• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fearing Nazi Spies, the U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees

The more I learn about World War II, the more I realize there wasn't much moral high-ground to stand on. While we weren't attempting to literally erase entire countries, we were interning Japanese-Americans in squalid conditions and now this. I mean, we were basically a co-belligerent like Finland until Japan attacked us in 1941 - WWII had already been ongoing between two to three years before we decided to do anything.

Actually, we had been under attack since at least 1937. The war started before the conflict in Europe expanded, and the US was not a belligerent in the Winter War, so not sure where you are going there at all.

If you think the US was not attacked until 1941, you really need to look through some more history.
 
Actually, we had been under attack since at least 1937.

I was obviously talking about the Attack on Pearl Harbor - December 7, 1941. Discounting the American embassy consul to Japan who was punched in the face by a Japanese soldier, and that gunboat that was attacked in the midst Nanking Massacre of Japan against China, the Attack on Pearl Harbor was - indeed - the first time America militarily opposed Japan in World War II.

The war started before the conflict in Europe expanded,

Specifically, Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria. And?

and the US was not a belligerent in the Winter War, so not sure where you are going there at all.

Nevermind that, you wouldn't like where I was going with it at all. ;)

If you think the US was not attacked until 1941, you really need to look through some more history.

Like I said, discounting the minor gunboat attack (which wasn't even considered a wartime engagement as the U.S. and Japan were not at war at the time and it was a mistake) and the consul getting punched in the face, the U.S. was not attacked until 1941.
 
Specifically, Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria. And?

The Second Abyssinian War is another, as was the Spanish Civil War. The latter had both US and German troops fighting each other.

Like I said, discounting the minor gunboat attack (which wasn't even considered a wartime engagement as the U.S. and Japan were not at war at the time and it was a mistake) and the consul getting punched in the face, the U.S. was not attacked until 1941.

The attack and sinking of a US gunboat, as well as the attack on 3 other American ships at the same time. That makes a purposeful attack and sinking of 4 American ships.
 
The attack and sinking of a US gunboat, as well as the attack on 3 other American ships at the same time. That makes a purposeful attack and sinking of 4 American ships.

I don't know where you're getting this '4 American "ships"' figure, the earliest account I can find of an (unintentional) attack on an American citizen is the death of Col. Robert Short, who engaged with IJN planes February 1932. There was also SMN F.J. Falgout, whose KIA report says this:

WIDELY BELIEVED THE FIRST CASUALTY OF WHAT WOULD BECOME WORLD WAR II. HIS WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST FUNERALS IN LOUISIANA HISTORY. LOCAL VFW HALL NAMED IN HIS HONOR

Despite Falgout's death and the other injuries, the Augusta did not return fire, a New York Times story said, "because the officers were unable to determine whether (the shell) came from an airplane or from Chinese batteries" nearby.

It was never destroyed or 'sunk', and they never even confirmed whether it was Japan or China that had hit the boat. The Japanese did seize a tugboat on November 30th, but returned it a day later. Then there was the SS Athenia sunk by Germany on 3 September 1939 immediately after Britain declared war on Germany, in which 28 US citizens were killed.

The USS Kearny was sunk by a German U-Boat in 1941, in which 11 servicemen were KIA. And USS Reuben James was also sunk by a U-Boat, in which 115 died. Both of these were American Destroyers, and might be considered the first American naval losses of World War II. The United States was neither officially involved in the war at the time nor did the incidents cause them to declare war. And this occurred almost 5 years after the "same time" that the USS Panay was destroyed.

Like I said, discounting the minor gunboat attack (which wasn't even considered a wartime engagement as the U.S. and Japan were not at war at the time and it was a mistake) and the consul getting punched in the face, the U.S. was not attacked as a military adversary of Japan until 1941.
 
I don't know where you're getting this '4 American "ships"' figure

Rather simple. The 4 ships sank were the USS Panay, and the Chevron owned and operated Mei Ping, Mei An and Mei Hsia oil tankers. All attacked at the same time in the same area.

All 4 were indeed American ships, 1 military 3 civilian.

