Japanese American internment during WWII was actually a good thing? (conquer, battle)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Japanese deserved everything they got and more IMO.
Don
We're not talking about "the Japanese". We're talking primarily about United States citizens who have the same right to liberty and due process of law that you have.
"pretty much non-existent" ? is this the same I guarantee it with my life and lives of my family? Pretty much non-existent is not the shame as impossible, isn't it? Do you really think you can base policies and planning of national security on "pretty much"? C'mon now. Be serious.
I am being 100% serious and will directly say it. There was zero chance either Germany or Japan was going to invade and conquer the United States. Even if there was a better than zero chance of it happening locking away 120,000 or so American women and children in camps wasn't going to prevent it from happening.
Quote:
I am not convinced it was a mistake. It was something that had to be done for the national security perspective.
Look at the facts, you can clearly see that it wasn't a simple act of rounding up "those damn Japs" across the country but rather a well targeted effort to contain a specific threat in a specific territory.
Provide one scrap of evidence that there was a known specific threat that would justify stripping 120,000 Americans of their basic rights. In fact, the Supreme Court in 1944 said that it was illegal and the practice of interning American citizens was finally halted.
Quote:
Just politics and fighting for Japanese-American votes. Yes, from the perspective of 70 years it seems that the internment was not necessary. Hindsight 20/20 anyone?
Yes, because when one wants to win an election that critical "Japanese American" vote is what swings it. Reagan signed the legislation officially condemning the act and authorized the payment of reparations at the tail end of his Presidency. He was one of the foremost advocates to right that wrong. He had nothing to gain by doing it.
Quote:
That's a serious accusation and without any supporting evidence it simply looks like mudslinging.
The evidence was provided earlier in the thread via several quotes from leading businessman and politicians at the time. The basic sentiment was "the West Coast is for the white man".
Quote:
Don't be ridiculous. For one thing, America has never experienced a threat as serious as in 1941.
Hey, you're the one who said that "all wars involve internment" as if such a statement justified the action. Are you now saying that you are ridiculous?
Quote:
Hawaii was subjected to martial law, curfews etc. There was no way to implement these measures on the entire west coast.
Except those measures were instituted on the West Coast. The West Coast lived under curfews, blackouts and other restrictions. Martial Law was not declared and that is actually one of the reasons cited by a Federal Judge in 1943 as to why internment was illegal. Hawaii was a territory, not a state and placed under military governorship. Even then, the martial law while heavily enforced initially, was gradually pulled back to near non-existent by 1943 and repealed entirely in 1944.
Quote:
At the time of war business interest commingle with military interests. Like i i said different measures were taken in Hawaii, measure that would not e possible on the west coast which had a much higher concentration of Japanese Americans than the West Coast, hence no action on the East Coast: Japanese there did not pose a threat as serious as on the West Coast. There was only a few thousands of them there compare to some 120,000 on the West Coast. As you can see the internment wasn't designed to be a punishment, it was applied wherever the threat of Japanese Fifth Column was serious.
First, as pointed out above restrictions were certianly placed on the West Coast. Second, I'm not sure what you are getting at with the bolded sentence. I get the more on the West Coast vs. East Coast (though there were restrictions placed on Japanese Americans on the East Coast, it simply did not involve internment). If you were implying that the West Coast had more Japanese than Hawaii, you would be incorrect. There were about 120,000 or so Japanese living on the West Coast and around 150,000 in Hawaii. In Hawaii they were a third of the population. Again, provide evidence that there was a "serious threat" of a fifth column.
Quote:
I believe German Americans were much easier to control and infiltrate than the Japanese.
I know there were subjected to widespread prejudice. I know people who changed last names when they sounded too German.
Oh well, if you believe it than it must be true. I just want you ro reconcile why actual actions by Germans were not responded to in anyway against all Germans while a remote perceived threat led all Japanese into camps.
Quote:
Very simply. Just at Iwo Jima alone 12,000 American service man perished. How many Japanese- Americans dies in internment camps? How many of the soldiers would trade trenches of Asia for barracks back in the states?
This is an obscene example. The fact that Japanese Americans also served and died in combat undermines the entire premise. The Japanese Americans were not safely huddling in their barracks away from the ravages of war. Let's make the real comparison...
Person A is from Ohio and of Irish descent. His parents own a small farm. He has 3 younger siblings at home that are not old enough to serve. WW2 breaks out. Person A is drafted to fight and is assigned to a Marine unit in the Pacific. His family stays on their farm, keeps going to church and the kids keep going to their school. They worry about Person A and how the war is going. Person A is killed in battle, making the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
Person B is from California and of Japanese descent. His parents own a small farm. He has 3 younger siblings at home that are not old enough to serve. WW2 breaks out. Person B and his entire family are immediately placed under restrictions. They are told they are being relocated out of the West Coast exclusion zone and they have one week to prepare. They are told they can only take limited personal possessions with them. They are also advised to sell their land immediately as they may never be allowed back. Person B goes with his father to sell their land for .10 cents on the dollar to a local small time white farmer. The State is underwriting the loans so the white farmer can buy the land. The entire family is then placed on a train and sent to Utah. They are assigned a barracks with a dozen other families and assigned work details. They are watched constantly by armed guards and are not allowed to leave the camp. One day Person B is told that he can now volunteer to serve if he wants. He volunteers to serve and is assigned to an Army unit in Europe, leaving behind his family in a camp. Person B is killed in battle making the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
That's the comparison. How many of those soldiers in the trenches would have volunteered to be there after their families were stripped of their rights and everything they owned and tossed in a camp?
Quote:
Are you actually saying that there was never such a threat? Do you think that after victory in europe, Africa and Asia the Axis powers would simply leave the US alone? You are absolutely sure, that Germans could not have developed the atom bomb before the US? Hindsight 20/20 sometimes resembles total blindness..
Just as I said earlier, there was no threat of invasion of the mainland US by either power. As for Germany's ability to build a nuclear bomb, they lacked the raw material and infrastructure to do so. I also fully believe and there is ample evidence to prove that neither Germany nor Japan really possessed the ability to achieve victory in the war. Hell, the entire war in Europe was pretty much decided before the US put troops on the continent.
Quote:
Source please.
In 1940 there were 126,947 American citizens of Japanese descent who were eligible to serve beginning in 1943. 14,000 of them served in the armed forces of the US during the war. That is around 11% of the population of American citizens of Japanese descent who served. There were 132 million other Americans in 1940. 16 million of them served during the war in varying capacities. That is around 12% of the entire population that was in the armed forces. If you want the source, just google the 1940 census.
As for drafting versus volunteering, voluntary enlistment was halted in 1942 and everyone from that point forward was drafted, except for Japanese Americans. They were not eligible for the draft and when it was agreed to let them serve, it was only done on a volunteer basis. Only around 2 million of the other 16 million who served in the war volunteered for service. It is one of the better myths of WW2 that people volunteered in droves. It is not that people were afraid or unwilling to fight, it is just that the draft was needed to ensure the manpower needs were met.
Quote:
I don't know. You are making a claim that japanese Americans were well represented in the war effort while I know their number to be 12,000-14,000 tops, so you tell me how many Japanese Americans were storming Iwo Jima?
None stormed Iwo Jima as Americans of Japanese descent were not allowed to serve in the Pacific with the exception of men assigned to work in Military Intelligence. They did however serve in Italy, France and Germany where units such as the 442nd Regimental Combat Team served with extreme valor and distinction. The 442nd remains, for time in service, the most highly decorated unit in American military history. If you have ever studied WW2 then you probably know the story of the "Lost Batallion". The 442nd was the unit that rescued the "Lost Batallion" and did so with extreme valor despite suffering heavy casualties.
This painting hanging in the Pentagon depicts their heroism:
Your insistence on questioning the loyalty and sacrifice these men made while their families were locked in an internment camp is frankly disgusting.
Quote:
What evidence? You sound like before any evidence you already knew that the internment was "bad" because it was unethical. All your evidence is your conviction that it was done out of prejudice forgetting for instance that 1/4 of the interned Japanese Americans answered "no" when asked if they feel loyal to the US or the incidents were Japanese pilots were helped by the local Japanese Americans.
Go back and read the thread.
As for your statement about loyalty, please provide a source or the name of the source for such a statment. This quote is taken from the Munson report which was commissioned by FDR to evaluate the loyalty of Americans of Japanese descent:
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Curtis Munson, a special representative of the State Department, to carry out an investigation on the loyalty of Japanese-Americans. On November 7, 1941, he issued his report. He categorized the Japanese- Americans by age. According to Yu (1997, April 6), the Munson report stated, "The Issei, or first generation, is considerably weakened in their loyalty to Japan by the fact that they have chosen to make this thier home and to bring up their children here." The report section in the Issei also ,said that the older people were afraid of being put into a concentration camp, and that most would apply for American citizenship if allowed. The Nisei were the second-generation Japanese who had recieved their entire education in the United States. "They are universally estimated to be 90 to 98 percent loyal if the Japanese-educated element of the Kibei is excluded. The Nisei are pathetically eager to show their loyalty. They are not Japanese in culture. They are foreigners to Japan," the report summed up about the Nisei. The Kibei was an important division of the Nisei. These were American- born Japanese who had been partially or completely educated in Japan. This group was considered the most dangerous of the Japanese- Americans. Toward the end of the report, Munson said there was "far more danger from communists... on the coast then there is from Japanese."
That's from FRD's own commissioned study. What "survey" are you talking about?
Quote:
Many of your arguments are simply "misguided". You feel that the internment was based on prejudice and as an argument you point out that only the West Coast Japanese American were subjected to internment, forgetting that the West Coast had the highest concentration of Japanese Americans (95% of total) and that the Pacific Coast had a potential to become a war theater. How about looking on that fact from the military perspective? Where would the Japanese American pose a larger threat? On the West or East Coast? You are surprised that the Japanese were not interned in Hawaii (only 1,200 were) while the entire Hawaii was subjected to harsh martial law rule, curfews and blackouts.
Many of your arguments are simply born out of ignorance. For instance, the West Coast had nowhere near the concentration of Americans of Japanese descent. They had less than half. The majority and highest local concentration was in Hawaii where over 150,000 lived, comprisong a third of the population. Additionally, the Pacific Coast had no real chance of becoming a war theater. The bit about Hawaii I already answered and the same was applied to the West Coast as well with the exception of martial law. The West Coast was under blackouts, curfews, restrictions on large events, etc. throughout the war.
Quote:
Yes, you can accuse Teddy Roosevelt of racism, prejudice and what not but why don't you for just one second think about a grave danger and responsibility that lied on US government during 1941. Would you rather have them taken the "Carter attitude" and not do anything at all?
Well, Teddy Roosevelt had been dead for about 32 years at the time. No one was accusing him of anything. I also did not accuse FDR of anything. The only people I accused were the local businessman and politicians, who were very outspoken with their racism, of lobbying to have the internment put in place. In General DeWitt they found a willing accomplice as he was equally as racist based on his own writings and reports. FDR had bigger fish to fry and he supported the actions as part of the larger war effort because it is what DeWitt claimed was necessary. FDR never specifically decided on a policy of internment. The differences in the local commanders and communities attitudes is what ultimately shaped how Executive Order 9066 and those that followed were carried out. By 1943 the case had reached the Supreme Court and they handed down a decision in January 1944 that outright stated that the internment of American citizens was illegal.
If you can't come up with something to support your argument we don't have anything more to discuss on this topic.
I think what our country did by locking up those japanese americans was in essence the same thing that the germans did to the jewish race . How could we rightly detest the germans for doing the same thing we did to the japanese . This has always surprised me . My husband has some stationary with a little drawing of a japaneese man and it says something about nips . I think that is what the japanese race was called during the 1940's and then we intern them and expect them to work in the fields as hired hands and they were not paid to my understanding . I think that is a disgraceful period of our history .
I think what our country did by locking up those japanese americans was in essence the same thing that the germans did to the jewish race . How could we rightly detest the germans for doing the same thing we did to the japanese .
We did the same to the Japanese as Germans did to Jews? Really? are you saying we murdered a few millions of Japanese on American soil? Where? When? How?
