DO japanese people have personalities

I

Can you provide references for this? The standard version is:

"President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with United States Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used forthwith to declare most of the Pacific coast as "Military Area Number One", and all people with Japanese ancestry were then declared "Excluded". However, residents of German and Italian descent were not excluded."

As far as I know, the main exceptions were, on the one hand, Japanese who signed up for the army (and even they could end up in a position where they were fighting for the United States while their family was interned) and, on the other, Germans and Italians who were caught behaving in a way that the Americans felt was a threat to the country.

Bottom line: Japanese-Americans were interned wholesale, whereas German- and Italian-Americans were interned only if and when they behaved treacherously.

I continued:

To which wwerewolf:

I doubt it, but in any case, brutality is not the issue, the issue is whether the Germans were given their head to reflect upon the evils of Nazism and rebuild their country as their conscience dictated (which in many ways they were) and whether Japan, by contrast, was moulded after the American image (which, again, in large part it was).

I've been in Japan for thirteen years and never seen a tank (Japanese or American or any other kind). Never seen one in infrequent visits to Germany either.

Frankly, if you'll believe that you'll believe anything.

Here's one link:

Huh! On a site that features such gems as hate-monger Gordon "Jack" Mohr, who insisted that Protocols of the Elders of Zion was genuine, when it is categorically proven to be a forgery?!

What credibility do you think that has?

Indeed there is. You are aware that its central thesis (that perhaps as many as a million German POWs died in captivity to the Allies) cannot be substantiated from any accepted sources and has been refuted by respectable historians the world over, including Germany?

James Braque's "non-fiction" contains fewer facts than his fictional works. What he did do was focus attention on an aspect of WWII history that had been little-researched and force a proper appraisal of it. The broad consensus of experts is that there was a germ of truth there, but that he exaggerated it so grossly that he is totally discredited, except in the eyes of the lunatic fringe (to which you appear to belong).

It was agreed that citizens of the Soviet Union on Allied soil would be repatriated. Many, if not most of them, had not only fought in the Axis forces but were also committed to the Nazi-fascist ideology. Tens of thousands of them were summarily shot by the Russians, in reprisal for the suffering they had endured at Axis hands during the war. The Allies didn't directly kill them, perhaps, but certainly connived at their liquidate. Not quite on a par with the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps, perhaps, but not very creditable behaviour.

But what bearing does this have on the discussion?