It was never destroyed or 'sunk', and they never even confirmed whether it was Japan or China that had hit the boat. The Japanese did seize a tugboat on November 30th, but returned it a day later. Then there was the SS Athenia sunk by Germany on 3 September 1939 immediately after Britain declared war on Germany, in which 28 US citizens were killed.

Oh please, this is reaching at the most extreme.

The boats were attacked by 9 Nakajima A4N fighters, an aircraft that China never had. Not only that, Japan made a formal apology for the attack. They also paid more than $2 million in damages for the attacks.

You are simply trying to do anything you can to refute the evidence here, and it is rather silly to be honest. "Minor gunboat incident", the intentional attack and sinking of 4 US ships. Go peddly those goods elsewhere, because it simply shows that you really do not know much about the origins of WWII.
 
Rather simple. The 4 ships sank were the USS Panay, and the Chevron owned and operated Mei Ping, Mei An and Mei Hsia oil tankers. All attacked at the same time in the same area.

All 4 were indeed American ships, 1 military 3 civilian.



Oh please, this is reaching at the most extreme.

The boats were attacked by 9 Nakajima A4N fighters, an aircraft that China never had. Not only that, Japan made a formal apology for the attack. They also paid more than $2 million in damages for the attacks.

You are simply trying to do anything you can to refute the evidence here, and it is rather silly to be honest. "Minor gunboat incident", the intentional attack and sinking of 4 US ships. Go peddly those goods elsewhere, because it simply shows that you really do not know much about the origins of WWII.

And I'm just supposed to take your word on it, right?
:lamo My work here is done.
 
And I'm just supposed to take your word on it, right?
:lamo My work here is done.

Wow, really? Apparently you are unable or unwilling to do any research at all.

OK, fine. You can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Panay_incident

Then you can go here:

USS Panay - Suddenly and Deliberately Attacked!

On the 11th, with what appeared to be aimed artillery fire dropping close by the ship, Panay formed a convoy with three Socony Vacuum Oil Company (Standard Oil) tankers, the SS Mieping, SS Meishia, and the SS Meian, and moved seven miles up the river. These vulnerable ships sorely needed Panay’s protection. By the same token, Panay and her sister vessels in the Yangtze Patrol relied upon them for fuel.

Despite the carnage, the evacuation continued. The Meiping came close aboard, its captain hoping to take on passengers. Jim Marshall of Colliers managed to leap from Panay to the tanker, but he was the only person to do so. Sensing that the oil tankers were likely to be the next victim, Anders waved Meiping away. The last thing he needed was for the gunboat to be sitting next to a floating bomb.

Following Lt. Anders’ written directives, the wounded were the first off the ship. Captain Hughes was placed on the only stretcher available, and ferried to the left bank of the river some 600 yards away. Meanwhile Ensign Biwerse visited the shattered radio room, gathered together the codebooks and threw them over the side. Rations and medical supplies were gathered, and lifebelts broken out. Some in the crew stacked wooden tabletops by the rail, in case a fast escape proved necessary. With the Yangtze’s fast-moving current — upwards of seven miles per hour — even a short swim could prove fatal.

As the evacuation of the gunboat progressed, Anders’ hunch proved right: the Japanese turned their attention to the oil tankers, and in moments two of the three were aflame. Aboard the Meiping, the visiting complement of the Panay’s crew again attempted to put out the flames, but this time it was to no avail. Eventually they abandoned ship. “From afar,” wrote Alley, “we could hear the pitiful screams of [the] Chinese crew members.” The Meian, the only vessel to survive the onslaught, was nevertheless badly hit and its American captain, C.H. Carlson, killed. Disabled, the ship was eventually beached on the far bank.

How about a contemporary newpaper reporting on the reparations:

attacked02.jpg


Or another?

attacked05.jpg


You know, simply denying anything and absolutely refusing to do your own research is really lazy.
 
Wow, really? Apparently you are unable or unwilling to do any research at all.

OK, fine. You can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Panay_incident

Then you can go here:

USS Panay - Suddenly and Deliberately Attacked!





How about a contemporary newpaper reporting on the reparations:

attacked02.jpg


Or another?

attacked05.jpg


You know, simply denying anything and absolutely refusing to do your own research is really lazy.

