Here is an interesting article by Ch’oe Yong-ho and published in The Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. In his article he notes that not only were Japanese-Americans interned in Hawaiian camps as part of keeping America safe during World War II but Koreans and Italians as well. Many of these Korean POWs were forced laborers captured on the Pacific Islands where they had endured beatings and other abuses from the Japanese. In addition, there were three Korean university students who deserted from the Japanese military and became OSS operatives before being “reduced to POWs” by the Americans at the end of the war.
I especially like this description of the positive traits of the POWs:
“Italians who number 4,841 and the 2,607 Koreans are most easily managed and cleanest prisoners, the former because they were trained to be topnotch soldiers and the latter because of natural racial characteristics and their relief through the Allies from Japanese oppression.”
There were also three Koreans who Ch’oe describes as having been ”kidnapped” by an American submarine and brought back to Hawaii. Here is what Ch’oe says about the act:
“Long before North Korea’s kidnapping, the United States committed a similar act, equally outrageous and reprehensible. The American abduction of three Korean fishermen deserves no less condemnation by the American public. Though late, the United States Navy and the United States government should offer an official apology as well as appropriate compensation to the families of these fishermen. “
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
This is not a sentence that I would expect from Mr. Choe, seeing how it is oblivious to the differences in motivation between the U.S. and North Korea and the subsequent outcomes of those abducted by North Korea and those “kidnapped” by the U.S.
There are many colors used in painting a picture, and sniffing the fumes from one’s own paint will not change or fool the objective eye; it only befuddles the painter’s wits. Perhaps an open window is needed, in this case.
I want an apology from all these whingeing demanders of apologies like Choe, whose ethnic solidarity so consistently and depressingly overcomes their powers of critical reasoning.
Good golly. What a ricetard.
Wasn’t Korea annexed? If so, it didn’t exist. If it didn’t exist, then these ethnic Korean fishermen – and the ethnic Korean POWs and internees too – were Japanese, and as Japanese they were the enemy. (Sure, it’s a reasonable argument TODAY that Korea was “forcibly” annexed – is there another way to be annexed? – but in WWII such hindsight wasn’t there.)
Pretty sure the Japanese and their ethnic Korean lackeys imprisoned/interred non-combatant Americans in the lands under Japan’s control after 7 Dec 41. Those Americans weren’t fortunate enough to have strawberry jam to make booze.
Ah, this is true Seouldout. At that time Koreans were technically Japanese [second class] citizens.
… and Korean lackeys were particularly harsh on Allied prisoners of war.
But I’d also say that 98% of Koreans would much rather not have fought for the Japanese, hence the reason why the vast majority of them were used as laborers rather then fighters.
Whether they were 2nd, 3rd or 7th class citizens really doesn’t matter from the perspective of the US military of WWII. Bit of a stretch to compare them to unjustly imprisoned Japanese Americans.
Perhaps it was 98%. Perhaps it was lower than that. Uprisings by ethnic Korean soldiers against the Japanese overlords? Assistance given to imprisoned Allied POWs? Kamikaze planes flown into Japanese barracks?
Or nearly bugger all?
seouldout,
You seem like a brit or an aussie, right?
I imagine that you are familiar with British colonial history? Just because they had Irish and Indian troops fighting in other parts of the world, didn’t mean that Irish and Indians were supportive and even enthusiastic about being cogs in the British colonial system.
‘korea did not exist.’
really? you mean when britain occupied india, india did not exist? you mean when the us occupied japan, japan didn’t exist? listen, i know you need to get that dignity back that you think you lost in korea. i want to help you. you see, your mistake is thinking you had any dignity to begin with. see?
‘and the ethnic Korean POWs and internees too – were Japanese, and as Japanese they were the enemy. ‘
well, the us congress saw koreans as koreans. that’s they weren’t put into concentration camps. of course, they didn’t have a score to settle like you do.
is it any wonder that your average korean thinks the things he thinks about your average ET?
Pawi,
I hope Seouldout meant “did not exist” from a legal perspective…
Didn’t one of Jung-Rae Jo’s characters in Taebaek Mountains go through something similar?
Koreans during 1908~1945 were practically second class citizens of Japan. Koreans suffered more than average Japanese during the war because Koreans were getting suffered from Japanese citizens as well as U.S allies. After Japanazis left Korea in end of 1945, Korea was again colonized by Russia and U.S leaving the real Korean government who fled to China in jeopardy. Kim Gu, original president of Korea was assassinated by Pro-US/Japan illegal govt of South Korea while Kim Il Seung at North was getting fresh arms from Soviets. U.S ally and Soviets should have divided Japan not Korea.
“didn’t mean that Irish and Indians were supportive and even enthusiastic about being cogs in the British colonial system”
also didn’t mean that the axis powers didn’t put the irish, indian, and other colonial troops in the POW clink. You think they said, oh you poor opressed dears, we know you don’t really like the British so here’s a bus pass for the next coach out of here.
‘I hope Seouldout meant “did not exist” from a legal perspective…’
he’s some ugly white guy married to a korean lady. now that he’s revealed that, i plan to ignore him. just another shakee.
Re India. A mixed history. Parts were in the dominion, i.e. British India, which were annexed and ruled by the India Office. This was the British Indian Empire, and it annexed territory, such as northern Burma. Other territory remained princely states, having domestic autonomy, but Britain retaining paramountcy. See map. Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India, and as the title states India remained in existence, albeit under British rule. The history of Britain’s governance of India is quite complex, and I have only provided a very general overview.
BTW, there were two armies in British India. The British Army in India, deployed from the UK. The Indian Army, a.k.a., the British Indian Army, recruited from the “martial races,” particularly Rajputs, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pashtuns, Garhwalis, Mohyals, Dogras, Jats and Balochis. During WWII the Indian Army rose to 2.5 million men in size, becoming the largest all-volunteer force in history.
At partition the princely states decided their fates. Some went with Pakistan and most chose India. A few, such as Hyderabad, tried to remain independent, and they were annexed by India.
The US did not annex Japan. And Truman was not crowned Emperor of Japan.
But the “rules” of annexation had changed greatly after WWII with the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Given the US was the main force driving the creation of the UN and post-war conventions it is not surprising to see post-Imperial views attain dominance.
You must log in to post a comment.