Why wasn't anti-German sentiment in America as pronounced after WW II as after WW I?

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Anti-German sentiment in post-WW I America was raw enough that mobs burned German books, films, even the odd German-owned retail store. I do not know how widespread this practice was during that period, but some German families decided to Anglicize their surnames to escape possible retaliation.

That said, I don't remember reading anything of the sort in post WW II America, despite Germany having inflicted far more casualties on the U.S. than in WW I.

Since racism was alive and well in circa 1945 America, had the Nuremberg Trials served as an effective catharsis or what other mechanism might explain the incongruity? Could America have been in a more forgiving mood after WW II, having (dubiously) learned the lessons of WW I?

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Actually, anti-German sentiment may--or may not--have been as pronounced after WW II as in WW I, but I don't recall reading about widespread retaliation against German-Americans during this period. Not so after WW I.

[Polycarp]

There was a fair amount of anti-German sentiment after World War II. Growing up in the 1950s, when the boys played war, the enemy was not the Russians but the Germans, as they had heard their fathers talk about fighting.

But what moderated it was a strong sense that the German people themselves were guilty only of having let the Nazis take control -- that it was the Nazi leadership and their lackeys, which we'd tried and locked up if they weren't already dead, not the Germans themselves, who were responsible. Adenauer and later Brandt were regarded as a renascence of basically decent Germany returning to its proper place. The anti-Nazi pastors who were killed in the war were made much of.

[Sage Rat]

A random hypothesis would be that after the Great Depression finally being alleviated by the war, people were just too happy to have a car, food, and a job to be all that angry.

[Walloon]

According to the the 2000 U.S. Census, German Americans are the largest self-reported ethnic group in the United States, numbering almost 43 million. That's 1 in 6 Americans. (I grew up in America's most German city, Milwaukee, where it seemed half the white people had German surnames.)

Followed by Irish Americans (30.5 million) and African Americans (24.9 million).

[OttoDaFe]

Another factor, I think, was that the bloom was pretty well off the rose of the Soviet-US alliance by the time the war ended. Patton was hardly the only one who thought that our best course of action would be to join with what was left of the Wehrmacht and push the Godless Commies out of western Europe. This was balanced, of course, by the strong "war's over, bring 'em home!" sentiment.

Looking over some old newspapers my parents saved from around the time I was born (1947), my impression is that the US wanted to return to the relative isolation that followed WWI, but realized that its status as a superpower didn't allow that. Given the circumstances, a strong West Germany was seen as a bulwark against Communist aggression, so a less-vengeful attitude toward Germany (and Germans) was a logical consequence.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

Anti-German sentiment in post-WW I America was raw enough that mobs burned German books, films, even the odd German-owned retail store.

I knew about anti-German sentiment in the U.S. during WWI but wasn't aware there was a burst of it in postwar America. Do you have any good links dealing with this subject?

[Exapno Mapcase]

First, I think there was much less anti-German action after WWI than the OP suggests.

But what there was may be accounted for by the fact that most Germans in America were highly supportive of the Kaiser until the U.S. itself entered the war, and even afterward. The German community was one of the first major non-British ethnic groups but were much more recently and less assimilatedly immigrant at the time. While the U.S. was officially neutral for the first three years of the war, there were loud pro-English and pro-German factions. German atrocities were propagandized by the British, even if many of them had to be totally made up. By the time the Germans became the enemy they seemed like traitors and monsters.

There was also the odd but overlapping issue that Germans were heavily on the wet side of the temperance controversy - their stereotype as brewers wasn't undeserved - and that put them at odds with the predominantly dry American heartland protestants.

By contrast, Germans were overshadowed by later ethnic immigrants by the time WWII rolled around and pro-Nazi sentiment was much less pronounced. The false propaganda against the Huns also made it much harder for anyone to believe the Nazi atrocities. The U.S. also conveniently had the Japs to bear the brunt of racist hatred rather than Germans who looked too much like everybody else.

WWI was pre-modern, and WWII was modern. That quarter-century made an amazing difference in history.

[DrDeth]

The type of Wartime propaganda seems to have been an influence. If you look at WWI Brit "anti-hun" propaganda, it demonized the Germans pretty bad.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

WW2-era war brides also may have had an effect.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

I knew about anti-German sentiment in the U.S. during WWI but wasn't aware there was a burst of it in postwar America. Do you have any good links dealing with this subject?