Claiming that I claimed the USS Panay wasn't attacked and denying that I've done my own research is really dishonest (since you prefer to go ad-hominem with this, let's). I never denied that. One U.S. military vessel was sunk (USS Panay), that is a fact. That is what I meant, and it is fairly obvious what I meant. You were just being nitpicky and snide and arrogantly flaunting superficial and desultory irrelevancies for the sake of it ("Uh oh, they didn't clarify it was military - despite the fact that they obviously meant that! I will now go out of my way to point this out despite what a ****headed and pointless thing to do besides try to make myself look more intelligent and more important than I really am and then I will proceed to drag this one little slip up out as looooong as possible because I am super-duper-important and everyone needs to state every little detail exactly as I want it to be stated because I have an incessant need to police the forum of all matters military, because I was in the military that automatically makes me more important and informed on the matter than you dumb-ass civilian weaklings!) Oh, yes, my dear friend, I've been around and I've seen the world. You clearly have underestimated my ability to see through your (surprisingly transparent) facade. Those little mind-tricks don't work on me pal, you knew what I meant - and despite your inevitable move to pretend you did not, you have been exposed for the intellectually dishonest position that you are at.
 
Last edited:
Claiming that I claimed the USS Panay wasn't attacked and denying that I've done my own research is really dishonest (since you prefer to go ad-hominem with this, let's). I never denied that. One U.S. military vessel was sunk (USS Panay), that is a fact. That is what I meant, and it is fairly obvious what I meant. You were just being nitpicky and snide and arrogantly flaunting superficial and desultory irrelevancies for the sake of it ("Uh oh, they didn't clarify it was military - despite the fact that they obviously meant that! I will now go out of my way to point this out despite what a ****headed and pointless thing to do besides try to make myself look more intelligent and more important than I really am and then I will proceed to drag this one little slip up out as looooong as possible because I am super-duper-important and everyone needs to state every little detail exactly as I want it to be stated because I have an incessant need to police the forum of all matters military, because I was in the military that automatically makes me more important and informed on the matter than you dumb-ass civilian weaklings!) Oh, yes, my dear friend, I've been around and I've seen the world. You clearly have underestimated my ability to see through your (surprisingly transparent) facade. Those little mind-tricks don't work on me pal, you knew what I meant - and despite your inevitable move to pretend you did not, you have been exposed for the intellectually dishonest position that you are at.

(Ran out of time to edit, of course).

I've been dealing with people like you all my life, I know your type. You look down on people who haven't served, and you spit on them. They are like dirt to you, not even human. Anything that isn't "America" everything is potentially evil. You whine about liberals and Obama. You believe asinine things like a secret Communist coup to takeover the country. I bet you even believe Obama wiretapped Trump, don't you? I mean, the above post proves you will see what you want to see. Then again, if you will only see what you want to see, I suppose I am wasting my time on you. Next time you try to start **** with me with this irritating and pointless anal-retentiveness:

If you think the US was not attacked until 1941, you really need to look through some more history.

I'm going to ignore you. And with this knowledge, if you continue to try to shove your Right-Wing Conservative-Authoritarian Military-Imperialist Ultra-Nationalist agenda down my throat, I will know for a fact that everything in this sentence is in fact 100% true.

Now, I will re-assume control over this conversation from the intentionally-dishonest direction you are attempting to wrangle it.

Here is my original post:

The more I learn about World War II, the more I realize there wasn't much moral high-ground to stand on. While we weren't attempting to literally erase entire countries, we were interning Japanese-Americans in squalid conditions and now this. I mean, we were basically a co-belligerent like Finland until Japan attacked us in 1941 - WWII had already been ongoing between two to three years before we decided to do anything.

I will now go over what I meant with this post, bullet-point-by-bullet-point, so you cannot claim ignorance, in the following post after this since I am sure I am running into a character limit.
 
Last edited:
(Ran out of time to edit, of course).

