# Why were Japanese in WWII not "gooks" to the US troops? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 29, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913 "2014-11-29T21:42:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bromley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Bromley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bromley)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/1 "2014-11-29T21:42:20Z")
I’ve been whipping the Wiki _[Gook](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gook)_ article into shape. Seems to be pretty much there now, but the one glaring gap is why Japanese soldiers (and civilians, where encountered) were not called gooks by US forces in WWII. Or maybe they were and I’ve just not noticed it. Brief background - gook was in use well before the Korean War (or the brief post-WWII occupation). It was used by US troops whenever they were abroad shooting foreigners, sometimes interchangeably with _nigger_. So why were the Japanese different? Any ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/2 "2014-11-29T21:44:55Z")
Because we already had ‘Japs’ (short for ‘Japanese’) and ‘Nips’ (short for ‘Nipponese’). ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/3 "2014-11-29T22:49:05Z")
This exactly. There already were derogatory terms for Japanese so they didn’t need to generalize. ---
**Author:** ![Bromley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Bromley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bromley)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/4 "2014-11-29T23:05:24Z")
Cheers guys! ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/5 "2014-11-30T01:22:59Z")
As a WAG, I’d say that it was because we were fighting in WWII do defend “Gooks” from the Japanese. Gooks had already been put to use for any eastern Asian, particularly Philippinos. To characterize both sides in the war as Gooks would defeat the purpose of even mentioning them in any particular context. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/6 "2014-11-30T11:52:34Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > As a WAG, I’d say that it was because we were fighting in WWII do defend “Gooks” from the Japanese. Gooks had already been put to use for any eastern Asian, particularly Philippinos. To characterize both sides in the war as Gooks would defeat the purpose of even mentioning them in any particular context. No, we weren’t fighting the Japanese to save the rest of Asia. After Pearl Harbor, it was personal. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/7 "2014-11-30T14:56:28Z")
According to John Wayne in “The Fighting Seabees”, they were “Tojo’s bug-eyed monkeys”. Even though it’s a product of it’s time, that line still makes me cringe. ---
**Author:** ![vontsira](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/51bf81/32.png) [@vontsira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vontsira)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/8 "2014-11-30T15:25:27Z")
Interesting thread. I had hitherto imagined – “read it somewhere” – that “gook” was a Korean War coining. Per the Wiki link, very much not so: much older, and highly equal-opportunity – including, applied to the Italians in WW II. Has me wondering: maybe now and again, at times of disharmony between allies, US troops in WW II referred to us British folk, as “gooks”? (If so: what the heck, heat-of-the-moment, it’s only words…) ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/9 "2014-11-30T15:31:40Z")
No, the British were either “Brits” or “limeys”. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/10 "2014-11-30T15:49:28Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > No, we weren’t fighting the Japanese to save the rest of Asia. After Pearl Harbor, it was personal. It was to save the colonial empires of our treaty friends, the British, French and Dutch. Colonies where the real Gooks lived, in Malaya, Indochina, Burma, the East Indies. Which was why our entire Pacific fleet just happened to all be tied up in Pearl Harbor in order to enforce the blockade of Japan, long before it became “personal”, which of course the Japanese would not see as “personal”, would they? What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/11 "2014-11-30T16:49:11Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? The USA. But of course, by then, it was a lot more “personal” than just Pearl Harbor. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/12 "2014-11-30T17:20:05Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? A country that didn’t want to incur another quarter million casualties defeating an intractable enemy to whom surrender was shame and dishonor, despite the fact that in the end they couldn’t win. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/13 "2014-11-30T17:22:43Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? In the mathematics of retaliation, the response is not expected to be commensurate. Hanging is not an appropriate penalty for horse thieving, but it is what used to be commonly meted out. If you hit me in the nose, I may not necessarily infer that hitting you in the nose back will be sufficient to convince you to not ever hit me in the nose again, so I will break your kneecaps (especially if my name is de Bergerac). The pragmatics of retaliation compose a rather different picture, though. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/14 "2014-11-30T17:28:11Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > It was to save the colonial empires of our treaty friends, the British, French and Dutch. Colonies where the real Gooks lived, in Malaya, Indochina, Burma, the East Indies. Which was why our entire Pacific fleet just happened to all be tied up in Pearl Harbor in order to enforce the blockade of Japan, long before it became “personal”, which of course the Japanese would not see as “personal”, would they? > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? Yes, because the US did all it could to help Britain hold on to its Empire after WWII. 😕 If it was to help your European allies hold onto our Empires then it was possibly the most impotent act in the history of foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/15 "2014-11-30T17:31:39Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? Actually, [68 civilians were killed and 35 wounded](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#American_casualties_and_damages). Bombs fell on Honolulu too, which is a ways from Pearl Harbor. I saw a photo in the Bishop Museum of a crater just a block away from where my future apartment was in Makiki district of the city. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/16 "2014-11-30T17:43:40Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Yes, because the US did all it could to help Britain hold on to its Empire after WWII. 😕 > > If it was to help your European allies hold onto our Empires then it was possibly the most impotent act in the history of foreign policy. Helping foreign powers hold on to colonial holdings started after WW2. Not during it. ---
**Author:** ![wellanuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@wellanuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wellanuff)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/17 "2014-11-30T17:56:41Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > It was to save the colonial empires of our treaty friends, the British, French and Dutch. Colonies where the real Gooks lived, in Malaya, Indochina, Burma, the East Indies. Which was why our entire Pacific fleet just happened to all be tied up in Pearl Harbor in order to enforce the blockade of Japan, long before it became “personal”, which of course the Japanese would not see as “personal”, would they? > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? There is just all sorts of misinformation in the above. What makes you think we would go to war to save the colonial empires of the British, French, and Dutch when we did not go to war to save their home countries, the Dutch and French having been overrun by Germany in the spring of 1940 and Great Britain significantly imperiled thereafter? What is this blockade of Japan of which you speak? There was an embargo of oil and (I think) steel exports to Japan, and I believe a freezing of Japanese assets in the U.S., but none of that required the deployment of the U.S Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor. FDR moved the fleet to Pearl in May 1940 as a show of resolve/strength (against the advice of the navy) in the face of Japanese expansionism. If the U.S. did not possess the Philipines (located in a position to cut off shipping routes the Japanese would need to use in order to ship NEI oil to Northern Asia), I doubt the Japanese would have pre-emptively attacked the U.S., because I doubt the U.S. public would have supported going to war solely over an invasion of the Netherlands East Indies, etc. Before Pearl Harbor, our moves had been economic ones aimed at slowing down/crippling Japanese military aggression primarily through the denial of access to oil. An invasion of the NEI might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but considering all that went before it in Europe and Asia, I am not convinced that alone would have tipped the country into war. Whether the Japanese considered those economic moves "personal"or not would be immaterial to the decision making process at the time. Whether or not there were any civilian casualties in the attack on Pearl Harbor was also immaterial to what happened after. The idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done in retaliation for Pearl Harbor is just too simplistic to merit much discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/18 "2014-11-30T20:00:38Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > As a WAG, I’d say that it was because we were fighting in WWII do defend “Gooks” from the Japanese. Gooks had already been put to use for any eastern Asian, particularly Philippinos. To characterize both sides in the war as Gooks would defeat the purpose of even mentioning them in any particular context. Quite aside from your gross misinformation about WWII posted later on, I have two words for you: Vietnam and Korea. “Gook” was used to describe both the enemy and the side we were fighting for. I’d imagine the same occurred in the Philippines from 1899-1902. As a side note, the term “Japes” (“Japs” + “apes”) was coined by the Marines in WWII but it never really caught on. Cites: [Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War](http://books.google.com/books?id=6sqzi1rH-ccC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Japes+japanese+apes&source=bl&ots=cmMo9n0SU4&sig=g2SjzZYkC-Ch7tI900WB5AogD5E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xXR7VJXNK7OZsQSS5IKIBw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Japes%20japanese%20apes&f=false) [The American Experience in World War II: The United States transformed: The Lessons and Legacies of the Second World War: The American Experience in World War II (Vol 12)](http://books.google.com/books?id=G9v8842JxzQC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=Japes+japanese+apes&source=bl&ots=PdqvRMxT4m&sig=WMHlH0VXwVQzKCthXIu5Dvlc0jo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xXR7VJXNK7OZsQSS5IKIBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Japes%20japanese%20apes&f=false) ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/19 "2014-11-30T20:31:02Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > What country would nuke a quarter-million people in “personal” retaliation for an attack that didn’t kill a single civilian, thousands of miles from our shores? Hawaii was American territory already by that time. That makes it _not_ “thousands of miles from our shores”. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913/20 "2014-12-01T02:11:37Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > It was to save the colonial empires of our treaty friends, the British, French and Dutch. Colonies where the real Gooks lived, in Malaya, Indochina, Burma, the East Indies. Which was why our entire Pacific fleet just happened to all be tied up in Pearl Harbor in order to enforce the blockade of Japan I am absolutely fascinated to hear you explain how a fleet in Hawaii was enforcing a blockade of Japan. I am unaware that there WAS a blockade of Japan on December 6, 1941. But even if there was, how do you enforce a blockade from six thousand kilometres away? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-japanese-in-wwii-not-gooks-to-the-us-troops/705913.md?page=2)