That's a valid distinction, although I've read of a post-WW I spillover.

Interesting passage from Wikipedia, which addresses wartime sentiment:

"Upon the outbreak of World War I, anti-German sentiment quickly reached a fever pitch. Many Germans supported their (former) homeland's side in the war, in which America long remained officially neutral. The portrayal of Germany as "The Hun" in British pro-war propaganda inflamed existing tensions. The situation came to a crisis with America's entry into the war in 1917. The period from 1917 to 1919 is regarded as the time when German-American ethnic identity came to an end. Anti-German rioting was widespread. Most German-language periodicals, which had numbered in the hundreds, ceased operation (many were destroyed). However, there are cases of towns where the residents spoke German on a daily basis and the local newspaper was in German at least as late as the 1950s. These towns were primarily in the Midwestern region of the United States. Many German-Americans translated their names or altered them to resemble English names (a trend which had begun in the 19th century, eg. Gustave Whitehead). By the time the US troops returned from Europe, the German community had ceased to be a major force in American culture, or was no more perceived as German (see Groucho Marx).

Today, many argue that the Germans are the one ethnic group that has been assimilated into American society. Largely for this reason, although some persecution of ethnic Germans did occur during World War II, it was not widespread. Most of the German-American population no longer identified themselves as German, nor were they identified with the Nazis in the popular mind. Despite this, the US government interned as dangerous nearly 11,000 persons of German ancestry. Only enemy aliens were supposed to be interned, but family members, many of them American citizens, often joined them in the camps."


Mods: I hope that passage isn't too long.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

Mods: I hope that passage isn't too long.

I'm not a mod, obviously, but Wikipedia contents aren't copy-protected, so I think you can post long extracts.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

First, I think there was much less anti-German action after WWI than the OP suggests.

But what there was may be accounted for by the fact that most Germans in America were highly supportive of the Kaiser until the U.S. itself entered the war, and even afterward. The German community was one of the first major non-British ethnic groups but were much more recently and less assimilatedly immigrant at the time. While the U.S. was officially neutral for the first three years of the war, there were loud pro-English and pro-German factions. German atrocities were propagandized by the British, even if many of them had to be totally made up. By the time the Germans became the enemy they seemed like traitors and monsters.

There was also the odd but overlapping issue that Germans were heavily on the wet side of the temperance controversy - their stereotype as brewers wasn't undeserved - and that put them at odds with the predominantly dry American heartland protestants.

By contrast, Germans were overshadowed by later ethnic immigrants by the time WWII rolled around and pro-Nazi sentiment was much less pronounced. The false propaganda against the Huns also made it much harder for anyone to believe the Nazi atrocities. The U.S. also conveniently had the Japs to bear the brunt of racist hatred rather than Germans who looked too much like everybody else.

WWI was pre-modern, and WWII was modern. That quarter-century made an amazing difference in history.

I agree with this. In 1917, Germans were considered to be strange, ethnic, recent immigrants. Many still spoke German. They had direct ties to the Old Country. They were Catholic or Lutheran, rather than Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist. They drank lots of beer, in bars and beer gardens where they associated with other Germans.

All of this was outside the mainstream, and somewhat threatening, in 1917.

In 1941, not so much.

[Wendell Wagner]

It wasn't so much that German-Americans were considered strange recent immigrants during World War I. They weren't recent, since largely they had arrived by the middle nineteenth century. They weren't rare. Already by World War I Germans were the largest ethnic group in the U.S. It was more that they were often considered unassimilated. Before World War I, it was much more common for *all* ethnic groups to remain largely unassimilated. It was much more common to have neighborhoods and towns with heavy concentrations of one ethnic group. It was much more common for them to keep to themselves and run their own social events. It was much more common to speak their own language at home.

A lot of Irish-Americans were also reluctant for the U.S. to get into World War I. In those days, before Irish independence, many of them didn't like the idea of getting into a war where we were defending the British. Since the Irish were and are the second largest ethnic group in the U.S., this means that there were a lot of Americans who didn't want the U.S. to get into the war.

There was a little bit of resentment of German-Americans during World War II too. Roosevelt went out of his way to see that many high-level American officers were of German descent, and this may be part of why Eisenhower was the highest-ranking general. On a lower level, my father (whose name, like mine, is Wendell Wagner) told me that in World War II his Marine buddies nicknamed him "Von." This sort of pseudo-funny, heavy-handed ethnic joshing was apparently typical in World War II.

[flurb]

Didn't a lot of this sentiment just get focused on the Japanese?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

It wasn't so much that German-Americans were considered strange recent immigrants during World War I. They weren't recent, since largely they had arrived by the middle nineteenth century.

This is not true. Peak German immigration was between 1870 and 1900. Although there were Germans who immigrated before 1850, their numbers were far exceeded by those who came after that date.


Cite: http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/KADE/adams/chap1.html (see the bar chart)

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

Roosevelt went out of his way to see that many high-level American officers were of German descent,

Why did he do that?

-FrL-

[Wendell Wagner]

Frylock: Because he wanted to convince German-Americans that this was their war too. He didn't want them to think that the armed forces were lead strictly by Americans of English ancestry.

Random: You're exaggerating when you say "far exceeded." There were two peaks in German immigration, one in 1854 and one in 1882. There were 220,000 arriving in 1854 and 250,000 arriving in 1882.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

Frylock: Because he wanted to convince German-Americans that this was their war too. He didn't want them to think that the armed forces were lead strictly by Americans of English ancestry.

Was there a cynical and mean sounding realpolitik-al reason for him to want to do this, or was he just being cool?

(I know its a false dichotomy, of course... )

-FrL-

[Musicat]

With regards to Brave New World, or was it 1984? -- I get those mixed up -- we only need one group to hate at one time, and as flurb suggests, in 1945, the Japanese were the Hate Du Jour.

[Loach]

The anti-German sentiment during WWI may stem from a larger ammount of sabotage which occurred on American soil caused by German agents. For instance the explosion of the Black Tom munitions factory.

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by Random

I agree with this. In 1917, Germans were considered to be strange, ethnic, recent immigrants.

Were they? German immigration peaked 35 years before the U.S. entered World War I. In the 19th century, German immigrants were elected the governors of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

[David Simmons]

After WWI the AEF just came home. After WWII the USA stayed in Germany as an occupation force for several years until the West German government got on its feet.

This gave people a chance to get better acquainted with individual Germans and discover that most of them were pretty much ordinary people.

The disturbing thing is that ordinary people could support a regime like the Nazis, although subsequent research has demonstrated that all of us are pretty much like that under the wrong circumstances.

I do think the close association with Germans by US army troops was a big factor. I don't believe there were many post WWI German war brides, if any.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Walloon

Were they? German immigration peaked 35 years before the U.S. entered World War I. In the 19th century, German immigrants were elected the governors of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

As I said, there were some (in raw numbers, quite a few) German immigrants earlier than the peak years. Hell, there were Germans here before the Revolution. Some were certainly assimilated, and the more recent immigrants provided an important voting bloc in some states.

But it is flat out wrong to say, as someone did here, that they had ''largely arrived by the mid-19th century" As my graph shows, the massive waves of immigration were post-civil war, and peaked later. Relatively little immigration took place before 1860.

In 1914, most people of German descent in the US would have been first or second generation. As others have said, at that time, German enclaves spoke German, published German newpapers, belonged to German organizations, and drank beer. They had identifiable ties to the Old Country. All of this was outside the mainstream, and easy to demonize. It is no coincidence that these massive numbers of immigrants coincided with increasing political movements to impose prohibition.

By 1939, much more assimilation had taken place. Ironically, part of the reason for this was the anti-German feeling we are discussing. Germans changed their names, stopped speaking German, and their organizations (as a rule) adopted a lower profile. They were much less scary and new in 1939.

[Si Amigo]

Originally Posted by David Simmons

After WWI the AEF just came home. After WWII the USA stayed in Germany as an occupation force for several years until the West German government got on its feet.

This gave people a chance to get better acquainted with individual Germans and discover that most of them were pretty much ordinary people.

The disturbing thing is that ordinary people could support a regime like the Nazis, although subsequent research has demonstrated that all of us are pretty much like that under the wrong circumstances.

I do think the close association with Germans by US army troops was a big factor. I don't believe there were many post WWI German war brides, if any.

I think David's got it. Add to that the fact of the Russians were oppressing East Germany big time while we were busy rebuilding West Germany. It turned our hatrid away from the Germans and toward the new bad guy.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

That's a valid distinction, although I've read of a post-WW I spillover.

The post-World War I spillover might more accurately be described as anti-radical and anti-immigrant, rather than anti-German. Demonization of Germans faded quickly after the armistice, because reds and radicals represented a more immediate threat.

Radicals really were a threat in war-ravaged Europe; Communists took over Russia and for a time in 1919 appeared poised to win Hungary and Germany as well. In the US they were paper tigers, but a few over-hyped bomb scares and a lot of labor unrest (caused by postwar inflation and unemployment) fueled the 1919-20 "Red Scare", in which thousands of mostly eastern European aliens were arrested without trial and deported.

Anti-immigrant sentiment continued into the 1920's, which saw the revival of the Klan, the repeal of voting rights for non-citizens, and the drastic reduction in immigration via the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Tyrrell McAllister

I'm not a mod, obviously, but Wikipedia contents aren't copy-protected, so I think you can post long extracts.

They are copyrighted to the author(s) just the same as SDMB posts are, or Cecil's articles. (Copy-protection refers to various software schemes of varying degrees of brokenness companies try to use to restrict copying to the kind of copying they like, frequently in violation of fair use provisions of copyright law. Some things touted as copy-protection schemes, such as DVD encryption, do nothing whatsoever to hinder copying.) However, they are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), the text of which is here. A few contributors have explicitly released their contributions under other (more permissive) licenses or even released them into the public domain, but the GFDL applies by default.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Musicat

With regards to Brave New World, or was it 1984? -- I get those mixed up -- we only need one group to hate at one time, and as flurb suggests, in 1945, the Japanese were the Hate Du Jour.

Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's been a while since I read Brave New World, but I don't remember any war going on there; whereas in the other, Eurasia was permanently going at it with either Eastasia or Oceania, but never both.

[anson2995]

Originally Posted by David Simmons

After WWI the AEF just came home. After WWII the USA stayed in Germany as an occupation force for several years until the West German government got on its feet.

We're not an occupying force anymore, but fifty-one years later there is still a major presence in both Germany (75,000 troops) and Japan (45,000). We still have roughly 40,000 in South Korea.

[Wendell Wagner]

Random writes:

> But it is flat out wrong to say, as someone did here, that they had ''largely
> arrived by the mid-19th century" As my graph shows, the massive waves of
> immigration were post-civil war, and peaked later. Relatively little immigration
> took place before 1860.

Now you're the one who's exaggerating. There were two peaks, one in 1854 (221,253) and one in 1882 (250,630). It's certainly not true that "relatively little" immigration took place before 1860." There's no way to tell from the few statistics given so far whether the total number of immigrants before 1860 was more or less than the total number of immigrants from 1860 to 1917. Germans began to migrate to the U.S. in significant numbers in 1709. The fact that one year in the period 1860 to 1917 was somewhat more than the highest year in the period 1709 to 1860 doesn't prove that the total number from 1860 to 1917 was higher than the total number from 1709 to 1860. Does anyone have the complete set of numbers of German immigrants from 1709 to 1917.

Frylock writes:

> Was there a cynical and mean sounding realpolitik-al reason for him to want to
> do this, or was he just being cool?

What point are you trying to make here? Do you think that Roosevelt gave press conferences while wearing a beret and sunglasses, sporting a soul patch, while jazz played in the background, where he announced that he had appointed some German-Americans to be generals because he thought they were really cool? I suppose that realpolitik might be an accurate description of his reasons. Roosevelt was a compromiser and not an ideologue. He tried to keep as many people sufficiently happy with his policies while he got as much of his agenda passed as was possible.

[Jake4]

The town where my parents live, Long Valley NJ, used to be called German Valley. Until WWI.

When WWII happened, the town was already called Long Valley, so there wasn't much else to do.

I started off kidding, but the more I think about it the more I think I might be on to something here. After the previous German backlash during/after WWI, what more could be done about Germans in general during/after WWII?

Plus, beating the snot out of somebody sort of takes the fun out of hating them. The Allies eventually drove zee Germans back to Berlin. We don't hate the Japanese any more (do we? auto makers aside). If we had taken out Osama bin Laden a month after 9/11 along w/the rest of the Taliban, would there be as much anti-Muslim sentiment as there is today?

We need a "Thinker" smiley.