I've been dealing with people like you all my life, I know your type. You look down on people who haven't served, and you spit on them. They are like dirt to you, not even human. Anything that isn't "America" everything is potentially evil. You whine about liberals and Obama. You believe asinine things like a secret Communist coup to takeover the country. I bet you even believe Obama wiretapped Trump, don't you? I mean, the above post proves you will see what you want to see. Then again, if you will only see what you want to see, I suppose I am wasting my time on you. Next time you try to start **** with me with this irritating and pointless anal-retentiveness:



I'm going to ignore you. And with this knowledge, if you continue to try to shove your Right-Wing Conservative-Authoritarian Military-Imperialist Ultra-Nationalist agenda down my throat, I will know for a fact that everything in this sentence is in fact 100% true.

Now, I will re-assume control over this conversation from the intentionally-dishonest direction you are attempting to wrangle it.

Here is my original post:



I will now go over what I meant with this post, bullet-point-by-bullet-point, so you cannot claim ignorance, in the following post after this since I am sure I am running into a character limit.

Your protestations are not convincing. You made a flat misstatement of fact, got caught at it, and then tried to hide that fact with surly assertions that it was obvious that you meant something other than what you wrote.

As to turning away Jews, the U.S. was still struggling with the Great Depression. It should not surprise anyone that most Americans were not wild about admitting foreigners they knew would make jobs even harder to get. To invoke anti-Semitism to explain this reluctance is to level a disgusting slander against the U.S.
 
Last edited:
If you think the US was not attacked until 1941, you really need to look through some more history.

Here is my original post:

The more I learn about World War II, the more I realize there wasn't much moral high-ground to stand on. While we weren't attempting to literally erase entire countries, we were interning Japanese-Americans in squalid conditions and now this. I mean, we were basically a co-belligerent like Finland until Japan attacked us in 1941 - WWII had already been ongoing between two to three years before we decided to do anything.

I will now go over what I meant with this post, bullet-point-by-bullet-point, so you cannot claim ignorance, in the following post after this since I am sure I am running into a character limit.

To begin this experiment, I will first start by pointing out that at no point did I concede that I 'thought the US was not attacked until 1941', I simply referred to them as minor incidents, standing by my point that you pointing out that I glossed over them and then exaggerating it to "you don't know anything about how WWII began (or whatever it was you said)" is nothing more than snide and arrogant opportunism. In fact, I would go as far as saying your desire to play them up is disrespectful of those who lost their lives in Pearl Harbor, and I find it slightly disgusting that you are attempting to use Pearl Harbor as a political football to artificially inflate your image.

Anyway, on to the analysis:


Here is my original post (AGAIN, for EMPHASIS):

The more I learn about World War II, the more I realize there wasn't much moral high-ground to stand on. While we weren't attempting to literally erase entire countries, we were interning Japanese-Americans in squalid conditions and now this. I mean, we were basically a co-belligerent like Finland until Japan attacked us in 1941 - WWII had already been ongoing between two to three years before we decided to do anything.

I will start with the first bold:

we were interning Japanese-Americans in squalid conditions and now this.

  • I'm starting with this since it is on topic, thus also getting the topic in question back on track.
  • This was the ENTIRE POINT of my post, ergo - the part of the post I was hoping would be the focus of the conversation, not piddly little ****.
  • I'm wondering if this is what triggered you, so you decided to have a conniption fit and angrily and snidely point out I'd glossed over a rather minute detail that only the most decorated and informed of historians would likely have not, thus it is egregiously selfish to demand of others your own personal standards of accurate information (on something as silly as an INTERNET DEBATE FORUM, HA!)

Next:

until Japan attacked us in 1941

So,

  • You're disputing that Japan attacked us in 1941, and
  • That we entered the war before 1941.

Obviously the bold above is what you had a problem with, is it not?

Next, my response to your original challenge (that I accepted), specifically - the part you ignored:

I was obviously talking about the Attack on Pearl Harbor - December 7, 1941. Discounting the American embassy consul to Japan who was punched in the face by a Japanese soldier, and that gunboat that was attacked in the midst Nanking Massacre of Japan against China, the Attack on Pearl Harbor was - indeed - the first time America militarily opposed Japan in World War II.

That should do it for now while I wait for you to get back on track. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Your protestations are not convincing. You made a flat misstatement of fact, got caught at it, and then tried to hide that fact with surly assertions that it was obvious that you meant something other than what you wrote.

