the 'right' to criticise the 'left'.
> > That being the case it is obviously as useless
> > a description as 'reactionary' when applied to
> > the views of someone like yourself.
>
> Well, the term "politically correct" fits quite well in situations
> where liberally-motivated hypocrisy is involved
>

Your statement destroys your own argument because your bias has
destroyed any point you may have made

The idea that any entertainment, especially one drive entirely by the
profit motive like film, has a political agenda beyond that of selling
tickets shows a view of the world that is, at best, perverse.

The makers of films work in stereotypes because otherwise people would
be asking awkward questions.

Something like 5% of the British Napoleonic navy was black, there was
even a black Post Captain, but the black sailors are never seen in films
about the period because it causes a 'halt' in the narrative.

People would be saying 'Who's the black/brown/Chinese guy?' rather than
following the story.

What is interesting is that national stereotypes vary. Watch an
Australian film about a war, any war ('Beneath Hill 60' is an excellent
recent example) and the British are invariably sneering idiots who need
the clever Aussies to dig them out of a hole. Watch an Indian made film
and a lot of the action is incomprehensible because of cultural
differences within the film making community, even if you can follow the
dialogue.

But in any war film the heroes are just that, heroic. The example you
quote is only notable because of the colour of its protagonists. The
claims made for those protagonists are those made in any war film about
any war.

That you choose this particular entertainment rather than, say,
'Braveheart' or 'Objective Burma' does rather tend to say more about you
than about the film.

[Bill]

In article <84398c3a-0c83-4528-84ce-e82176d43e54
@m13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, wjho...@aol.com says...

>
> > The simple fact is that people like myths
> > more than they like history. Real history is
> > inconveniently messy.
>
> People like a good story, true enough, but
> I don't think they prefer a story that's
> dishonest even if all the hype around it
> urges them to do so. The public doesn't
> like to be lied to and made fools of by
> ideologues with their own social agendas.

'Braveheart' does rather give that the lie...

People prefer the legend.

> > Plus Americans have a fondness for
> > the perceived underdogs.
>
> But who likes it when it becomes clear that
> the perception they have been programmed
> by the government and/or media to acquire
> may be founded on false or misleading
> premises?

Everybody likes being entertained.

And I very much doubt that modern US film makers are programmed by
anyone but their accountants.

That you think they can be manipulated by either the government or the
media says more about you than about them...

[Michael Emrys]

On 4/6/12 9:11 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> My point, which you apparently misinterpreted, was that the Tuskegee
> films were distorted in order to make the Tuskegee airmen look
> better than life because they were black, That was the "politically
> correct" difference from WWII films about all-white units which were
> not noteworthy for trying to make all-white units look better than
> life just because they were "white."

But the point that you fail to recognize is that it was unnecessary for
films exaggerating the performance of all-white units to make a special
effort to be, as you say, "politically correct" because a presumption of
white superiority already existed in the minds of the viewing audience.
The films in question merely comfortably reinforced that presumption
without needing to go to any great lengths to do so.

From where I sit it appears that you are quite okay with any film that
is consistent with the idea of white superiority while vehemently
critical of any that might suggest black superiority or even equality.

Michael

[Rich Rostrom]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The idea that any entertainment, especially one drive entirely by the
> profit motive like film, has a political agenda beyond that of selling
> tickets shows a view of the world that is, at best, perverse.

The assertion that makers of entertainment
never have an agenda beyond selling tickets
is arrant nonsense.

For example (and this was right in the
middle of WW II) _Wilson_ (1944), a flattering
biography of President Woodrow Wilson,
which was a vanity project of Twentieth Century
Fox head Darryl Zanuck, who produced it himself.
It lost money, but Zanuck didn't care - he had
made a Great Historical Film (which won five Oscars
for Screenplay and four technical categories).

Or let's take _Nurse Edith Cavell_ (1939). It was
about the British nurse executed by the Germans
during WW I for helping POWs escape. It was made
in Hollywood with financing from RKO.

It was produced and directed by British film
veteran Herbert Wilcox, and starred his mistress
and future wife Anna Neagle, along with several
major Hollywood stars. (Wilcox and Neagle came
over to Hollywood in 1938, after Wilcox's British
companies went bust.)

This film, a depiction of British heroism and
German brutality, opened on 1 September 1939.
Just a coincidence?

And why did RKO back the film? Maybe because
RKO's owner, Floyd Odlum, was married to famed
aviatrix Jackie Cochran? Who later co-founded
"Wings for Britain" and personally ferried a
Lockheed Hudson bomber across the Atlantic?

Ya think maybe these people had a bit of political
agenda beyond selling tickets?

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Apr 2, 11:13 am, Alan Meyer wrote:


> There are unintended consequences to
> such myth-making. Over time the myths
> become baked into the system and when
> repeated often enough people accept them as
> fact.

That's a good point; so, when people promote nonsense like "blacks are
inferior" or "a Jap is a Jap", the US finds itself fighting an all-out
war with fewer resources at its disposable than it should have. Further,
one finds that people with entrenched prejudices will go to extreme lengths
to justify such nonsense.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:

> I think you paint with too broad a
> brush. Of the 9 myths listd by Dr. Haulman,
> only 3 (#'s 2,5,and 9) appear to have
> originated during the war or "immediately
> afterwards."

Sooo, the people fighting WWII were "politically correct"? Or were
"motivated by socio/political expediency", to quote you?

Mike

[Bill Shatzer]

Bill wrote:

- snips -

> 'Braveheart' does rather give that the lie...
>
> People prefer the legend.

"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 7, 12:30 pm, Michael Emrys
wrote:
>
> ... it was unnecessary for films

> exaggerating the performance of
> all-white units to make a special

> effort...because a presumption of

> white superiority already existed
> in the minds of the viewing audience.

A typical "political correct" point of
view. By such stereotyping what you
are clearly saying is that Hollywood
has no incentive to phony up film plots
in order to make all-white WWII U.S.
units look bigger than life because
audiences are already made up of a
bunch of pro-white racists. Hence, in
films about WWII units composed of
minorities (black, JAs) it's necessary
to hype thngs up to counter-act such
audience prejudices.

WJH

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/7/2012 1:31 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The idea that any entertainment, especially one drive entirely by the
>> profit motive like film, has a political agenda beyond that of selling
>> tickets shows a view of the world that is, at best, perverse.
>
> The assertion that makers of entertainment
> never have an agenda beyond selling tickets
> is arrant nonsense.

I don't believe the poster said "never", of course there are exceptions
to the rule. But more often than not, many times more often than not,
Hollywood's sole concern is profit. This has become truer over time and
not less.

===

Not in reply to Mr. Rostrum, expecting historical accuracy from
Hollywood is ridiculous. Three of what are probably the most watched
WWII movies are almost complete fiction ...

_The Dirty Dozen_
_Kelly's Heroes_ {Which at least mostly uses accurate equipment.}
_The Battle of the Bulge_

None of which are trying to do anything but make money.

Alan

[MANITOBIAN]

On Apr 6, 3:10 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm fully aware of that.
>
> I already mentioned 'U-571' and 'Objective Burma' both of which seem
> designed to belittle any British contribution to WWII.
>
> Airbrushing the British out of WWII is a preoccupation of Hollywood. It
> prefers its Britons to be villains or idiots.
>
> I draw your attention to the recent blockbuster 'Warhorse' which spends
> its time being very nasty about the British officer class.
>
> The idea that British cavalry was so hidebound and its officers so
> stupid that cavalry went into action in WWI without any firearms isn't
> just laughable, it is actually insulting.

Robin Neillands has a paragraph in one of
his books that states that all non-American
participants in WW II have been and are
being airbrushed out of history.

How about this bit of history about Normandy?

"The stategy developed, and plan prepared
for Operation Overlord by the
Allied Ground Force Commander, the
British General Sir Bernard Law
Montgomery, was *flawed* in concept
and failed to work in practice.
Eventually, frustrated by the failure of
Montgomery's strategy and the caution
and timidity of the British and Canadian
troops, American forces under
Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and
Patton seized the initiative, revised
the plan, broke out in the West, drove
back the German forces indisarray, to
win the Normandy battle-and the war.
All this they would have done much
sooner if the British and Canadians had
not sat in their trenches drinking tea-
American historians never fail to mention
tea-while the US forces did all the
fighting. The outcome of the Normandy
battle-so goes the allegation-would
have been far more conclusive if the
aforesaid British and Canadians had not
been "timid" and "cautious" and "slow"
at Falaise, thereby allowing
the German Army to escape across the Seine."

[MANITOBIAN]

On Apr 7, 12:31 pm, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:



> And why did RKO back the film? Maybe because
> RKO's owner, Floyd Odlum, was married to famed
> aviatrix Jackie Cochran? Who later co-founded
> "Wings for Britain" and personally ferried a
> Lockheed Hudson bomber across the Atlantic?

Well you have piqued my curiosity!
Wings for Britain!
I assume that you have available dates and personnel
lists and history to pass on!

She was part of a crew which flew an American bomber
from North America,( probably Gander would you agree)
to Britain. She had to hound IIRC Gen Arnold to be "allowed"
to cross the Atlantic in a bomber (or anything else maybe).

As "personally" ferrying a Hudson across the Atlantic...............
Donald Bennett (of later Pathfinder Force) was sent to
North America to set up what became Ferry Command in 1940.

Bennett in his book PATHFINDER stated that
"On each aircraft we carried a captain, a second pilot
and a radio operater". The radio operator just listened
unless an emergency reared its ugly head!

Cochran was probably listed as the captain (and why not)
and unless things had changed the rest of the crew were
the second pilot, and radio operator.
That still qualify as "personally" doesn't it?

She proved that female pilots could operate as ferry
pilots over the Atlantic, any where else!

[MANITOBIAN]

On Apr 2, 5:44 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:



> Subroto Mukerjee became a Group Captain, although he was 'Indian Air
> Force'...
>
> But KK Majundar was a Squadron leader and he was certainly in the RAF.
>
> More here:
>
> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1940s/Pilots.html



http://www.caribbeanaircrew-ww2.com/?tag=dso

The RAF/RCAFmissed a good propoganda oppotunity

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/8/2012 12:45 AM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
>By such stereotyping what you
> are clearly saying is that Hollywood
> has no incentive to phony up film plots
> in order to make all-white WWII U.S.
> units look bigger than life because
> audiences are already made up of a
> bunch of pro-white racists.

So all the all-white movies made by Hollywood were 100% accurate?

Alan

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 7, 12:29 pm, Bill wrote:
> wjhopw...@aol.com says...
>

> > People like a good story....but...who likes it

> > when it becomes clear that the perception

> > they have (has) been programmed by the
> > government and/or media ...on false or
> > misleading premises?
>
> ....I...doubt that modern US film makers are

> programmed by anyone but their accountants.
>
> That you think they can be manipulated by
> either the government or the media says more
> about you than about them...

Thank you for that last sentence. It puts me
in good company. In the April issue of the
Journal of Military History, Andrew J. Bacevich,
Prof. of history at Boston University writes this:
"....When I speak of history...I refer..to
history as a widely shared...understanding of
the past, fashioned less by academics than by
politicians and purveyors of the popular culture
--an interpretation shaped in Washington and
Hollywood...revisionism can be...morally
hazardous (and) create opportunities for
mischief..When the subject is World War II the
opportunities to make mischief are legion...Yet
the clout wielded by the Washington-Hollywood
Axis of Illusions should not deter historians
from accepting the revisionist challenge."

WJH

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 12:29 pm, Bill wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com says...
> >
> > > People like a good story....but...who likes it
> > > when it becomes clear that the perception
> > > they have (has) been programmed by the
> > > government and/or media ...on false or
> > > misleading premises?

> > ....I...doubt that modern US film makers are
> > programmed by anyone but their accountants.

> > That you think they can be manipulated by
> > either the government or the media says more
> > about you than about them...

> Thank you for that last sentence. It puts me
> in good company.

I would not have pictured you as a Bush critic/Obama supporter, as is
the below-mentioned Prof Bacevich.

> In the April issue of the
> Journal of Military History, Andrew J. Bacevich,

April of which year? And the name of the article?

> Prof. of history at Boston University writes this:

Prof of International Relations, not history.

> "....When I speak of history...I refer..to
> history as a widely shared...understanding of
> the past, fashioned less by academics than by
> politicians and purveyors of the popular culture
> --an interpretation shaped in Washington and
> Hollywood...revisionism can be...morally
> hazardous (and) create opportunities for
> mischief..When the subject is World War II the
> opportunities to make mischief are legion...Yet
> the clout wielded by the Washington-Hollywood
> Axis of Illusions should not deter historians
> from accepting the revisionist challenge."

Again with the "creative" ellipses...

Sorry, I fail to see how this refutes his point; he states that Hollywood
is profit-driven, and that your failure to understand/address this says
you do not understand that. You chime in with "support" from a vocal
critic of almost all of your political stances, who does not address this.
Bacevich claims that Hollywood has influence, and does not deny (in your
quote) their profit motive. He also does not address the issue of the
war record of the Tuskagee Airmen.

To put this back into the context of this thread, "Red Tails" was an
attempt to make money. As such, it glamorizes a set of soldiers, as do
most Hollywood (or non-American film industries, for that matter) movies
about war these days.

Or is it your contention that "Red Tails" was designed to lose money?

In THAT it has succeeded.

As for the airmen themselves, I can find no description of them that does
not indicate they were, at worst, very good at their job. It is also known
that bomber crews specifically requested them as escort, which some would
consider to be high praise.

You claim to abhor what you call "revisionism"; apparently, you do so
only when it collides with what you wish to believe. As Mr Graham has
already pointed out, the claim that the Red Tails never lost a bomber
under their escort was made in 1945, by the Chicago Defender based on
information form the 15th Air Force. It was "revisionism" in the last
decade that put that to rest, such "revisionism" including interviews
with some of the surviving members of that group.

Oddly, nobody has mentioned a REAL propaganda movie about them; "Wings
for this Man", narrated by that notable bastion of political correctness,
Ronald Reagan. But then, that movie was produced in 1945, and doesn't fit
with your prejudices that glamorizes blacks is modern, "politically correct"
phenomenon.

Mike

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 8, 5:13 pm, mtfes...wrote:

> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 12:29 pm, Bill wrote:
>
> > > ....I...doubt that modern US film makers are
> > > programmed by anyone but their accountants.
> > > That you think they can be manipulated by
> > > either the government or the media says more
> > > about you than about them...
>
> > Thank you for that last sentence. It puts me
> > in good company.
>
> I would not have pictured you as a Bush critic/Obama
> supporter, as is the below-mentioned Prof Bacevich.

I'm never surprised at anything you might think. There
were two other historians I cited on this thread so far.
Perhaps you know whether they are "Bush critic/Obama
supporters too, which is, of course irrelevant to this
topic.

> > In the April issue of the Journal of Military History,
> > Andrew J. Bacevich, April of which year?

April 2012, FYI, that's now.

> And the name of the article?

"The Revisionist Imperative: Rethinking Twentieth
Century Wars." Probably over your head.

> Prof of International Relations, not history.

There you go. Half-cocked again. He wears both
hats. This from the Journal of Military History:
"Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history
and international relations at Boston University. A
graduate of the U.S. Military Academy he received
his PHd in American diplomatic history from
Princeton."

> ....I fail to see how this refutes his point;

Of course you don't. It's a generalized aside to his
main thesis and remarks on the influence exercised
on the popular culture by what he calls the
Washington-Hollywood Axis of Illusion. His comments
dove-tail with his complete thesis which you shouldn't
try to analyze without reading it.

> .. it your contention that "Red Tails" was designed to

> lose money? In THAT it has succeeded.

Maybe if it hadn't been so hyped with political correctness
it would have made money. The public must be wising up
to such stuff.

> It is also known that bomber crews specifically requested
> them as escort, which some would consider to be high
> praise.

Nope. You are coming in late to the party. See link in my
first post in this thread. That is #7 of the 9 myths that
historian, Haulman, shows to be false in his report which
reads: "7. THE MYTH OF SUPERIORITY
Another popular story, not verified by any historical evidence,
is that the members of the 332d Fighter Group were so much
better at bomber escort than the members of the other six
fighter groups, the bombardment groups requested that they
be escorted by the 332d Fighter Group."

> You claim to abhor what you call "revisionism"; apparently,
> you do so only when it collides with what you wish to believe.
> As Mr Graham has already pointed out, the claim that the
> Red Tails never lost a bomber under their escort was made
> in 1945, by the Chicago Defender based on information form
> the 15th Air Force. It was "revisionism" in the last decade
> that put that to rest, such "revisionism" including interviews
> with some of the surviving members of that group.

Depends on how you define the word. I abhor the "revision"
which turns fact into fiction. I favor "revision" which turns
fiction into fact. There is a difference. You get them mixed up.
As for the revisionism which overturned the claim that the Red
Tails never lost an escorted bomber (regardless of when the
claim originated which doesn't matter) Haulman provides official
AF records confirming that they lost 18 B-24s and 8 B-17s, a
total of 26 bombers, to the enemy. He proved the original claim
was fiction, not fact. That's "revisionism" I favor. How about
you? Or do you just continue to prefer the type that changes
fact into a fictionalized version thereof?

WJH

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 5:13 pm, mtfes...wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Apr 7, 12:29 pm, Bill wrote:
> >
> > > > ....I...doubt that modern US film makers are
> > > > programmed by anyone but their accountants.
> > > > That you think they can be manipulated by
> > > > either the government or the media says more
> > > > about you than about them...
> >
> > > Thank you for that last sentence. It puts me
> > > in good company.

> > I would not have pictured you as a Bush critic/Obama
> > supporter, as is the below-mentioned Prof Bacevich.

> There
> were two other historians I cited on this thread so far.

Which has nothing to do with Bacevich, of course.

> > And the name of the article?

> "The Revisionist Imperative: Rethinking Twentieth
> Century Wars." Probably over your head.

Naw; seems simple enough. After all, YOU read it.

> > Prof of International Relations, not history.

> There you go.

Indeed; unlike you, I actually look things up.

Radical, I know.

> Half-cocked again. He wears both
> hats. This from the Journal of Military History:

This from BU's website
http://www.bu.edu/academics/cas/faculty/

"Andrew Bacevich Director of Undergraduate Studies and Professor of
International Relations. BS, United States Military Academy; MA,
PhD, Princeton University"

I'm gonna go with the people who pay is salary.

> > ....I fail to see how this refutes his point;

> Of course you don't. It's a generalized aside to his
> main thesis and remarks on the influence exercised
> on the popular culture by what he calls the
> Washington-Hollywood Axis of Illusion.

Uh, no, you misread

"That you think they can be manipulated by
either the government or the media says more
about you than about them..."

pretty badly. Bacevich merely claims Hollywood has influence. He does not
address Mr Black's contention that Hollywood is a profit-driven
business.

> > .. it your contention that "Red Tails" was designed to
> > lose money? In THAT it has succeeded.

> Maybe if it hadn't been so hyped with political correctness
> it would have made money.

Probably just should have been a decent movie.

> > It is also known that bomber crews specifically requested
> > them as escort, which some would consider to be high
> > praise.

> Nope.

"Their combat record did much to quiet those directly involved with
the group, notably bomber crews who often requested them for escort,
but other units continued to harass these airmen"

The "myth" "debunked" was that the request was made "because they were
so much better than other groups". He also points out several instances
of requests and explanations for them.

> > You claim to abhor what you call "revisionism"; apparently,
> > you do so only when it collides with what you wish to believe.
> > As Mr Graham has already pointed out, the claim that the
> > Red Tails never lost a bomber under their escort was made
> > in 1945, by the Chicago Defender based on information form
> > the 15th Air Force. It was "revisionism" in the last decade
> > that put that to rest, such "revisionism" including interviews
> > with some of the surviving members of that group.

> Depends on how you define the word.

Not really; you have always used "revisionism" as a perjorative. You
almost always use it in conjunction with your favorite term "politically
correct".

> As for the revisionism which overturned the claim that the Red
> Tails never lost an escorted bomber (regardless of when the
> claim originated which doesn't matter)

Uh, yeah, it kinda does; when the US AF group during the war offers up
the info, and it is revised later, that is revisionism, whether for the
good or the bad. This was not claimed by the airmen themselves. It was
"revised" much later.

The origin had absolutely nothing to do with modern "political correctness",
and more to do with wartime politics. But surely, since you were "there
at the time", you must surely remember that the claim was made in your time
in the service, yes?

> AF records confirming that they lost 18 B-24s and 8 B-17s, a
> total of 26 bombers, to the enemy. He proved the original claim
> was fiction, not fact. That's "revisionism" I favor. How about
> you?

You have an extremely short memory. I, and others, have pointed out to
that your use of "revisionism" is non-standard. In case you have forgotten,
it was on one of your long rants on the (Reagan approved) US apologies
to the Americans of Japanese descent imprisoned by te US government. Telling,
too, that both times you had to put "revisionism" in quotes. Still afraid
of the word, I see.

And, of course, the point remains that nobody claims the Tuskagee Airmen
were anything but very good at their job.

And, of course, there's the original "politically correct" movie about
them, "Wings for This Man". You can even see the whole thing at
http://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava08663vnb1

But again, you can't believe that old politically correct Ronald Reagan
narrates, can you? Extols their fighting prowess, talks about their
overcoming prejudice, etc. Not your kinda thing.

Actually, for anyone with a real interest in history, I recommend that
site; some very good footage on the fighter school these guys went to,
and some footage of things like flight simulators, etc.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > In the April issue of the
> > Journal of Military History, Andrew J. Bacevich,
>
> April of which year? And the name of the article?

The Journal of Military History 76 #2 (April 2012)

Andrew J. Bacevich, ³The Revisionist Imperative: Rethinking
Twentieth Century Wars,²

Took me all of 15 seconds to find this.

> > Prof. of history at Boston University writes this:
>
> Prof of International Relations, not history.

"Professor of International Relations and History"

according to his page at BU.
www.bu.edu/ir/faculty/alphabetical/bacevich

> a vocal critic of almost all of your political stances...

I've read a great deal from Mr. Hopwood, and I would
not presume to know "all of [his] political stances."

Getting back to the point at issue.

_In_ _general_, Hollywood filmmakers seek profits,
and their sensibility reflects the attitudes of the
American people.

But it is delusional to say that Hollywood is _only_
motivated by profit, or that Hollywood's attitudes
are identical to the American people's, or that
Hollywood does not (fairly often) consciously
incorporate elements of plot or character which are
de facto exposition of attitudes or ideas which the
makers want to propagate among Americans.

_Birth of a Nation_ was one such movie - its subtexts
included blatant racism.

So was the recent release _The Lorax_ - a piece of
environmentalist propaganda (as was the Dr. Seuss
book it was based on).

This is not always a bad thing.

But it is foolish to pretend it doesn't happen, or
refuse to acknowledge that there is a definite
political and cultural consensus in Hollywood, and
that this consensus has substantial effects on
movie content.

[Rich Rostrom]

MANITOBIAN <rsve...@mts.net> wrote:

> Robin Neillands has a paragraph in one of
> his books that states that all non-American
> participants in WW II have been and are
> being airbrushed out of history.

Really? So, in this revised version of WW II,
there will only be Americans fighting each other?

This is a fantastic claim, and I would like to
see some evidence for it beyond the unsupported
assertion of a single British author.

Assuming he was not being as stupid as you quoted
him as being, we'll take that as meaning that the
Allies other than America "have been and are

being airbrushed out of history."

A quick and dirty survey of recent publications
on WW II indicates otherwise.

I did a search on Amazon.com, using the keyword
string "World War II, restricted to works published
before May 2012. (Sorting by publication date lists
dozens of works scheduled as far as late 2013.)
Taking the first 96 books returned....

Many books are returned which have nothing to do
with WW II; some listings are duplicates, i.e.
hardbound and paperback editions of the same title.

Excluding all those - and all those dealing exclusively
with the Axis side, such as _German 88_ by Terry Gander,
there are 33 titles.

Among them:

_All Hands to the Harvest_ by Martin Wainwright [WW II rural British diary
excerpts]

_The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery_ by Captain Witold Pilecki and Jarek
Garlinski

_Golden Harvest: Events at the Periphery of the Holocaust_ by Jan Tomasz Gross

_Operation Barbarossa 1941_ by Michael Olive

_Lancaster Down_ by Seve Darlow

_On Spartan Wings: The Royal Hellenic Air Force in World War Two_ by John Carr

_Pathfinders_ by Martyn Chorlton [RAF Pathfinders]

_Polish Underground 1939-1947_ by David G Williamson

_The Second Homeland: Polish Refugees in India_ by Anuradha Bhattacharjee

_Camp Z: How British Intelligence Broke Hitler's Deputy_ by Stephen McGinty

_Motherland in Danger: Soviet Propaganda during World War II_ by Karel C.
Berkhoff

_Terror in the Balkans: German Armies and Partisan Warfare _ by Ben Shepherd

_War in the St. Lawrence: The Forgotten U-Boat Battles on Canada's Shores_ by
Roger Sarty

_Heroes of the Soviet Union 1941-45_ by Henry Sakaida

_Heroines of the Soviet Union, 1941-45 _ by Henry Sakaida

_Red Christmas - the Tatsinskaya Airfield Raid 1942_ by Robert Forczyk and
Johnny Shumate

_The Rolls-Royce Armoured Car_ by David Fletcher and Henry Morshead

_Eavesdropping on Hell: Historical Guide to Western Communications Intelligence
and the Holocaust, 1939-1945_ by Robert J. Hanyok

_Fighting for Britain: African Soldiers in the Second World War_ by David
Killingray

_Lives Lived and Lost: East European History Before, During, and After World War
II as Experienced by an Anthropologist and Her Mother_ by Kaja Finkler and Golda
Finkler

_The Accidental Captives: The Story of Seven Women Alone in Nazi Germany_ by
Carolyn Gossage [Canadian women]

So - 21 of 33 are about Allies _other_ than America.

It doesn't seem like this airbrushing is very effective.

> How about this bit of history about Normandy?

What about it? It is tendetious and distorted.

However, I could invent even more tendetious
and distorted historical writing. There is no
evidence that this passage has ever appeared
anywhere else.

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 8, 11:13 pm, mtfes...wrote:
(in trying to discrediting the credentials of Prof. Andrew J.
Bacevich:)
> This from
> BU'swebsitehttp://www.bu.edu/academics/cas/faculty/

> "Andrew Bacevich Director of Undergraduate Studies
> and Professor of International Relations. BS, United
> States Military Academy; MA, PhD, Princeton University"

As can be seen, Mr.Fester's choice credits the
Bacevich as being a profesor only of "international
relations whereas both Boston University and The
Journal of Military History show his additional
credentials.

> I'm gonna go with the people who pay is salary.

OK. So let's see what else "the people who pay his
salary" have to say about him": Here, in fact, are
some excerpts from Boston University's faculty page
for Professor Andrew J. Becavich:
"...Professor of International Relations and History.
(BS, United States Military Academy; MA, PhD,
Princeton) Specialization: American Diplomatic and
Military History, U.S. Foreign Policy, Security Studies
....Before joining the faculty of Boston University, he
taught at West Point and Johns Hopkins. Bacevich is
the author of Washington Rules:...His essays and
reviews have appeared in a variety of scholarly and
general interest publications including The Wilson
Quarterly, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign
Policy, The Nation, and TheNew Republic. His op-eds
have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post,
Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Boston Globe, and
Los Angeles Times, among other newspapers. In 2004,
Dr. Bacevich was a Berlin Prize Fellow at the American
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies,
the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and the
Council on Foreign Relations..." And it goes on...

> ....Bacevich merely claims Hollywood has influence.

> He does not address Mr Black's contention that
> Hollywood is a profit-driven business.

Why would he address the obvious. As Mr. Rostrom
points out so eloquentley in another post:
"... it is delusional to say that Hollywood

is _only_ motivated by profit, or that Hollywood's attitudes
are identical to the American people's, or that Hollywood
does not (fairly often) consciously incorporate elements of
plot or character which are de facto exposition of attitudes
or ideas which the makers want to propagate among
Americans."
>

> ...you have always used "revisionism" as a perjorative.

> You almost always use it in conjunction with your favorite
> term "politically correct".

I use the terms in a pejorative way when the circumstances
surrounding the use of them dictate a pejorative usage. If the
revisionism is positive, say in correcting stories that are not true,
I'm happy to use it in a positive manner. The same can't be said
of the phrase "politically correct." That almost always refers to an
action taken for undeserved, unreasonable, and/or outright
disingenuous ideological or political reasons.

> The origin (of the myth) had absolutely nothing to do with
> modern "political correctness",and more to do with wartime

> politics. But surely, since you were "there at the time", you
> must surely remember that the claim was made in your time
> in the service, yes?

No. But you tell 'em. Since you weren't "there at the time" that
must put you in a much better position to know, right?

> And, of course, the point remains that nobody claims the
> Tuskagee Airmen were anything but very good at their job.

Except all the hype built up around the movies to convince
people that they were not just "very good" but "better" than
similar units with which they flew.

WJH

[Chris Morton]

In article <MPG.29e954616...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...

>I hesitate to bring up Braveheart and its effect on Scottish nationalism
>but Mel Gibson's violently anti British films are notorious.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the modern Australian film industry was
built on a firm foundation of historical grievance against Britain, to whit:

Gallipoli
The Lighthorsemen
Breaker Morant

In virtually every Australian film I've seen, in which they were present,
British officers were portrayed as a combination of "Gumby" from Monty Python
and Hannibal Lecter.

>The use of the term 'Politically correct' makes your statement suspect
>in itself.
>
>It is a term only ever used by the 'right' to criticise the 'left'.

Flat out untrue, and indeed searchable at Google Groups.

I've had anti-Black racial slurs used against me by White leftists in usenet
talk.politics.guns and talk.politics.misc excused by other White leftists as
mere "political incorrectness".

Of course the term actually originated in the Byantine, navel gazing internal
debates (and bloody witch hunts) of Marxists (Leninists, Trotskyites,
Stalinists, Maoists, etc.) in the first half of the last century.

>You mean like in '55 Days in Peking' where the Japanese contribution
>(They were the main defenders and were also the first relieving troops
>to reach the besieged diplomatic quarter) was more or less airbrushed
>out in favour of rewriting the siege as a US victory?

Being that that's one of my favorite movies (merely for being ABOUT the Boxer
Rebellion), I can authoritatively declare you incorrect.

1. One of the most important supporting characters in the film is a Japanese
officer who is portrayed as dashing, competent and playing an imporant role in
the derring do engaged in by Charleton Heston and the others.

2. As I recall, the Japanese are portrayed at the end of the film as being as
important a part of the relief force as the others. In fact, that was the
entire point of the opening scene showing the various legations separately
hoisting their colors, and the end of the film where the various contingents
march into Beijing TOGETHER. It was meant to be a CONTRAST.

3. If the movie skimps on portrayals of the larger Japanese participation, it
does likewise with that of the United States Army, the 9th Infantry Regiment in
particular. The movie is largely centered on the U.S. Marine Corp legation
guards and makes no secret of it. In fact, unless you're a student of 19th
century military and Asian history (and contemporary uniforms), you're largely
in the dark as to which troops in the legations belong to which countries...
other than of course the BRITISH.

>Or just about any US movie where Amerindians get slaughtered in largish
>numbers for no terribly good reason?

That would make them HIGHLY accurate, as indeed Indians WERE "slaughtered in
largish numbers for no terribly good reason".

>Have they ever made a film about 'Red Cloud's War'?

You might want to watch "Little Big Man". Not straight history, but a highly
sympathetic portrayal of the Indian side.

I get the distinct impression that you've never seen "Cheyenne Autumn" either.

>Films are made to make money, and nobody ever made any money by saying
>'They were just average'.

Actually, that's the underlying theme of a LOT of contemporary WWII films,
"Sahara" in particular. There's nothing particularly extraordinary about
Humphrey Bogart and his tank crew. They're just average people who through no
desire of their own, end up on a Grant tank fighting the Germans, thrown
together with a random assortment of French and Commonwealth supporting
characters.


--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.

[Chris Morton]

In article <849635ba-fe7c-478a...@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

> My point, which you apparently
>misinterpreted, was that the Tuskegee films
>were distorted in order to make the Tuskegee airmen look better than
>life because they were
>black, That was the "politically correct" difference from WWII films
>about all-white units which were
>not noteworthy for trying to make all-white units
>look better than life just because they were
>"white."
>
>WJH

But that's not QUITE accurate, IS it?

Look at most contemporary films about the Japanese, especially the ones set
during the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. The Japanese are largely
portrayed as evil buffoons, while the Americans are gallant, competent, and
intrepid, but outnumbered.

We KNOW that the truth was VERY different. I served in the 1/31st Infantry
(Mechanized) in Korea in '80-'81. Elements of the 31st Infantry broke and ran
when adjacent Philippine Army units stood and fought.

There is almost NO 2nd Sino-Japanese War/WWII film that I can think of in which
the Japanese are portrayed as being above the level of "Mojo Jojo" in the Power
Puff Girls.

REAL history is ALWAYS much more interesting than what Hollywood (or Britain or
Australia) turns out. The REAL Philippine campaign is far more interesting by
itself, from the blundering of MacArthur to the surreal wanderings of the unit
of Japanese reservists unit that got lost in the jungle TWICH, only to emerge
BEHIND Phil-Am lines the second time, creating a breakthru.

[Chris Morton]

In article <MPG.29ea24654...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...

>The idea that any entertainment, especially one drive entirely by the
>profit motive like film, has a political agenda beyond that of selling
>tickets shows a view of the world that is, at best, perverse.

CLEARLY, you've never seen the film "Walker".

It's a movie about 19th century filibusters in Nicaragua who, at the end of the
film, are rescued by U.S. Marine Corps helicopters.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that anybody believed that would be a box office smash
the likes of "The Hunger Games"?

OR was it just somebody's leftwing morality tale about Reagan and Nicaragua that
anybody with two braincells to rub together would see as box office poison?

Even in Hollywood, ideology sometimes trumps financial considerations... and
common sense.

[Rich Rostrom]

My previous comment was unclear.

Switching round two paras makes it
more sensible.

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

> MANITOBIAN <rsve...@mts.net> wrote:

> > all non-American participants in WW II have been and are
> > being airbrushed out of history.
>
> Really? So, in this revised version of WW II,
> there will only be Americans fighting each other?
>

> Assuming he was not ... stupid... [he meant]... the Allies other

> than America "have been and are being airbrushed out of history."

> This is a fantastic claim...

That is, I don't for a minute believe that
Neillands ever thought the Axis was being
"airbrushed out of history", and was
complaining about insufficient attention
by Americans to British and Commonwealth
participation.

To leap from this to "all non-American

participants in WW II have been and are

being airbrushed out of history" _is_
fantastic and I should like to see some
evidence for it.

[Bill]

In article <jluoo...@drn.newsguy.com>, cmo...@newsguy.com says...

>
> In article <MPG.29ea24654...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...
>
> >The idea that any entertainment, especially one drive entirely by the
> >profit motive like film, has a political agenda beyond that of selling
> >tickets shows a view of the world that is, at best, perverse.
>
> CLEARLY, you've never seen the film "Walker".

Neither did anyone else.

Now I usually like Alex Cox's films (I sat through 'Repo Chick' the
other night and rather enjoyed it) but I've never fancied that one
because it looked far too overtly political.

>
> It's a movie about 19th century filibusters in Nicaragua who, at the end of the
> film, are rescued by U.S. Marine Corps helicopters.
>
> Do you SERIOUSLY think that anybody believed that would be a box office smash
> the likes of "The Hunger Games"?

Has Cox made a movie for a major studio since then?

I can't think of one.

[Chris Morton]

In article <e5bd01a8-84e1-48b7...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

>Except all the hype built up around the movies to convince
>people that they were not just "very good" but "better" than
>similar units with which they flew.

You could call it "over-compensation", but even if it is, it's
"over-compensating" for something VERY real.

Blacks in '30s and '40s films (never mind the execrable "Birth of a Nation")
were treated as inept, cowardly children.

Before, during and after WWII there was a concerted effort to dismiss the value
and role of Black people, ESPECIALLY in the military.

I see you complaining about the "over-compensation", but not what's allegedly
being "over-compensated" FOR.

It's like the complaints about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki divorced
from Pearl Harbor... and Nanking, and Shanghai, and Hong Kong, and Manila,
and...

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 9, 1:30 pm, Chris Morton wrote:
> wjhopw...@aol.com says...

>
> >Except all the hype built up around the
> > movies to convince people that they
> > were not just "very good" but "better"
> > than similar units with which they flew.
>
> You could call it "over-compensation",
> but even if it is, it's "over-compensating"
> for something VERY real. Blacks in '30s

> and '40s films...were treated as inept,
> cowardly children.

Yes, a VERY real dissemination of one
set of lies in an effort to make amends
for another set of lies disseminated by
someone else about someone else at
a different time in different circumstances,
the only common denominator being "race."
A kind of "Affirmative Action" on the part
of the entertainent industry. That's what
people mean when the say hat such an
action is "politically correct.

> Before, during and after WWII there was a

> oncerted effort to dismiss the value and role
> of Black people, ESPECIALLY in the military.

You may be right about before WWii, but not
during and after. On the contrary, a concerted
effort was made by the government during and
after WWII to "enhance" the role in the military,
not only of blacks, but of all minorities. And this
has led to some of the hype in such picutures
that we have been discussing here.
In that connection, just today I received
a copy of the current newsletter of BACEPOW
(Bay Area Civilian Ex-Prisoners of War) with a
few interesting remarks by the head of that group
which i believe are appropriate to this thread. Here
are some excerpts from them:
"I am frequently asked to lecture on the Pacific
War about the Japanese treatment of risoners....
When I (say) that I was held in a Japanese internment
camp people will look at me strangely and say 'you
don't look Japanese." (to which I respnd with) 'How
many of you know about the internment of the Japanese
Americans?'
The entire audience raises their hands. (But) when I ask
how many know about the thousands of American civilians i
nterned in Japanese prison camps at the same time, few
raise their hands.
"The media covers the relocation of 110,000 Japanese
Americans in great detail while virtually ignoring the 150,000
Allied civilians held by the Japanese in East Asia 14,000 of
them Americans, 11% of whom died in captivity,,
Seventy years later we have lost our persperctive about
the contemporaneous conditions in America in 1942 and
historical revisionists now paint a horrible portrait of conditions
under which the Japanese Americans were held which in many
ways was not so different as many other Americans were living
at the time...."

Right on.

WJH.

[Don Kirkman]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:03:14 -0400, "wjho...@aol.com"
<wjho...@aol.com> wrote:

> a concerted
>effort was made by the government during and
>after WWII to "enhance" the role in the military,
>not only of blacks, but of all minorities. And this
>has led to some of the hype in such picutures
>that we have been discussing here.

I doubt the black sailors killed or maimed in the Port Chicago
ammunition disaster in July, 1944, or their survivors felt their role
in the military had been enhanced when they were assigned to do manual
labor loading ammunition on ships at the naval base constructed for
the purpose. A crew pf 320 cargo handlers, crewmen and sailors were
loading two ships when 4600 tons of ammunition exploded. The entire
crew was killed instantly, one of the two ships was reduced to rubble,
and the seismic wave was felt as far away as Nevada.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-1.htm

And I doubt the Filipino sailors routinely assigned to steward duty
felt their lives and roles were enhanced. President McKinley
authorized this practice in 1901, and it continued until the
Philippines gained their independence in 1946.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/filipinos.htm

--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[Chris Morton]

In article <e17e4636-4601-48a2...@h4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

>> Before, during and after WWII there was a
>> oncerted effort to dismiss the value and role
>> of Black people, ESPECIALLY in the military.
>
>You may be right about before WWii, but not
>during and after. On the contrary, a concerted
>effort was made by the government during and
>after WWII to "enhance" the role in the military,
>not only of blacks, but of all minorities. And this
>has led to some of the hype in such picutures
>that we have been discussing here.

I'm right about all of them.

The same people who were fighting integration of public accomodations and voting
rightrs in the '50s and '60s, were fighting inclusion of Blacks in the fighting
forces, even in segregated units, in the 1940s.

People who didn't want Black people to be taught how to use weapons, and to have
them in their hands in 1934, had EXACTLY the same reasons for that position in
1944.

Sen. Bilbo & co. were more afraid of Blacks with guns than Germans with guns.
And why not? Their racial attitudes were hardly worlds apart from those of the
Germans.

[Chris Morton]

In article <e17e4636-4601-48a2...@h4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

1. Legally, the Japanese had every right to intern enemy aliens. They did NOT
have the right to starve, beat, rape, torture, work to death or murder them
outright.

2. The U.S. government had every right to intern ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT
have the right to intern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit of due process.

The two are not related except as examples of mistreatment of civilians by
government, at vastly different scales of magnitude.

If a cop pulls you off of the street in Tulsa without warrant or probable cause
and holds you in a city jail for thirty days, without access to legal counsel,
that's not nearly as bad as being pulled out of your home in Lodz, packed into a
boxcar with dozens of other people without food, water or sanitary facilities,
shipped to a labor camp, starved, beaten and forced to work as a slave.

It's still a crime and a civil tort.

At least SOME Japanese were punished for their treatment of Allied civilians.

Who was punished for Manzanar and Hart Mountain?

[Chris Morton]

In article <0gh7o7pr3vsmgecb0...@4ax.com>, Don Kirkman says...

>I doubt the black sailors killed or maimed in the Port Chicago
>ammunition disaster in July, 1944, or their survivors felt their role
>in the military had been enhanced when they were assigned to do manual
>labor loading ammunition on ships at the naval base constructed for
>the purpose. A crew pf 320 cargo handlers, crewmen and sailors were
>loading two ships when 4600 tons of ammunition exploded. The entire
>crew was killed instantly, one of the two ships was reduced to rubble,
>and the seismic wave was felt as far away as Nevada.
>http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-1.htm

I believe that my late uncle was one of the sailors who refused orders to
continue the work after the disaster. He was discharged from the Navy and ended
up in the 555 PIR, fighting forest fires, some of them started by Japanese
balloon bombs.

I doubt that the Black troops in Italy whom Mark Clark so disdained felt all
that "enhanced" either.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Apr 10, 7:36 am, Chris Morton <cmor...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> 1. Legally, the Japanese had every right to intern enemy aliens. They did NOT
> have the right to starve, beat, rape, torture, work to death or murder them
> outright.
>
> 2. The U.S. government had every right to intern ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT
> have the right to intern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit of due process.

Well, that's the catch, isn't it? The internees were either Japanese
citizens or their minor children. The Alien and Sedition Act (still
law btw) dates from the Adams administration. It didn't envision and
didn't account for issues of dual citizenship when the 'duals' go to
war against each other. So, the US interned a buch of 'US citizens'
because they were (also) *Japanese citizens*. And don't forget that a
major chunk of the internees were Japanese citizens without any US
citizenship.

Sucks to be them but...

THE US drafted 100 American citizens for every Japanese citizen
interned. I don't see how the internees were worse off than those
drafted. The internees weren't sleeping in freezing mud or being shot
at. And if the internees are something to cry over, shouldn't the
draftees be wept over 100x as much?

It's all bullshit as far as I am concerned. For the recored I also
think the Port Chicago mutineers were properly punbished, and should
not have been pardoned.

[Stephen Graham]

On 4/10/2012 11:28 AM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:36 am, Chris Morton<cmor...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Legally, the Japanese had every right to intern enemy aliens. They did NOT
>> have the right to starve, beat, rape, torture, work to death or murder them
>> outright.
>>
>> 2. The U.S. government had every right to intern ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT
>> have the right to intern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit of due process.
>
>
>
> Well, that's the catch, isn't it? The internees were either Japanese
> citizens or their minor children.

As has been pointed out to you before, the US also evacuated individuals
who were solely US citizens who happened to be of Japanese ethnicity.

As has also been pointed out to you before, EO 9066 wasn't based on the
Alien and Sedition Acts.

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 10:33 am, Don Kirkman wrote:

>wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > a concerted
> >effort was made by the government during and
> >after WWII to "enhance" the role in the military,

> >...of blacks...of all minorities..
>
> I doubt the black sailors killed ...in..Port
> Chicago.. had been enhanced when
> loading ammunition.. And...the Filipino
> sailors...assigned to steward duty felt their
> lives...ere enhanced.

Thoae were jobs that needed to be done. Are
you saying that those you mentioned above
were qualified to do anything else? Or are
you saying that they were selected for those
types of jobs just tocause of their race? If so,
how do you know that? And if such was the
case why did others of the same race(s) get
selected to become aviators and combat
infantrymen?

You will admit, I hope, that a spcial effort to
enhance the role and steatus of blacks and
PJAs up to and including Eleanor Roosevelt,
was made by the government in the case of
the Tuskegee airmen, the JA 222d RCT,and
the hordes of minority civilian employees who
worked for the governmet in Washington and
'other strategic locations throughout the war?.

WJH

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 10:35 am, Chris Morton wrote:
>
> The same people who were fighting integration,,,

> in the '50s and '60s, were fighting inclusion of

> Blacks in the fighting....in the 1940s.

So what. They didn't succeed, did they? The
Tuskegee Airmen were certainly given weapons
and taught how to use them, so were others.
The government made a special effort to include
blacks in the military during the war.

> Their racial attitudes were hardly worlds apart
> from those of the Germans.

Come on. That insults all the black soldiers and
sailors who served honorably in the armed forces.
I don't think you meant that.

WJH

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 10:36 am, Chris Morton wrote:
>
> ...The U.S. government had every right to intern

> ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT have the right to i

> tern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit
> of due process.

Nor did they so ao. Only enemy aliens were interned
by the U.S. Some Amereican citizen were reloated
from war zones tut that was not internment and it
was legal as decided by the Supreme Court in its
1944 secision of Korematsu v. U.S. which has never
been overturned to this day.

WJH

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/10/2012 7:19 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> And if such was the
> case why did others of the same race(s) get
> selected to become aviators and combat
> infantrymen?

Since you're certain race had nothing to do with how the army assigned
billets, perhaps you can explain why the African American 2nd Cavalry
Division was broken up and converted into service units in a theater
that was notoriously short of combat troops?

Alan

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 10, 6:52 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 11:28 AM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> > Well, that's the catch, isn't it? The internees were
> > either Japanese citizens or their minor children.
>
> As has been pointed out to you before, the US also
> evacuated individuals who were solely US citizens
> who happened to be of Japanese ethnicity.

Mr.Wilson is correct except he confuses evacuation
with "internent." Only Japanese citizens were "interned.
Mr Graham is also correct but does not mention that
the evacuation was legal under the wartime powers of
the Constitution and was so declared to be within those
powers by the Supreme Court in its 1944 Korematu v.
U.S. decision, which, despite myths to the contrary, still
stands.

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> People who didn't want Black people to be taught how to use weapons, and to have
> them in their hands in 1934, had EXACTLY the same reasons for that position in
> 1944.
>
> Sen. Bilbo & co. were more afraid of Blacks with guns than Germans with guns.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the
white supremacist attitude.

There was no fear whatever that black veterans would
use their acquired combat skills against whites.

Were the Tuskegee Airmen going to fight segregation
in air combat? Were the Triple Nickles going to
jump into Klan rallies? Were the Black Panthers
(761st Tank Battalion) going to drive tanks across
Mississippi?

There was an objection to black men claiming the
status of US citizen, equal before the law, and
having the cachet of military service.

Since the time of ancient Greece, military service
has often been considered both a duty and a
prerogative: a defining attribute of the citizen
of a republic - which the US is.

Black men who served as laborers or mess boys
weren't a problem; they were restricted to the same
type of servile role they had in civilian life.

The black combat veteran who could "strip his
sleeve and show his scars" gained a moral standing
that made it awkward for white bullies to suppress
or silence him; he was a living rebuke to Jim Crow
and lynch law.

He was also likely to become 'uppity' - and no
longer submit to the presumed authority of every
white over him.

_That_ was what the Dixiecrats feared.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > > In the April issue of the
> > > Journal of Military History, Andrew J. Bacevich,
> >
> > April of which year? And the name of the article?

> Andrew J. Bacevich, ?The Revisionist Imperative: Rethinking
> Twentieth Century Wars,?

> Took me all of 15 seconds to find this.

Thanks; and with the title, it took me all of one google search to find an
on-line copy
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/Bacevich2012MarshallLecture.htm

> > > Prof. of history at Boston University writes this:
> >
> > Prof of International Relations, not history.

> "Professor of International Relations and History"

> according to his page at BU.
> www.bu.edu/ir/faculty/alphabetical/bacevich

This from BU's website

http://www.bu.edu/academics/cas/faculty/

"Andrew Bacevich Director of Undergraduate Studies and Professor of
International Relations. BS, United States Military Academy; MA,
PhD, Princeton University"

And
www.bu.edu/ir/faculty/alphabetical/bacevich
shows his appointment is in the Department of International Studies.

> > a vocal critic of almost all of your political stances...

> I've read a great deal from Mr. Hopwood, and I would
> not presume to know "all of [his] political stances."

Really? You're the only one, then.

> _In_ _general_, Hollywood filmmakers seek profits,
> and their sensibility reflects the attitudes of the
> American people.

The ALWAYS seek profits, full stop. If you don't make money, you don't make
more movies. That means they TRY to reflect the attitudes and sensibilities,
etc.

In the case of "Red Tails", this would seem to mean they hoped a movie about
blacks overcoming great odds to form an effective fighting unit at a time
when blacks were generally considered as close to an untouchable classs
as this country has seen would strike a chord with the movie-going public.

They were wrong, and it has yet to cover its $58M production costs.

> But it is delusional to say that Hollywood is _only_
> motivated by profit, or that Hollywood's attitudes
> are identical to the American people's, or that
> Hollywood does not (fairly often) consciously
> incorporate elements of plot or character which are
> de facto exposition of attitudes or ideas which the
> makers want to propagate among Americans.

> _Birth of a Nation_ was one such movie - its subtexts
> included blatant racism.

Wait; so your first counter-example is a book based on a best-seller that
became the highest grossing movie of its time? A position it held for nearly
two decades, until another south-through-rose-colored-glasses movie "Gone
With the Wind" came along?

Sorry, but I'm seeing a lot of profit in there. I'm also seeing a lot of
tapping into the Zeitgeist. Maybe that's just me.

> So was the recent release _The Lorax_ - a piece of
> environmentalist propaganda (as was the Dr. Seuss
> book it was based on).

And your next example is a movie that made back its production costs in about
3 days, grossed $260M?

And you somehow seem to believe this movie does NOT tap into the current
attitude with concern for the environment?

> But it is foolish to pretend it doesn't happen, or
> refuse to acknowledge that there is a definite
> political and cultural consensus in Hollywood, and

There is a definiet political and cultural consensus among the public
faces (notably actors and actresses) in Hollywood. The people running
the business are ruthless businessmen (and women), full stop.

> that this consensus has substantial effects on
> movie content.

See the above.

As for "Red Tails", it seems to be described as a fairly typical WWII
movie from the US standpoint: the good guys are super good, valiant, etc.,
with the added spice of being underdogs from the beginning (wait; that's
been done in WWII movies, too, hasn't it?)

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 11:13 pm, mtfes...wrote:
> (in trying to discrediting the credentials of Prof. Andrew J.
> Bacevich:)
> > This from
> > BU'swebsitehttp://www.bu.edu/academics/cas/faculty/
> > "Andrew Bacevich Director of Undergraduate Studies
> > and Professor of International Relations. BS, United
> > States Military Academy; MA, PhD, Princeton University"

> As can be seen, Mr.Fester's choice credits the
> Bacevich as being a profesor only of "international

That's a BU page. His entry is fully quoted.

> > I'm gonna go with the people who pay is salary.

> OK. So let's see what else "the people who pay his
> salary" have to say about him": Here, in fact, are
> some excerpts from Boston University's faculty page
> for Professor Andrew J. Becavich:

In addition to the above, his faculty page lists him in the Department of
Relations

> > ....Bacevich merely claims Hollywood has influence.
> > He does not address Mr Black's contention that
> > Hollywood is a profit-driven business.

> Why would he address the obvious.

Ah, then he has no relevance to Mr Black's contentiion that Hollywood
is profit-driven?

Then why did you use Dr Bacevich's article to refute that claim by Mr
Black? Seems a serious cognitive disconnect there, Mr Hopwood.

As Mr. Rostrom
> points out so eloquentley in another post:
> "... it is delusional to say that Hollywood
> is _only_ motivated by profit, or that Hollywood's attitudes

And then he listed two high grossing movies as examples of Hollywood
NOT being profit motivated.


BTW, I asked for a COMPLETE quote from Dr Bacevich, as you have a habit of
misrepresenting things. You seem to have missed that. I happened to find
a copy of Dr Bacevich's article online
http://www.marshallfoundation.org/Bacevich2012MarshallLecture.htm

Here's your version
""....When I speak of history...I refer..to
history as a widely shared...understanding of
the past, fashioned less by academics than by
politicians and purveyors of the popular culture
--an interpretation shaped in Washington and
Hollywood...revisionism can be...morally
hazardous (and) create opportunities for
mischief..When the subject is World War II the
opportunities to make mischief are legion...Yet
the clout wielded by the Washington-Hollywood
Axis of Illusions should not deter historians
from accepting the revisionist challenge."

Yet, reading the article, one finds he has very little to say about
Hollywood's profit motive, and becomes rather less than complimentary
about the US role in WWII;

"Yet the advent of the Third German Reich produced a moral clarity
hitherto more theoretical than real. The war against Nazi Germany was
indubitably a war on behalf of liberal democracy against vile, murderous
totalitarianism. Of course, sustaining that construct is easier if you
keep one eye covered.

The central event of the Short Twentieth Century loses some of its moral luster once you acknowledge that:

- concern for the fate of European Jewry exercised no discernible
influence on allied conduct of the war, allied forces failing to make
any serious attempt to avert, halt, or even retard the Final Solution;

- in both Europe and the Pacific, allied strategic bombing campaigns
killed noncombatants indiscriminately on a scale dwarfing, say, the
atrocity of 9/11;

- the price of liberating western Europe included the enslavement
of eastern Europeans, a direct consequence of allocating to Uncle Joe
Stalin's Red Army primary responsibility for defeating the Wehrmacht;

- at war's end, the victors sanctioned campaigns of ethnic cleansing
on a scale not seen before or since;

- on the American home front, the war fought for freedom and democracy
left intact a well-entrenched system of de facto apartheid, racial
equality not numbering among Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms.

None of these disturbing facts, it need hardly be said, made any
significant impact on the way World War II became enshrined in American
memory. I do not recall encountering any of them while watching
"Victory at Sea."

Yet they matter. They remind us that if the Short American Century was
sometimes about values, it was always about politics and power. "

He goes on to caution that the US has used various WWII comparisons to
justify numerous other wars, and is quite vocal about his distaste for
(eg) Bush's wars. He criticizes Bush for not recognizing Britain's role
in screwing up post WWII Mid-East.

In essence, his stance in this article is a pointed criticism of the
US view that "war works".

So, this is the "good company" you count yourself among? Why, that's
very politically correct of you, Mr Hopwood.

> > ...you have always used "revisionism" as a perjorative.
> > You almost always use it in conjunction with your favorite
> > term "politically correct".

> I use the terms in a pejorative way when the circumstances
> surrounding the use of them dictate a pejorative usage. If the

No, when you disagree with what is being discussed, you call it
"revisionism", regardless of whether or not YOU are the one trying
to "revise" current thinking. As a rather obvious example, you call
all those claiming the US was NOT justified in locking up US citizens
of Japanese descent "revisionist", despite the fact that the US
government itself has admitted it was wrong, apologized, and paid
some compensation for its mistake.

So, again, no, you use it as a criticism of others, even when (or
especially when) YOU are trying to "revise" accepted thinking.

> > The origin (of the myth) had absolutely nothing to do with
> > modern "political correctness",and more to do with wartime
> > politics. But surely, since you were "there at the time", you
> > must surely remember that the claim was made in your time
> > in the service, yes?

> No.

Hmm, you claimed to have a long memory, as well.

> But you tell 'em. Since you weren't "there at the time" that
> must put you in a much better position to know, right?

Actually, I just read up these things, rather than rely your mistaken
recollections.

> > And, of course, the point remains that nobody claims the
> > Tuskagee Airmen were anything but very good at their job.

> Except all the hype built up around the movies to convince
> people that they were not just "very good" but "better" than
> similar units with which they flew.

Kinda like almost every other US-made movie about any given unit. But even
in your "myths" citation, it is noted that the Red Tails lost fewer
bombers than other similar fighter escort groups. If I were a member
of a bomber crew, that would make them the best.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:


> Yes, a VERY real dissemination of one
> set of lies in an effort to make amends
> for another set of lies disseminated by
> someone else about someone else at
> a different time in different circumstances,
> the only common denominator being "race."
> A kind of "Affirmative Action" on the part
> of the entertainent industry. That's what
> people mean when the say hat such an
> action is "politically correct.

Except that some of this "politically correct" "set of lies" is from
the US government during WWII, who talked them up quite a bit.

Mike

[Chris Morton]

In article <794f20bc-04bd-43e7...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

>Thoae were jobs that needed to be done. Are
>you saying that those you mentioned above
>were qualified to do anything else? Or are
>you saying that they were selected for those
>types of jobs just tocause of their race? If so,
>how do you know that? And if such was the
>case why did others of the same race(s) get
>selected to become aviators and combat
>infantrymen?

Strangely, they didn't seem to need to be done with normal safety procedures.

Dangerous jobs, expendable laborers.

Blacks were selected as aviators and combat infantrymen ONLY by virtue of
EXTREME social pressure posed against EXTREME resistance.

>You will admit, I hope, that a spcial effort to
>enhance the role and steatus of blacks and
>PJAs up to and including Eleanor Roosevelt,
>was made by the government in the case of
>the Tuskegee airmen, the JA 222d RCT,and
>the hordes of minority civilian employees who
>worked for the governmet in Washington and
>'other strategic locations throughout the war?.

You will admit, I hope, that special effort to diminish the role and status of
Blacks was exerted.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:36 am, Chris Morton wrote:
> >
> > ...The U.S. government had every right to intern
> > ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT have the right to i
> > tern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit
> > of due process.

> Nor did they so ao. Only enemy aliens were interned
> by the U.S. Some Amereican citizen were reloated
> from war zones tut that was not internment and it

No, it was just locking them up in barbed-wire enclosed concentration camps,
watching over them with guards armed with machine guns, etc.

You'd call it a nice day in the park, wouldn't you?

Mike

[Chris Morton]

In article
<rrostrom.21stcentury-...@news.eternal-september.org>, Rich
Rostrom says...

>He was also likely to become 'uppity' - and no
>longer submit to the presumed authority of every
>white over him.
>
>_That_ was what the Dixiecrats feared.

Not just "uppity", but trained and experienced in the use of deadly force.

Lynching's no fun if you don't know who's going to end up hanging from the tree.

[Stephen Graham]

On 4/10/12 5:07 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> Korematu v.
> U.S. decision, which, despite myths to the contrary, still
> stands.

Of course, there's been no cause for the US Supreme Court to revisit the
case or a similar case, so whether or not it has value as precedent is
unknown. We can presume that it is weakened by the revelation of
misconduct on the part of the government during the case.

And, of course, Mr Hopwood never mentions ex parte Endo without prompting.

[Stephen Graham]

US plans for the black population are fairly clearly laid out in the
discussion in _The Employment of Negro Troops_: labor battalions. Partly
it was a reflection of the reality of blacks' skill sets and educational
background, that left most of them ill-educated and unskilled.

The creation of black combat units was largely due to political
pressure, but also a fundamental reality: the US couldn't afford to
entirely relegate non-white manpower to non-combat roles.

[David H Thornley]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:36 am, Chris Morton <cmor...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2. The U.S. government had every right to intern ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT
>> have the right to intern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit of due process.
>
> Well, that's the catch, isn't it? The internees were either Japanese
> citizens or their minor children. The Alien and Sedition Act (still

Most were. It didn't matter for the evacuation.

There were young US citizens of Japanese descent living in orphanages,
where they'd be insulated from any sort of Japanese propaganda.
They were scooped up with all the other legal residents, dual
citizens, and straight US citizens.

On the other hand, there were German and Italian *nationals* who
were left in critical positions on other coasts - you know, the
ones that actually saw significant Axis activity?

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-

[Roman W]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:30:45 PM UTC+1, David H Thornley wrote:

> Most were. It didn't matter for the evacuation.
>
> There were young US citizens of Japanese descent living in orphanages,
> where they'd be insulated from any sort of Japanese propaganda.
> They were scooped up with all the other legal residents, dual
> citizens, and straight US citizens.
>
> On the other hand, there were German and Italian *nationals* who
> were left in critical positions on other coasts - you know, the
> ones that actually saw significant Axis activity?

The difference was, of course, that a significant chunk of the US population
was of German or Italian descent, Germans and Italians were white and the
US was not attacked unexpectedly by Germany or Italy, causing a psychological
shock.

RW

[Chris Morton]

In article <89f06a79-9ed3-4979...@l4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

>
>On Apr 10, 10:35 am, Chris Morton wrote:
>>
>> The same people who were fighting integration,,,
>> in the '50s and '60s, were fighting inclusion of
>> Blacks in the fighting....in the 1940s.
>
>So what. They didn't succeed, did they? The
>Tuskegee Airmen were certainly given weapons
>and taught how to use them, so were others.
>The government made a special effort to include
>blacks in the military during the war.

They succeeded for a VERY long time.

You might as well say of the Japanese effort to subjugate China, "So what. They

didn't succeed, did they?"

No, they didn't, but they sure managed to cause untold suffering for their
efforts, DIDN'T they?

>> Their racial attitudes were hardly worlds apart
>> from those of the Germans.
>
>Come on. That insults all the black soldiers and
>sailors who served honorably in the armed forces.
>I don't think you meant that.

How does recognistion that the opponents of racial integration of the military
were racists and White supremacists of a sort VERY similar to the National
Socialists insult the VICTIMS of that racism and oppression?

History that makes you uncomfortable is still history.

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/11/2012 1:42 AM, Stephen Graham wrote:
> US plans for the black population are fairly clearly laid out in the
> discussion in _The Employment of Negro Troops_: labor battalions. Partly
> it was a reflection of the reality of blacks' skill sets and educational
> background, that left most of them ill-educated and unskilled.
>
> The creation of black combat units was largely due to political
> pressure, but also a fundamental reality: the US couldn't afford to
> entirely relegate non-white manpower to non-combat roles.

Until politics was ignored during the infantry replacement crunch in
Europe and African Americans were allowed to serve in combat units. How
much of the 'ill-educated and unskilled' is the army making excuses?

Alan

[Roman W]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:28:15 PM UTC+1, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> THE US drafted 100 American citizens for every Japanese citizen
> interned. I don't see how the internees were worse off than those
> drafted. The internees weren't sleeping in freezing mud or being shot
> at. And if the internees are something to cry over, shouldn't the
> draftees be wept over 100x as much?

By your logic, anybody mistreated by their government has no right to
complaint if at the same time the same government is drafting other
people and sends them off to a shooting war. That's a peculiar position
to take. It means that not only the Japanese citizens had no right to
complain about their internment, but neither would -- for example --
any person put to jail under false pretences. After all, a US jail is
still a safer place than Huertgen Forest.

> It's all bullshit as far as I am concerned. For the recored I also
> think the Port Chicago mutineers were properly punbished, and should
> not have been pardoned.

There is a difference between dying because of the risk inherent in war,
and dying because of racially-motivated mismanagement of your workplace.

RW

[Rich Rostrom]

Chris Morton <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Not just "uppity", but trained and experienced in the use of deadly force.
>
> Lynching's no fun if you don't know who's going to end up hanging from the tree.

1) Lynching was extremely rare by the 1940s -
between 5 and 10 per year. Lynchings were far
more common circa 1900 - when black soldiers
did serve in combat units.

2) Black men were conscripted into the Army
during WW II, the same as white men. All
conscripts, regardless of race, went through
Basic Training, which included rifle instruction.
The Dixiecrats never objected to that.

[Chris Morton]

In article <a0509d90-2215-479d...@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Shawn Wilson says...

>> 2. The U.S. government had every right to intern ENEMY ALIENS. They did NOT
>>have the right to intern NON-ENEMY U.S. CITIZENS without benefit of due process.
>
>
>
>Well, that's the catch, isn't it? The internees were either Japanese
>citizens or their minor children. The Alien and Sedition Act (still
>law btw) dates from the Adams administration. It didn't envision and
>didn't account for issues of dual citizenship when the 'duals' go to
>war against each other. So, the US interned a buch of 'US citizens'
>because they were (also) *Japanese citizens*. And don't forget that a
>major chunk of the internees were Japanese citizens without any US
>citizenship.

There's no "catch" at all. Native born U.S. citizens were imprisoned without
due process, EXCLUSIVELY because of their ethnicity, and UTTERLY without regard
to their loyalty or previous conduct.

That is consummately un-American.

>Sucks to be them but...

It sucked to be worked to death as a POW in a Japanese coal mine too... and no
more or less justifiable than Manzanar.

>THE US drafted 100 American citizens for every Japanese citizen
>interned. I don't see how the internees were worse off than those
>drafted. The internees weren't sleeping in freezing mud or being shot
>at. And if the internees are something to cry over, shouldn't the
>draftees be wept over 100x as much?

A complete and total nonsequiter. One has NOTHING to do with the other. You
can't justify false imprisonment on the basis of the conditions of that
imprisonment.

By your "logic", had the NYPD kidnapped someone who worked in World Trade Center
1 on 9/10/01 and kept them falsely imprisoned for a year, they would have no
cause of action against the NYPD because they didn't die in the 9/11 attacks.
It's fatuous rubbish.

>It's all bullshit as far as I am concerned. For the recored I also
>think the Port Chicago mutineers were properly punbished, and should
>not have been pardoned.

Why of course. They should have been HAPPY to be needlessly blown to atoms.
After all, it's not like they were WHITE...

[Chris Morton]

In article <71-vl.A.Q...@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca>, Roman W says...

>The difference was, of course, that a significant chunk of the US population
>was of German or Italian descent, Germans and Italians were white and the
>US was not attacked unexpectedly by Germany or Italy, causing a psychological
>shock.

That's a distinction without a difference.

1. The United States and Germany were in a de factor shooting war in the
Atlantic BEFORE Pearl Harbor. U.S. sailors had ALREADY been killed by the
Kriegsmarine.

2. What does the "unexpectedness" of Pearl Harbor have to do with anything? How
does this alleged "unexpectedness" make Japanese-Americans more of a threat than
German-Americans or Italian-Americans?

Of course given the collossal foolishness of the act, Hitler's declaration of
war against the United States, contrary to his own best interests should have
been "unexpected" as well.

There was no more justification for interning U.S. citizens solely on the basis
of ethnicity than there was for German treatment of Poles in occupied Poland...
apart from corrupt "racialism".

[Chris Morton]

In article <571a0637-469f-492e...@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

So then U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry VOLUNTARILY imprisoned THEMSELVES?

You were no more convincing the first forty times you tried that rhetorical
trick.

Citing Korematsu approvingly is like citing Dred Scott... approvingly. It
always indicates an agenda.

[Alan Nordin]

On 4/11/2012 1:42 AM, Stephen Graham wrote:

> Partly
> it was a reflection of the reality of blacks' skill sets and educational
> background, that left most of them ill-educated and unskilled.

There were also the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments, both Regular Army
and in existence well before WWII started. Both sent to the MTO and
there they were disbanded with their assets transferred to service
units. Presumably they were {or at least should have been} as well
trained as any other Regular Army unit.

Alan

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 11, 1:41 am, Stephen Graham wrote:
> On 4/10/12 5:07 PM, wjhopw...wrote:
>
> > Korematu v U.S. decision, which, despite
> > myths .to the contrary, still stands.

>
> Of course, there's been no cause for the US
> Supreme Court to revisit the case or a similar
> case, so whether or not it has value as
> precedent is unknown.

Well, yes, if you mean the closest we've come
to a Pearl Harbor attack has been 9/11 and
the national demographics between then and
now are quite different and likely to remain so.

>We can presume that it is weakened by the
>revelation of misconduct on the part of the
>government during the case.

That was no "revelation," it was a phony
charge which the post-war government
chose not to challenge for political reasons
in one of the coram nobis cases brought
years later by by JA activists and their
fellow travelers. It has since discredited
by the historical record. We can set up a
new thread on that if you wish and go into t
the details. However, I suggest you try to
inform yourself of the factual background
by subtracting the emotional hype which
surrounded the case.

> And, of course, Mr Hopwood never
> mentions ex parte Endo without
> prompting.

Thst's because the case was moot.
But since you bring it up, let's point out
that the decision was not released until
after the exclusion had been lifted and
JAs with clean loyalty records could
return to the West Coast. However,
it turned out that the majority didn't want
to give up their relocation center living
until the war was over. As you are
probably aware and should be promted
to disclose in this context, the leading
camp leaders held a conference at which
it was agreed to petitioned the wartime
government to keep the camps open.
Why go back to the West Coast
with all the problems that would entail
when the cost-free living was as easy
as it was.

WJH

[Chris Morton]

In article <510ebbeb-b541-4b65...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
wjho...@aol.com says...

>Why go back to the West Coast
>with all the problems that would entail
>when the cost-free living was as easy
>as it was.

Yeah, why would a doctor, lawyer or teacher want to actually live in prosperous
FREEDOM when they could instead live as a ward of the state in a concentration
camp...?

[Stephen Graham]

It was a very real problem. The nature of US society prior to the Civil
Rights Era pretty much guaranteed that there would be issues with regard
to education and opportunity. That translated into fewer capable
individuals available for military service.

One thing to bear in mind is that everyone in World War Two was short of
skilled and educated individuals for whatever purpose.

> There were also the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments, both Regular Army and in existence well before WWII started. Both sent to the MTO and there they were disbanded with their assets transferred to service units. Presumably they were {or at least should have been} as well trained as any other Regular Army unit.

By the time the 2d Cavalry Division was broken up, the original RA
component in the division was pretty diluted by the need for cadres and
the process of refilling the already understrength units. Still, there
were doubtless reasonably competent black NCOs who suddenly found
themselves in service units. I don't know that anyone has really made a
study of those particular individuals and units.

[Don Kirkman]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:19:29 -0400, "wjho...@aol.com"
<wjho...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 10:33 am, Don Kirkman wrote:
>>wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > a concerted
>> >effort was made by the government during and
>> >after WWII to "enhance" the role in the military,
>> >...of blacks...of all minorities..
>>
>> I doubt the black sailors killed ...in..Port
>> Chicago.. had been enhanced when
>> loading ammunition.. And...the Filipino
>> sailors...assigned to steward duty felt their
>> lives...ere enhanced.

>
>Thoae were jobs that needed to be done. Are
>you saying that those you mentioned above
>were qualified to do anything else?

No. Are you implying that their qualifications had been checked
before they were assigned to those duties?

Do you claim that when Filipinos were enlisted in accordance with
McKinley's executive order ["President William McKinley signed an
executive order in 1901 allowing the Navy to enlist 500 Filipinos as
part of the insular force. Secretary of the Navy John D. Long signed
General Order No. 40, 8 April 1901, promulgating the executive
order."] there was no nexus to their primary use as stewards and mess
boys? That seems hardly likely as, according to one source, their
numbers grew to some 6,000 in such assignments during WW II.

Do you not find it a bit unusual that with all the expanded manpower
of WW II only black sailors were assigned, en masse, to loading
ammunition cargoes at Port Chicago when more whites were available in
the navy than blacks?

>You will admit, I hope, that a spcial effort to
>enhance the role and steatus of blacks and
>PJAs up to and including Eleanor Roosevelt,
>was made by the government in the case of
>the Tuskegee airmen, the JA 222d RCT,and

Obviously the key words are "special effort" [I assume you meant the
442 RCT, and included the 100th Battalion and the Japanese
intelligence troops in the Pacific in your context] but any special
effort is an obvious exception to routine procedures and practices.
Political pressures sometimes have more effect than common sense or
ethical considerations.

>the hordes of minority civilian employees who
>worked for the governmet in Washington and
>'other strategic locations throughout the war?.

Weren't many of them natives of the strategic locations overseas? As
for Washington and the US, are you implying that civilians were under
the same strictures as members of the armed forces?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Apr 11, 8:30 am, David H Thornleywrote:

>
> There were young US citizens of Japanese

> descent living in orphanages, .....They were
> scooped up with all the other legal residents..

The orphans couldn't be properly cared for
in most cases simply because for the moat
part their care-givers were persons of Japanese
ancesstry who had been or were in the process
of being relocated. The orphans were sent to
the Childrens Village at Manzanar where
excellent facitlites for their care had been
established. Many were not really "orphans"
but childfen who had been abandoned by their
parents or born out of wedlock, or had been
been placed in foster care by parents who could
not care for them.
There were a total of 101 kids
admitted to Childrens Village during the war
ranging in age from infancy to 19 years. Of that
number 48 were re-united with their parents,
2 joined other relatives, 6 went to foster parents,
5 went to work for wages, 10 went to boarding
homes, and 20 to other institutions for special
care. When the exclusion was lifted, the 10
children remaining in Childrens Village were
transferred to the child welfare divisions of the
States from which they had come.

> On the other hand, there were German and
> Italian *nationals* who were left in critical

> positions on other coasts....

Shortly after PH there were more Germans,
Italians, and other resident European Axis
nationals and their families (14,426) interned as
enemy aliens and sent to the DOJ internment
camps than there were Japanese enemy aliens
(11,229) and their families. But later in the war,
more than 5,000 Japanese-Americans renounced
their U.S. citizenship and asked for repatriation
to Japan. They were then interned as enemy
aliens which raised the total of Japanese to
16,849.
All of the Japanese enemy aliens received
an apology and $20,000 from the U.S. in the
1980s. The Germans, Italians,,and other
European Axis nationals who sat in thr same
camps with the Japanese got zip, zero, nada.
The founding fathers who passed the 1796
Alien Enemy Act of 1796 must still be spinning
in their graves.

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

On 4/11/2012 9:10 AM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:41 am, Stephen Graham wrote:

>> We can presume that it is weakened by the
>> revelation of misconduct on the part of the
>> government during the case.
>
> That was no "revelation," it was a phony
> charge which the post-war government
> chose not to challenge for political reasons
> in one of the coram nobis cases brought
> years later by by JA activists and their
> fellow travelers. It has since discredited
> by the historical record. We can set up a
> new thread on that if you wish and go into t
> the details. However, I suggest you try to
> inform yourself of the factual background
> by subtracting the emotional hype which
> surrounded the case.

I'm familiar with the factual background. I do not agree that your
statement is historically accurate. But I also do not see any point in
debating the point again with you. You have your preferred version of
the truth and won't deviate from it.

>> And, of course, Mr Hopwood never
>> mentions ex parte Endo without
>> prompting.
>
> Thst's because the case was moot.
> But since you bring it up, let's point out
> that the decision was not released until
> after the exclusion had been lifted and
> JAs with clean loyalty records could
> return to the West Coast.

Korematsu and Endo were argued before and decided by the US Supreme
Court on the same days. Arguing that one is moot and the other not seems
curious to say the least.

That there still remained the question of whether the Western Defense
Command was particularly willing to allow individuals back and what
constituted a "clean loyalty record" in their eyes adds more
complication to the situation than you would prefer.

> However,
> it turned out that the majority didn't want
> to give up their relocation center living
> until the war was over. As you are
> probably aware and should be promted
> to disclose in this context, the leading
> camp leaders held a conference at which
> it was agreed to petitioned the wartime
> government to keep the camps open.
> Why go back to the West Coast
> with all the problems that would entail
> when the cost-free living was as easy
> as it was.

As you know full well, that is a tendentious depiction of the events.
However, it is not worth discussing the matter with you, as has been
demonstrated in the past.

[Rich Rostrom]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

> > > Prof of International Relations, not history.
>
> > "Professor of International Relations and History"
>
> > according to his page at BU.
> > www.bu.edu/ir/faculty/alphabetical/bacevich
>
> This from BU's website
> http://www.bu.edu/academics/cas/faculty/
>
> "Andrew Bacevich Director of Undergraduate Studies and Professor of
> International Relations. BS, United States Military Academy; MA,
> PhD, Princeton University"

On his own page, he describes himself twice
as "Professor of International Relations and History".

> And www.bu.edu/ir/faculty/alphabetical/bacevich
> shows his appointment is in the Department of International Studies.

And the office hours page for the History Department

http://www.bu.edu/history/people/faculty-office-hours/

lists Bacevich.

What is the big deal here? "International Relations"
is a branch of history; Bacevich's PhD is in "Diplomatic
History"; Bacevich describes himself (with the obvious
approval of Boston University) as a "Professor of... History"
and is considered part of the faculty of the History
Department.

> > > a vocal critic of almost all of your political stances...
>
> > I've read a great deal from Mr. Hopwood, and I would
> > not presume to know "all of [his] political stances."
>
> Really? You're the only one, then.

Does he vote Republican, Democrat, or split ticket?
Does he support abortion rights or protection of the unborn?
Does he support or oppose repealing the 17th Amendment, to
restore election of Senators by state legislatures?
Does he support or oppose establishing same-sex marriage?
Does he support or oppose restrictions and taxes on fossil
fuel consumption to avert "global warming"?
Does he support or oppose "free trade" with Mexico and China?
Does he support or oppose government subsidies, mandates,
and loan guarantees for "alternative energy"?
Does he support or oppose abolishing the Electoral College?
Does he support or oppose requiring ID for voting?
Does he support or oppose revisions to government pension plans?
Does he support or oppose charter schools?
Does he support or oppose continued US military operations
in Afghanistan?
Does he support or oppose deporting any, some, many, or all
illegal aliens?
Does he support or oppose draconian laws to stop music and
video "piracy" on the Internet?

I could make guesses about his views on these issues, but
would not presume to _know_ what they are.

All I _know_ is his position on the internment of Japanese-
Americans during World War II, which I disagree with very
strongly.

> > _In_ _general_, Hollywood filmmakers seek profits,
> > and their sensibility reflects the attitudes of the
> > American people.
>
> The ALWAYS seek profits, full stop.

I've already mentioned this film elsewhere,
but I'll repeat: _Wilson_ (1944), a film
biography of President Woodrow Wilson, which
was a personal vanity project of 20th Century Fox
chief Darryl Zanuck, who produced it. It lost
lots of money: $4M budget, $2M gross box office.

I'll mention another: _Bird_ (1988), a biography
of jazz musician Charlie "Bird" Parker, produced
and directed by Clint Eastwood. Budget $9M, box
office gross $2M. I doubt if anyone, even Eastwood,
thought a biopic of a long-dead jazzman was going
to be a big hit, but Eastwood wanted to make it
and he'd just done _Heartbreak Ridge_.

More recently, Eastwood was green-lighted to make
two WW II movies: _Flags of Our Fathers_ and _Letters
>From Iwo Jima_ both released in 2006.

_Flags_ grossed just $66M, on a budget of $55M, which
made it a commercial failure.

_Letters_ cost $19M to make, and grossed $18M - everywhere
_except_ Japan, where it grossed 5.1 billion yen (about
$50M). Thus it was successful, but only because of something
it's unlikely anyone in Hollywood expected.

Why were these films made? _Flags_ was based on a best-
selling book, but not a work of entertainment. _Letters_
had even more obscure origins. But both had obvious
appeal to the artistic sensibilities of Eastwood and
his associates (including Steven Spielberg).

> If you don't make money, you don't make more movies. That
> means they TRY to reflect the attitudes and sensibilities, etc.

Only those attitudes and sensibilities they
approve of.

If they don't like the theme of a proposed movie,
it doesn't get made. Unless some unconventional
funding can be found.

Mel Gibson had to fund the _The Passion of the Christ_
out of his own pocket.

> In the case of "Red Tails", this would seem to mean they hoped a movie about
> blacks overcoming great odds to form an effective fighting unit at a time

Who is this "They"? _Red Tails_ was a project of George
Lucas, who funded the entire thing himself.

> when blacks were generally considered as close to an untouchable classs
> as this country has seen would strike a chord with the movie-going public.
>
> They were wrong, and it has yet to cover its $58M production costs.

Lucas worked on this project for over 20 years.
As noted above, he funded the entire cost of production
and put up another $35M for distribution. Either he was
_absolutely_ _certain_ this would be a huge hit, or he
_really_ wanted to make the film for other reasons.

No doubt he persuaded himself it would be successful,
just as Zanuck did with _Wilson_ - but the secondary
agenda is pretty obvious to those willing to see it.

Gibson also thought his film would succeed, and he was
right. But is there any doubt that his religious
convictions were at the root of his determination to
make the film, rather than financial considerations?

All three of these films were made at the insistence of
a single major Hollywood figure. _Wilson_ was opposed
because it was not expected to be profitable; I can't
say whether anyone in Hollywood (other than Zanuck) had
strong feelings about Woodrow Wilson. _Passion_ almost
certainly encountered opposition due to the general
rejection of religious devotion in contemporary Hollywood.
_Red Tails_, according to Lucas, was rejected as intrinsically
unprofitable.

The question yet to be answered is: what films were
"green-lighted" by a _team_ of investors, producers,
studio executives, directors, and actors because the
"political" content appealed to them? Very few films
would be approved _solely_ for political content, but
for many, the political content made a difference.

One factor here is selection bias: nearly all of the
films that will come to mind are successful. Failures
like _Wilson_ tend to be forgotten.

Another film I've cited before.

_Nurse Edith Cavell_, about the British nurse executed
by the Germans during WW I, was released on 1 September 1939.
It was directed by expat British director Herbert Wilcox,
starred his mistress and future wife Anna Neagle, and was
financed by RKO - whose owner, Floyd Odlum, was married to
aviatrix Jackie Cochran, later a leader of "Wings for Britain".

Was all that a coincidence? Or did Wilcox, Neagle, and Odlum
have a political agenda?

Bear in mind that in 1939, the US public was still strongly
isolationist - so this did _not_ reflect the public's
feelings.

> Sorry, but I'm seeing a lot of profit in there. I'm also seeing a lot of
> tapping into the Zeitgeist. Maybe that's just me.

Upton Sinclair's novel _The Jungle_ was a
best-seller too. It was also consciously
written as propaganda.