We did the same to the Japanese as Germans did to Jews? Really? are you saying we murdered a few millions of Japanese on American soil? Where? When? How?
Just because we didn't murder millions of Japanese on American soil, doesn't mean internment camps was justified because internment camp was based on racial prejudice and discrimination.
National security is just an excuse.
History is base on facts, not opinions.
Plus, Japanese on American soil is not the same as Japanese-American citizens. Japanese-American citizens during world war II are no different from other American citizens. They shouldn't have been singled out simply because they "look like the enemies." Their loyalty to the country was questions? Why? Based on what?
Just because we didn't murder millions of Japanese on American soil, doesn't mean internment camps was justified because internment camp was based on racial prejudice and discrimination.
Your response doesnt make any sense. I simply pointed out that putting and equal sign between Nazi treatment of Jews (some of them German citizens at the time) and American treatment of the Japanese is simply absurd. There were few millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis, how many japanese Americans were murdered in the U.S.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
National security is just an excuse.
National security is the highest priority taking precedence over any legal, humane or ethical objectives.
Your response doesnt make any sense. I simply pointed out that putting and equal sign between Nazi treatment of Jews (some of them German citizens at the time) and American treatment of the Japanese is simply absurd. There were few millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis, how many japanese Americans were murdered in the U.S.?
This I agree with. It is ridiculous to equate the Nazi treatment of Jews and other "undesirable" groups to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent. There are some very superficial similarities, but Nazi actions in the Holocaust evoke an image that is in no way is equal to what was experienced by the people in the American internment camps.
Quote:
National security is the highest priority taking precedence over any legal, humane or ethical objectives.
On that we will disagree and that is ultimately what I think our differing views on the issue stem from. Those who surrender liberty for security and all that.
Your response doesnt make any sense. I simply pointed out that putting and equal sign between Nazi treatment of Jews (some of them German citizens at the time) and American treatment of the Japanese is simply absurd. There were few millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis, how many japanese Americans were murdered in the U.S.?
National security is the highest priority taking precedence over any legal, humane or ethical objectives.
Well, I was not the one who said Japanese internment camp = Nazi concentration camp. Matter of fact, I have already expressed my views on major differences between concentration camp and internment camp several days and several pages ago.
Well, national security is the highest priority, Yes, I would agree with that.
Mind explain to me that why Japanese-Americans citizens were singled out?! How come any other citizens were not put in the camp? If national security is number one priority, which I do agree, then ALL citizens should have been treated exactly the same.
Why did they single out Japanese-American citizens? Care to explain to me why?
You keep on dodging my questions and I don't understand why
I asked you two very simple questions
A. Why did we single out Japanese-Americans citizens? Answer this question
B. How come Japanese-Americans citizens loyalty to the nation was questions? Based on what? Answer this question.
If you cannot provide answers for the above two questions, you can just continue with your circular arguments because none of your "conclusions" were based on facts. Sorry.
By the way, please leave the Nazi-concentration camp and Iwo Jima out of the discussion.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 01-15-2014 at 02:31 PM..
"On February 19th 1942 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Under the terms of the Order, some 120,000 people of Japanese descent living in the US were removed from their homes and placed in internment camps. The US justified their action by claiming that there was a danger of those of Japanese descent spying for the Japanese. However more than two thirds of those interned were American citizens and half of them were children. None had ever shown disloyalty to the nation. In some cases family members were separated and put in different camps. During the entire war only ten people were convicted of spying for Japan and these were all Caucasian."
Bold and red proves my point. If national security was number one reason of internment camps, then everybody on American soil should have been treated exactly the same.
Why ONLY Japanese-American citizens were singled out? Explain this to me, otherwise, there is no point to keep on "arguing."
Although I'd love to type a treatise in response to your misguided post I will unfortunately have to limit myself to responding to some of your claims, simply because of time constraints.
But first of all, let's keep in mind that there are two major issues concerning the internment. One is of purely humanitarian and legal nature and questions if the interment some 70,000 of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was constitutional and ethical.
The second is the issue of purpose, was the internment necessary form a military perspective, was it justified. I think it is really important to separate these two issues just to keep the discussion logically coherent and productive.
One more thing I wanted to bring to your attention is that, as you probably know, one of the biggest sins of any historian or history buff, is to take an event out of its historical context.
Having said that, let;s not forget that in December of 1941 there were many unknown faced by the US government. First of all, Germany and Axis powers were winning on all fronts, dominating entire European continent, including European part of Russia and Africa. Axis forces had not met an adversary who could even stop their advance. England was cut of from European continent and lingering on US support., Russia was not able to resist German forces which were within miles from Moscow. (The breakthrough battle of Stalingrad quite a few months away.) Axis powers were on target to or already dominated not just Europe but also Africa. Japanese army advancement in Asia seemed unstoppable. In short, its a grim picture for the U.S.. Allied forced were simply losing the war. To make it even more complicated American involvement in WWII didn't have many supporters domestically and there were even plenty of Nazi supporters in the US (and England as well), both of German and other ethnic origins. Let's add some 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry living in the US, 48,000 of them still Japanese nationals and it get's even more complex and serious.
To keep it in perspective, let's not forget that interning enemy nationals was a common wartime practice around the world and I don't think anybody would question why the Japanese, German or Italian nationals were interned during WWII. The question is whether the internment of some 68,000 American nationals of Japanese ancestry was justified. To answer that question we would have access to some of the WWII materials that are still classified. We would have to see FBI reports on attitudes among the Japanese diaspora in the US. I haven't so I can only assume that they were not positive and a decision what to do with such a threat had to be made. Let's not forget, this is December of 1941 so Japanese invasion on the West Coast of the U.S. hasn't been ruled out plus there were some incidents like Nihau, were Japanese locals were helping downed Japanese soldiers.
Taking all of the above in consideration, the grave global military situation and seemingly imminent Japanese invasion on the US and huge 120,000 Japanese diaspora in the US, it is obvious that something had to be done, to prevent insurgence of huge Japanese Fifth Column on the US West Coast. Internment seemed like the best option, without exposing the entire population to harsh military law which would be an alternative, introduce in Hawaii.
Your whole reasoning, NJGOAT, has some fatal logical flaws. For instance you expect military decision makers in 1941 to have the same knowledge as a historian studying documents from both sides sixty years later. Yes, Japanese invasion of the U.S couldn't have been ruled out in December of 1941 and seemed a clear and present danger to U.S. security.
You want to argue on emotions rather on cold assessment of situation, unfortunately the decision makers in 1941 had to take facts and not emotions into consideration.
Brief Overview of the World War II Enemy Alien Control Program
Immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 to authorize the United States to detain allegedly potentially dangerous enemy aliens. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies arrested thousands of suspected enemy aliens, mostly individuals of German, Italian, or Japanese ancestry, living throughout the United States.
The Department of Justice oversaw the processing of the cases and the internment program. Although many were released or paroled after hearings before a local alien enemy hearing board, for many the adversarial hearings resulted in internment that, in a few cases, lasted beyond the end of World War II. Of those interned, there was evidence that some had pro-Axis sympathies. Many others were interned based on weak evidence or unsubstantiated accusations of which they were never told or had little power to refute. Often families, including naturalized or American-born spouses and children, of those interned voluntarily joined them in internment.
Furthermore, on the basis of hemispheric security, the United States offered to intern allegedly dangerous enemy aliens living in Latin American countries and even recommended which enemy aliens should be interned. Over fifteen Latin American countries accepted the offer and eventually deported a total of over 6,600 individuals of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry, along with some of their families, to the U.S. for internment. Few, if any, of those deported received any sort of a hearing so many did not know the specific reasons for their deportation. Often these individuals were deported based on hearsay or for other political reasons.
By the end of the war, over 31,000 suspected enemy aliens and their families, including a few Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) internment camps and military facilities throughout the United States. Some of these internment locations included Sharp Park Detention Station, California; Kooskia Internment Camp, Idaho; Fort Missoula Internment Camp, Montana; Fort Stanton Internment Camp and Santa Fe Internment Camp in New Mexico; Ellis Island Detention Station, New York; Fort Lincoln Internment Camp, North Dakota; Fort Forrest, Tennessee; and Crystal City Internment Camp, Kenedy Detention Station, and Seagoville Detention Station in Texas.
Not all remained in internment for the entire war. The Department of Justice reviewed individual internee cases and granted parole to some of the internees. Several thousand internees chose to or were forced to repatriate to the country of their nationality, Italy, Germany or Japan. Some pursued legal means to fight for due process, avoid repatriation, and be released. With the end of the war, the government continued to repatriate some of the internees, but also began releasing those no longer deemed as dangerous. It took several years to dismantle the internment program. By 1948, the Department of Justice closed the last internment camp and released the remaining few internees.
Along with detainment and internment, the U.S. also implemented the Individual Exclusion Program under the authority of Executive Order 9066 to exclude individuals of German or Italian ancestry, including American citizens, from designated military zones. While the War Department considered thousands for exclusion, it only issued exclusion orders for several hundred individuals. Many enemy aliens living in military zones and elsewhere in America were subject to curfews and other restrictions on their conduct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I am being 100% serious and will directly say it. There was zero chance either Germany or Japan was going to invade and conquer the United States. Even if there was a better than zero chance of it happening locking away 120,000 or so American women and children in camps wasn't going to prevent it from happening.
Provide one scrap of evidence that there was a known specific threat that would justify stripping 120,000 Americans of their basic rights. In fact, the Supreme Court in 1944 said that it was illegal and the practice of interning American citizens was finally halted.
Yes, because when one wants to win an election that critical "Japanese American" vote is what swings it. Reagan signed the legislation officially condemning the act and authorized the payment of reparations at the tail end of his Presidency. He was one of the foremost advocates to right that wrong. He had nothing to gain by doing it.
The evidence was provided earlier in the thread via several quotes from leading busiessman and politicians at the time. The basic sentiment was "the West Coast is for the white man".
Hey, you're the one who said that "all wars involve internment" as if such a statement justified the action. Are you now saying that you are ridiculous?
Except those measures were instituted on the West Coast. The West Coast lived under curfews, blackouts and other restrictions. Martial Law was not declared and that is actually one of the reasons cited by a Federal Judge in 1943 as to why internment was illegal. Hawaii was a territory, not a state and placed under military governorship. Even then, the martial law while heavily enforced initially, was gradually pulled back to near non-existent by 1943 and repealed entirely in 1944.
First, as pointed out above restrictions were certianly placed on the West Coast. Second, I'm not sure what you are getting at with the bolded sentence. I get the more on the West Coast vs. East Coast (though there were restrictions placed on Japanese Americans on the East Coast, it simply did not involve internment). If you were implying that the West Coast had more Japanese than Hawaii, you would be incorrect. There were about 120,000 or so Japanese living on the West Coast and around 150,000 in Hawaii. In Hawaii they were a third of the population. Again, provide evidence that there was a "serious threat" of a fifth column.
Oh well, if you believe it than it must be true. I just want you ro reconcile why actual actions by Germans were not responded to in anyway against all Germans while a remote perceived threat led all Japanese into camps.
This is an obscene example. The fact that Japanese Americans also served and died in combat undermines the entire premise. The Japanese Americans were not safely huddling in their barracks away from the ravages of war. Let's make the real comparison...
Person A is from Ohio and of Irish descent. His parents own a small farm. He has 3 younger siblings at home that are not old enough to serve. WW2 breaks out. Person A is drafted to fight and is assigned to a Marine unit in the Pacific. His family stays on their farm, keeps going to church and the kids keep going to their school. They worry about Person A and how the war is going. Person A is killed in battle, making the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
Person B is from California and of Japanese descent. His parents own a small farm. He has 3 younger siblings at home that are not old enough to serve. WW2 breaks out. Person B and his entire family are immediately placed under restrictions. They are told they are being relocated out of the West Coast exclusion zone and they have one week to prepare. They are told they can only take limited personal possessions with them. They are also advised to sell their land immediately as they may never be allowed back. Person B goes with his father to sell their land for .10 cents on the dollar to a local small time white farmer. The State is underwriting the loans so the white farmer can buy the land. The entire family is then placed on a train and sent to Utah. They are assigned a barracks with a dozen other families and assigned work details. They are watched constantly by armed guards and are not allowed to leave the camp. One day Person B is told that he can now volunteer to serve if he wants. He volunteers to serve and is assigned to an Army unit in Europe, leaving behind his family in a camp. Person B is killed in battle making the ultimate sacrifice for his country.
That's the comparison. How many of those soldiers in the trenches would have volunteered to be there after their families were stripped of their rights and everything they owned and tossed in a camp?
Just as I said earlier, there was no threat of invasion of the mainland US by either power. As for Germany's ability to build a nuclear bomb, they lacked the raw material and infrastructure to do so. I also fully believe and there is ample evidence to prove that neither Germany nor Japan really possessed the ability to achieve victory in the war. Hell, the entire war in Europe was pretty much decided before the US put troops on the continent.
In 1940 there were 126,947 American citizens of Japanese descent who were eligible to serve beginning in 1943. 14,000 of them served in the armed forces of the US during the war. That is around 11% of the population of American citizens of Japanese descent who served. There were 132 million other Americans in 1940. 16 million of them served during the war in varying capacities. That is around 12% of the entire population that was in the armed forces. If you want the source, just google the 1940 census.
As for drafting versus volunteering, voluntary enlistment was halted in 1942 and everyone from that point forward was drafted, except for Japanese Americans. They were not eligible for the draft and when it was agreed to let them serve, it was only done on a volunteer basis. Only around 2 million of the other 16 million who served in the war volunteered for service. It is one of the better myths of WW2 that people volunteered in droves. It is not that people were afraid or unwilling to fight, it is just that the draft was needed to ensure the manpower needs were met.
None stormed Iwo Jima as Americans of Japanese descent were not allowed to serve in the Pacific with the exception of men assigned to work in Military Intelligence. They did however serve in Italy, France and Germany where units such as the 442nd Regimental Combat Team served with extreme valor and distinction. The 442nd remains, for time in service, the most highly decorated unit in American military history. If you have ever studied WW2 then you probably know the story of the "Lost Batallion". The 442nd was the unit that rescued the "Lost Batallion" and did so with extreme valor despite suffering heavy casualties.
This painting hanging in the Pentagon depicts their heroism:
Your insistence on questioning the loyalty and sacrifice these men made while their families were locked in an internment camp is frankly disgusting.
Go back and read the thread.
As for your statement about loyalty, please provide a source or the name of the source for such a statment. This quote is taken from the Munson report which was commissioned by FDR to evaluate the loyalty of Americans of Japanese descent:
That's from FRD's own commissioned study. What "survey" are you talking about?
Many of your arguments are simply born out of ignorance. For instance, the West Coast had nowhere near the concentration of Americans of Japanese descent. They had less than half. The majority and highest local concentration was in Hawaii where over 150,000 lived, comprisong a third of the population. Additionally, the Pacific Coast had no real chance of becoming a war theater. The bit about Hawaii I already answered and the same was applied to the West Coast as well with the exception of martial law. The West Coast was under blackouts, curfews, restrictions on large events, etc. throughout the war.
Well, Teddy Roosevelt had been dead for about 32 years at the time. No one was accusing him of anything. I also did not accuse FDR of anything. The only people I accused were the local businessman and politicians, who were very outspoken with their racism, of lobbying to have the internment put in place. In General DeWitt they found a willing accomplice as he was equally as racist based on his own writings and reports. FDR had bigger fish to fry and he supported the actions as part of the larger war effort because it is what DeWitt claimed was necessary. FDR never specifically decided on a policy of internment. The differences in the local commanders and communities attitudes is what ultimately shaped how Executive Order 9066 and those that followed were carried out. By 1943 the case had reached the Supreme Court and they handed down a decision in January 1944 that outright stated that the internment of American citizens was illegal.
If you can't come up with something to support your argument we don't have anything more to discuss on this topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come any other citizens were not put in the camp? If national security is number one priority, which I do agree, then ALL citizens should have been treated exactly the same.