You two have no moral highground. See my above response for further exposition of his dishonesty. And, yes - it was fairly obvious what I meant. Ooz twisting what I wrote is what happened (see above).

As to turning away Jews, the U.S. was still struggling with the Great Depression. It should not surprise anyone that most Americans were not wild about admitting foreigners they knew would make jobs even harder to get. To invoke anti-Semitism to explain this reluctance is to level a disgusting slander against the U.S.

"Disgusting slander against the U.S." :lamo Your and Oozlefinch's ultranationalism and your antisemitism is what is truly disgusting.
 
Remember, there were many ways to be put into a concentration camp. And here are some of those that were not based upon religion or race.

Primarily, most of the "Politicals" were Communists. Anywhere from a more Liberal Socialist professor all the way to bomb throwing riot causing Anarchists. Do we want to accept huge numbers of people like that into the country? And remember, this was less than 2 decades after a string of Anarchist inspired attacks and bombings inside the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings

In fact, the first waves of prisoners in these camps were almost universally political in nature. The placing of Jews and other religious and racial inmates did not really come about until after WWII started.

But you even had Nazi officials placed in the camps, as well as soldiers and even Lutheran ministers. Anybody who stood up against (or pissed off) the Nazi Party could potentially be sent off to a camp.

And just because they opposed the Nazis, that did not necessarily mean they were our allies.

Were the Jewish refugees bombing places in the US like what the anarchists were doing? For you to equate them on the same level is not only misleading but ignorant as well.
 
Claiming that I claimed the USS Panay wasn't attacked and denying that I've done my own research is really dishonest (since you prefer to go ad-hominem with this, let's). I never denied that. One U.S. military vessel was sunk (USS Panay), that is a fact.


So we ignore any attacks and deaths on non-military vessels?

And I quite clearly did state "American ships", I did not say or imply military ships. Of course, I also consider all lives important, military or not (or even American or not, most of those that died in the attack were actually Chinese).

And no, I do not look down on those who did not serve. What I do look down upon however is those that use their petty partisan politics as some kind of thing that gives them the right to twist things around however they like to justify their beliefs. And that includes falsification, ignoring facts, or simply making things up wholesale.

In short, you do not like the fact that the US was attacked prior to 1941 and simply ignored it for the idea of "Peace in our time". Also that I do not even list that as the start of WWII, but the Abyssinian War in 1935. From that point until 1939 (or 1941) we were already in a "World War", people simply ignored it at the time (and far to many ignore it now).

I bet you even believe Obama wiretapped Trump, don't you?

Yea, perfect example of the partisan politics I mentioned earlier. Here is a perfect example, why even bring this up, if not for some kind of attack?

Sorry, double failure here. For one, I did not even vote for Trump (I actually did a write-in for a different Democrat).

And although it is not important in this thread, I do believe that President Trump was wiretapped. However, I also know that everybody is wiretapped, it simply having to do with the way all modern communication (even voice over POTS) is converted to TCP/IP packets, and that the NSA has been mining those for a decade or more. But that is largely a non-issue to me, I am not one of those hyper-paranoid individuals who thinks the "Gubment" is hiding behind every tree watching what I am doing.

Yea, what you have been saying has become increasingly evasive and aggressive, and more about trying to beat me into agreeing with you than to simply recognize history. Myself, I do not care less what you believe, but your challenges to produce proof (while giving none of your own) was annoying. And if you knew about the military and civilian ships, why not say so? Not scream I was wrong then attack again when I validate what I say.

I am ignored, fine. But excuse me as I chuckle about your claims I am a "Right-Wing Conservative-Authoritarian Military-Imperialist Ultra-Nationalist", since almost everything I am is the exact opposite of that.
 
Were the Jewish refugees bombing places in the US like what the anarchists were doing? For you to equate them on the same level is not only misleading but ignorant as well.

*sigh*

Who said they were?

More important, are you saying we should have in place a system to classify people based upon religion? That we should include or exclude groups, based upon their faith?

I for one do not. So unless you are thinking we should do such a thing, I fail to see the point of your statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom