Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Page clean up

I cleaned up this page. Someone had duplicated the page while adding comments. If I have mistakenly deleted a comment, you can find it on the last version before the clean-up. Please feel free to move it to the appropriate section on this page. --Ishu 07:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

There is obviously a lot of controversy over this subject. I'm not sure exactly which elements the tag at the top refers to, but it does nevertheless meet the B-class criteria for the most part, as far as I'm concerned. I am neither supporting nor rejecting the accusation that there may be factual issues, but overall, it's a thorough and well-put together piece. LordAmeth 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits by anonymous editor

I reverted ten edits by an unregistered editor. The substantive edits are described below.

• Also not usually noted was that German, Italian and other nationalities were also placed in areas away from "vital military zones". The executive order 9066 also noted that ethnic Japanese could first voluntarily leave west coast areas and find employment in other areas of the country not considered vital to the national interest. Many Nikkei and Issei attended college, worked on farms and owned business, away from these excluded zones.

This copy is too specific for the lead section, and redundant with discussions below. Please review the talk archives, as we have had extensive discussions about the lead section. We can open a new discussion about the lead section, but we are trying to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. With that in mind, it's not carved in stone, either.

• The evil connotation of the term, "concentration camp", would only be noted after the liberation of the Nazi death camps in 1945. Also noted the Nazis did not allow outside employment or educational opportunities for their camp detenees.

This language, as worded, is borderline POV, but also redundant with other copy in the article.

I disagree, as in briefs submitted by the appellant and amici curiae in Korematsu v. United States the term "concentration camp" was used.

• It is also of note that these assmebly centers were used to house GI's after the internees had been relocated to the more permanent camps.

We can add this statement if it can be referenced and validated. The current copy intentionally avoids almost all discussion of the conditions of the facilities for the time being until we can arrive at NPOV language.

• Habeus corpus was also suspended during this period of martial law.

My only objection to this statement is style, since I thought suspension of habeas corpus is implied by a state of martial law. If anyone feels strongly about this statement, we can put it back. A citation would be nice, too.

I apologize for the bad edit summary, which was created by a JS tool that I'm still learning. The main policy issue is citations, particularly on this article. I'll manually revert such edits in the future. Responses by anyone concerned are encouraged. --Ishu 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

An anonymous user tagged the article with WP:NPOV without comment (not counting the edit summary). All are encouraged to discuss these concerns here. --Ishu 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the WP:NPOV tag since there was no comment or explanation as to why this was added. sgsilver 02:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Concentration camp

The article says "While the term concentration camp was used by some government officials at the time, it is inappropriate due to its highly negative association with the Nazi concentration camps." This is clearly a POV claim. Yes, the association with Nazi concentration camps is undeniably negative, but why is that association inappropriate? I would argue, on the contrary, that it's entirely appropriate to make the comparison. In both cases, paranoid bigotry led to groups of people being denied their basic rights as citizens on the basis of race, and in both cases this was done by gathering those of the undesirable races together in heavily guarded prison camps. 71.203.209.0 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The comparison above is grossly simplistic. In one case, the detainees had access to due process of law, were provided basic needs of life, and--with limitations--were permitted to exit the detention facilities. In the other case, detainees were subject to summary execution, forced labor, systematic humiliation and mutilation, starvation, disease, etc. The term concentration camp is, for better or worse, strongly associated with the latter case. Given that, to apply the same term to both situations implies parallels that are inappropriate. Please also review the talk archives and you will see that some editors have protested the use of internment camp. In any event, the most commonly used term used in reference to this event is internment camp. --Ishu 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the actual Nazi camps, "concentration camp" and "death camp" were not the same thing. Only certain camps were actually used for execution of the prisoners. And the prisoners in the US camps did not have access to due process of law. The very concept of these camps (summary and indefinite imprisonment on an arbitrary basis) is antithetical to due process. 71.203.209.0 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon oversimplifies again. It is true that the Japanese Americans were detained without due process of law. However, detainees pursued redress in the courts, with at least four heard by the Supreme Court. The ultimate outcome of these cases (upholding the internment) is important, but so is the fact that they were allowed at all--a set of events unparalleled in Nazi Germany. However, even if we accept the flimsy argument that there's a meaningful distinction between the Nazi "death camps" and mere "concentration camps," (1) the most humane of these camps still featured a host of horrors that are unmatched in the U.S. camps; (2) untold thousands of Nazi prisoners were "shot dead" by guards and soldiers; (3) the pogroms outside of the extermination are of a scale and nature that is fundamentally different from the Internment. If we're going to make the comparison, we need to make a full comparison. --Ishu 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon does have a point in that the existing statement is not NPOV. Rewording it so that it makes clear that "internment camp" is the common term and "concentration camp" is not used because of whatever reasons (sourced, naturally), would remove the inherent POV that's there now. howcheng {chat} 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let's start our discussion with some definitions. One, from the Columbia Encyclopedia, specifically references the Nazi camps and the Japanese concentration camps in Manchuria. or Another, from the American Heritage Dictionary, is more general. The article already states that internment camp is the most common term. Perhaps we can change the language to something like this:

While the term concentration camp was used by some government officials at the time, the term internment camp is often used to make a clear distinction between the U.S. camps and the Nazi concentration camps."

--Ishu 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem that plagues both the current text and Ishu's proposed revision is that they incorrectly claim that the term "concentration camp" is no longer used. It's true that "internment camp" is the more common phrase, but some institutions (most notably the Japanese American National Museum) and writers deliberately use the term "concentration camp." See Mother Jones article from 1998 regarding the terminology debate. --Lawt 03:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

<------------undenting

The introductory clause "While the term concentration camp was used by some government officials at the time" is intended to acknowledge that concentration camp was actually used at the time it occurred. It's not clear to me how my proposed revision claims the term is no longer used. --Ishu 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to be more precise, the current phrasing implies that the term concentration camp is no longer used, both in its particular wording and in its omission of any present examples of sources that call the camps concentration camps. --Lawt 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to any compromise that will compare and contrast to provide the appropriate distinctions--and more importantly, to avoid the inevitable disputes both from the anti-redress camp and from Holocaust historians. --Ishu 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe most of the 442nd was recruited from the Japanese-American population living in Hawai'i and not the West Coast internees.

Of course the Japanese American National Musuem is going to refer to the Relocation Centers as "concentration camps". They're agenda based ethnic activists, not historians. These people want to mislead the American people into using the term "concentration camp" because they know it will generate an emotional knee-jerk reaction due to the term's association with the Nazis.

And that's just what the Japanese American Reperations activists want you to think, the American government was no better than the Nazis. Boo-Hoo!

Here's what the Supreme Court said regarding the use of the term "concentration camp".

"It is said that we are dealing with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp soley because of his ancestory, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice.

Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers - AND WE DEEM IT UNJUSTIFIABLE TO CALL THEM CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH ALL THE UGLY CONNOTATIONS THAT TERM IMPLIES - we are dealing with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case in outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. KOREMATSU WAS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE MILITARY AREA BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. HE WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE JAPANESE EMPIRE."

Supreme Court Decision, Korematsu vs. USA (323 US 214-248) October 1944

(Emphasis mine)

Yes Ishu, the historically correct terms is Relocation Center. The internment camps were a completely different program having nothing to do with the WRA. We've talked circles about this before, but I hope you realize graying the details between the internment program and the relocation program by referring to the relocation as "internment" is only going to confuse people. --History Student 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HS has only managed to correctly identify the point in time in which it was deemed politically expedient to change the terminology from Concentration Camp to Internment Camp or Relocation Camp. Prior to 1944 and the Supreme Court Korematsu ruling, "concentration camp" was the term used by the federal government, but the discovery of Nazi forced labour and extermination concentration camps (Arbeitslager and Vermichtungslager) and the rumours and descriptions of those concentration camps circulating in public discussion were the likely culprit's for History Student's empahsized USSC language. Prior to that time, concentration camp did not have "all the ugly connotations that term implies" and was the term applied to the camps--TMIndy (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

HS is incorrect in his belief "most of the 442nd was recruited from the Japanese-American population living in Hawai'i and not the West Coast internees." The 100th Battalion or "One Puka Puka" was formed from 1432 Japanese Americans in the 298th and 299th Regiments of the Hawaii National Guard Gor For Broke National Education Center and served in Italy and was decimated to 521 survivors while the 442nd was being formed and trained at Camp Shelby with recruits from the WRA Relocation Camps and HawaiiGlobalSecurity.org. 100th losses were replaced from the 1st Battalion 442nd and on June 15, 1944 the 100th became the 1st Battalion/442nd but kept the 100th designation in honor of their service in Italy.--TMIndy (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In both cases, paranoid bigotry led to groups of people being denied their basic rights as citizens on the basis of race, and in both cases this was done by gathering those of the undesirable races together in heavily guarded prison camps.

Actually MAGIC intelligence indicating Fifth Column activity amongst the West Coast Japanese community led to the evacuation of ethnic Japanese from the West Coast Military Zones with the option of renewing their lives in eastern areas of the country or sitting out the war at taxpayer expense in the Relocation Centers where there was no food rationing, free room and board, the choice to not work - the subequent result being the highest birth rates of any wartime American community.

Some "concentration camp" that turned out to be.

The only time the army was called in to the Relocation Centers was when the pro-Japan fanatics were rioting. The "heavily guarded, barb wire, watchtower" comments are all Japanese American myths.... --History Student 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Korematsu vs. United States today is remembered as an unjust ruling, even though it's never been overturned. I don't think quoting from that decision is in your best interests. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

History Student's comments at this point are no longer arguments regarding terminology, but a revisionist and racist POV. Denying hardship of any forceful incarceration to the level of "free room and board" is a blatantly racist attempt to downplay the dark side of racial segregation. "Some'concentration camp'" denies the very definition of concentration camp. A blue sky is a blue sky, whether it is light blue, dark blue, cerulean, or azure. The Nazis did not invent concentration camps and the term; the British did under Lord Kitchener in the Boer Wars. "WRA Relocation Center" is the official name given to the American concentration camps. Auschwitz-Birkenau was the name of the Vermichtungslager west of Krakow, and Vermichtungslager was the official name given to the Endloesung Nazi concentration camps. Endloesung or "Final Solution" was the euphamism for the genocide of Jews at Vermichtungslager. To say the term concentration camp is exclusive to the Holocaust is the equivalent of saying "genocide" can only be applied to the Holocaust, and not to the Armenians in Turkey, to Serbia, to Darfur, or the Japanese Rape of Nanking. The American Jewish League felt the term non-exclusive and applied the term "concentration camp" to the WRA Relocation Centers, noting that people who would deny the racist nature of racial concentration camps would prefer euphamisms for their own concentration camps. HS's comment regarding "option of renewing lives" ignores that possibility was available only if sponsorship and employment were found and approved (somewhat difficult to apply for work from a concentration camp, although there were many sympathetic Americans who did sponsor and employ some internees). It also ignores the February 1943 WRA Questionnaire for appied only to prisoners of Japanese descent and the required Question #27 & Question #28, where those who refused to serve in the US Military were then sent to an Internment Camp (not a WRA Relocation Center, please learn the difference between the various USA concentration camps) at Tule Lake or to a prison. HS's denial of photographed, verified and documented evidence while relying on contemporary US Supreme Court language is the EO 9066 equivalent of a holocaust denier. Future USSC Chief Justice Earl Warren said at the time people of Japanese descent were different, which was why citizens of Japan, Germany and Italy were interred, but only Americans of Japanese descent faced internment in WRA concentration camps, and in fact, German and Italian citizens in WRA Prohited Areas were allowed to remain in some zones but under curfew and travel restrictions versus internment.[1], so claiming any lack of bias in the USSC seems to be reaching. However, Chief Judge William Denman of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals noted at the time a camp he visited "was like that of the prison camps of the Germans. There were the same turrets for the soldiers and the same machine guns for those who might attempt to climb the high wiring." Denman further noted "No federal penitentary so treats its adult prisoners. Here, there were the children and babies as well" Journal of Historical Review. --TMIndy (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TMIndy, you obviously have little understanding of Japanese history and culture and hurling accusations of racism proves you can't provide facts to substantiate your beliefs. Earl Warren was correct. In every country invaded by Japan the resident Japanese immediately began collaborating. Do a study of Japanese behavior in Manchuria/China before the Russo-Japanese War.

Involuntary evacuation from the military zones is hardly "forceful incarceration". The military could have evacuated everybody if they had wanted to but the evidence of disloyalty was cleary at the feet of the Japanese both Issei and Nissei on the West Coast. We all know the origin of "concentration camp". It was also coined during the Spanish American War and the reason it was used prior to the evacuation is that WRA Relocation Centers weren't even in existence and it was unknown what they would be like.

Based on available WRA and other Dept. of Interior statistics and in the context of how many evcuees COULD have left the relocation centers during the war had they wanted to, the answer is most of them, i.e, more than 65,000. Actually, 35,000 did so.

From the outset the WRA's principal objective was to resettle evacuees and get them out of the camps as soon as possible for locations anywhere in the U.S. but in the military zones from which they had been evacuated. Anyone (alien or citizen)could apply to leave the relocation centers and would be approved if he or she met the following criteria: (1) had a job offer or other means of support waiting on the outside, (2) agreed to keep the WRA informed of any changes of jobs or addresses, (3)had a clean record both at the center and with the FBI as well as no record of disloyalty to the U.S. with a military intelligence agency, and (4)there existed reasonable evidence that the person's presence would be acceptable to the community in which he proposed to make his or her new home.

Ironically, the announcement of the resettlement program in September of 1942 brought howls of protest from the evacuees "who saw it as an attempt on the part of the government to evade responsibility of caring for them by turning them into a hostile Caucasian world." ["Democracy on Trial,"-Page Smith, award-winning historian and professor at UC/Santa Cruz.

The WRA persisted in encouraging (practically begging) the evacuees to apply to leave the centers. Counselers were dispatched to assure them of good treatment on the outside, monetary incentives to leave were offered, WRA resettlement field offices were set up in Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Milwaukee, New York, and other cities to pave the way for employment of the evacuees. But still many evacuees, particularly the Issei, resisted leaving the camps. In a letter dated February 10, 1981 former WRA head,Dillon Myer, responded to a researcher's question in the following words: "The WRA did its very best to get people to leave the camps, and of course many thousands did leave...but many of the older aliens refused to leave... because they felt more secure in the camps."

Ever hear of a "concentration camp" whre people didn't want to leave? --History Student (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

HowCheng, try posting at the bottom so we can keep a little order on the page.

Korematsu is remembered by who as unjust? You? You're right it has never been overturned and is still the law of the land. That means it's not bad law - it's good law! Of course this drives the Japanese American revisionists crazy. Many Americans do not see it as an unjust ruling.

In a crushing blow to the JACL and the NCJAR (National Council on Japanese American Redress, fanatic group) the Supreme Court Justices on October 31, 1988, without comment, let stand the findings of an appellate court that effectively put an end to courts actions for additional money (they wanted $27 BILLION in reparations for alleged "racism"!).

It also left the Korematsu and Hirabayashi decisions in place. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to reverse the decisions as late as 1988 and they did not. Know why? Because it's a good ruling and the time may come when Americans will need to utilize it once again.

So I disagree with you, HowCHeng. People should read the Korematsu decision quote from the Korematsu decision and acknowledge it is still the law of the land to this very day in the good old USA. --History Student 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remembered by who? How about Judge Marilyn Hall Patel who granted the writ of coram nobis to Korematsu. The ruling has never been overturned because it has a limited scope and so it hasn't ever been challenged. Regardless, per WP:NAME we should striving to use the most common term. I agree that "concentration camp" is too harsh, but "War Relcoation Center" (the official name) isn't commonly known. Most every article in MSM I've seen refers to the whole thing as "internment" and the camps as "internment camps". Regardless of whatever views you may have about the whole thing, we should be able to come to an agreement on what to call them. howcheng {chat} 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Hall Patel? You must be referring to the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980s. Sorry Howcheng but lower courts cannot overrule higher courts. As mentioned above the Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn Korematsu and Hirabayashi October 31, 1988 when the fanatical NCJAR wanted their $27 billion.

You may recall the lower court in San Francisco at the Korematsu Coram Nobis hearings accepted this so-called "newly discovered evidence" ploy. Operating on the theory that the Supreme Court would not have arrived at its 1944 decision if this evidence had been available, the federal judge in San Francisco vacated Korematsu's conviction.

Akio Herzig-Yoshinaga's "newly discovered evidence" refers to a January 26, 1942 memo written by Lt. Commander K.D. Ringle, deputy intelligence officer for 11th Naval District. You may remember Aiko was the principal "researcher" for the CWIRC.

So the "newly discovered evidence" that Aiko "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is this Ringle memo the the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT."

The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI.

Thus, the memo was an unoffical document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER.

The lower court in San Francisco at the Korematsu hearings accepted this so-called "newly discovered evidence" ploy. Operating on the theory that the Supreme Court would not have arrived at its 1944 decision if this evidence had been available, the federal judge in San Francisco vacated Korematsu's conviction.

Korematsu's attorney's, who were by now aware of MAGIC, seized the opportunity to request that a statement be written into the decision that there was no credible evidence that resident Japanese were involved in espionage.

Having no evidence to the contrary, Judge Patel agreed to the request.

That's the story on the Ringle memo, and the "newly discovered evidence" the court received in the Corum Nobis cases. In the annals of legal history it was a total farce.

Howchew, you seem interested in studying the legalise of the Korematsu Coram Nobis case. What's it called when lawyers submit evidence in a court of law under false pretense? --History Student 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Relocation Camp is the historically accurate term, regardless of how familiar the public is with it. Perhaps it would be more familiar if the American people hadn't been brainwashed over this history for the last twenty years. Internment when discussing the evacuation is not historically accurate. "Concentration camp" is just fanatical. --History Student 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)--History Student 00:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Patel overruled the SCOTUS, which as you state, is not possible. I only stated that she was among many who believe that the originally ruling was in error. I am not going to debate J-A history with you, as it's been a long time since I've studied it in college under Prof. Ichioka @ UCLA -- I'm just sticking to the name discussion. Again, per WP:NAME we don't always go with the "official" name, just what's most common. You will note, however, that all the camp articles (except Manzanar) can be found at "XXX War Relocation Center" (Poston War Relocation Center, for example). howcheng {chat} 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Patel believed the original ruling was in error because the pro-reperations lawyers manipulated the evidence introduced into her courtroom.

Ichioka was better than most, but he has been put on a pedistal by Japanese American activists. Ichioka was a "social activist" and had an agenda that didn't include seeking out and documenting the 100% truth. At least he held some history credentials and wasn't entirely and "ethnic studies" prof.

Ignoring the official name and going by "what's common" is bad policy. This is how myths are created and we all know Japanese American history as documented over the last twenty years is full of myths. --History Student 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Feds (and FDR) called them "concentration camps." But you know SOOOO much more than them . . .

"The only time the army was called in to the Relocation Centers was when the pro-Japan fanatics were rioting. The "heavily guarded, barb wire, watchtower" comments are all Japanese American myths...." You're really trolling now, HS. But, to humor you, if there were no barbed wire and watchtowers, who killed James Wakasa, and why . . ? The barbed wire is still there at several of the camps, as are the concrete footings for watchtowers -- did they put all that stuff up after the war? And how do you explain the appearance of these things in photographs and film shot during the internment (not to mention official Army reports, written by those troops you say weren't there)? Special effects? Critic-at-Arms 04:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The argument over the terminology to describe the concentration camps created by Exec Order 9066 ignores the definition of a concentration camp and will devolve to historical revisionism unless the POV definitions of "Concentration Camp" are ignored. As Ishu pointed out, the term "internment camp" was applied to make a distinction between the American concentration camps and the Nazi concentration camps that existed in World War II, but it was a distinction made after the fact. Internment is the act of placing a person or group in a concentration camp. The purpose of using "internment camp" or "relocation camp" is not to make a clear distinction, but can only be construed as an attempt to disassociate the American concentration camps with the negative connotations of the Nazi concentration camps, both of which were concentration camps (although the internees of the concentration camps experienced radical differences in treatment). Unless the intent is to provide political of POV spin, the correct description would ignore emotional connotations, associations and subjective definitions and say something to the effect that Executive Order 9066 interred XYZ in concentration camps referred to as WRA Relocation Centers. "Internment Camps" were concentration camps created by a separate EO 9102 under the INS, a division of the Dept of Justice in which non-US citizens of Japanese descent were interred after being detained in Allied countries (about a third from Central and South America)Japanese American Interment. "Concentration camp" came into lexicon in 1901 and is defined as a camp where non-combatants, political prisoners or racial groups are interred without due process (Oxford Eng Dict[2] and Merriam Webster Dict [3]). Another encyclopedia ref to Concentration Camps such as Columbia's should not be used since the attempt there is an encyclopediac explanation with examples, and not a definition. The American Jewish League acknowledged the WRA Relocation Centers were concentration camps and the term "concentration camp" is not unique to the Jewish experience under the Nazi regime. Gulags were Soviet concentration camps for dissidents, political prisoners and criminal prisoners. Arbeitslager were concentration camps in which the Nazis extracted forced labor, and Todeslager were concentration camps where prisoners were interred for immediate or imminent extermination. WRA Relocation Centers were USA concentration camps for the internment of people of Japanese descent located within the exclusion zones designated by military commanders. "Internment Camps" were concentration camps for Japanese citizens or people of Japanese descent detained outside of the United States but deported/delivered to the USA to be interred by the DoJ/INS. The Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust [4] may be helpful in understanding the distinctions. Internment is the act of putting a person in a concentration camp, so an "Internment Camp" is a politically expedient term for avoiding the emotions and negative connotations of people who do not understand the difference between a Todeslager concentration camp and a WRA Relocation Center concentration camp. To reiterate, Exec Order 9066 refers to concentration camps called WRA Relocation Centers, And Exec Order 9102 created the concentration camps called "Internment Centers." The article has the option of being politically correct or being correct .--TMIndy (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Internment camps were run by the Department of Justice and held only enemy aliens who had been deemed security risks and their U.S. citizen family members who were allowed at their choice to stay with them. Internees included 10,995 Germans, 16, 849 Japanese (5,589 who voluntarily renounced U.S. citizenship and became enemy aliens), 3,278 Italians, 52 Hungarians, 25 Romanians, 5 Bulgarians, and 161 classified as “other". Only a small fraction of enemy aliens were interned. Japanese citizens with families were sent to Crystal City, Texas and lived side-by-side with German and Italian families. Single men were sent to internment camps in other states. Not all enemy aliens were placed in internment camps, and no American citizen was forcefully placed in an internment camp. If you were interned it was determined that you, a spouse or parent was an enemy alien and a security risk.

It should be noted that all 16,849 Japanese enemy-aliens including the 5,589 that renounced American citizenship were eligible for an apology from the United States and a $20,000 reparations payment while the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians received nothing.

With regard to the Latin American Axis nationals, it is generally acknowledged by those who have bothered to check the record that only approx 8,500 Axis nationals (Germans, Italians, and Japanese)were arrested and interned by 16 Latin American countries during WWII. In accordance with treaty obligations, the U.S. was obligated to accept Axis nationals for internment in the U.S. from those Latin American countries which were unable to establish costly internment programs. --History Student (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The thread was regarding the use of the term "concentration camp." I was not entering into a dissertation of reparations or the ethnic makeup of the DOJ Internment Camps, but simply mentioning them as another type of concentration camp. The simple point is that the desire to use a eupemishm for the concentration camps built by Americans is a POV. It is a concentration camp, even if we don't like the "ugly connotations." Since you have previously quoted the US Supreme Court Korematsu v. US, I think you might take note of the three written dissenting opinions delivered with the ruling. Justice Roberts wrote, "We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that had the petitioner attempted to violate Proclamation No. 4 and leave the military area in which he lived he would have been arrested and tried and convicted for violation of Proclamation No. 4. The two conflicting orders, one which commanded him to stay and the other which commanded him to go, were nothing but a cleverly devised trap to accomplish the real purpose of the military authority, which was to lock him up in a concentration camp." TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) Even if some Supreme Court Justices did not like the ugly connotations, some of the justices still preferred the appropriate terminology, even in 1944 as they entered the decision. Perhaps you might reply to the point being made and was was written, rather than what you feel may distract from the point with arbitrary "facts" or statistics that allow you to "win the argument." The article is Japanese Internment, and the thread is "Concentration Camp. I do not care or think it pertinent to argue personal opinions, nor do I care if turnips and carrots are genetically similar vis a vis Japanese Internment.--TMIndy (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just "some of the justices" but the majority of the justices as Korematsu passed 6-3 and is still good law to this day. You can quote minority opinion all you want. By your definition every military base or public school in the country is a "conentration camp". --History Student (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, atttempting to mask your disinformation and unsupportable evidence and outright prevarication to avoid the point and maintain your blinders. The thread is terminology, specifically "concentration camp." I quoted minority opinion not to argue the case, but to point out the terminology was "concentration camp" until the "ugly connotations" started a propoganda spin to exclude the term, which is very obvious in a reading of the majority and minority opinions. I also stated on this page "'Concentration camp" came into lexicon in 1901 and is defined as a camp where non-combatants, political prisoners or racial groups are interred without due process (Oxford Eng Dict[5] and Merriam Webster Dict [6])." I'm not sure how you classify military bases and public schools as places "non-combatant, political prisoners or racial groups are interred," but I do find humor in your warped attempts to defend your indefensible POV. This is just another example of your willingness to twist and misconstrue to win an argument you can't win because your "facts" are willing to ignore the preponderance of evidence and any facts that disagree with your POV. Your credibility is thin with consistently proven misstatements and the willingness to twist and misquote not only your sources but other editors. Your reply above shows each time you are proven wrong you degenerate to twisting and misrepresentation, terms I hope you'll understand from the financial services industry. You obviously have an axe to grind on the issue, but I think an encyclopedia is probably not the appropriate forum. I stand by my statement that, "Denying hardship of any forceful incarceration to the level of "free room and board" is a blatantly racist attempt to downplay the dark side of racial segregation." You've already shown your colours. Once again, we should stick to the pertinent and supportable facts and not opinions for a Wikipedia article.--TMIndy (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How much of TMIndy's post above deals with facts? People can read and decide for themselves. Many schools and certainly military bases are surrounded by fences with armed guards and you can't leave without permission. The racial groups interned included white people. The Relocation Centers were demanded by the JACL and various social-religious groups who demanded the government feed and house the evacuees. That's a fact. Room and board was free. That's a fact. There was no rationing, unlike in the rest of the country. That's a fact. Ethnic Japanese were applying to live in the Relocation Centers and were turned away. That's a fact. The Korematsu decision states "concentration camp" is an inappropriate term when referring to the Relocation Centers. That's a fact. Why not attempt to provide some facts of your own and stop with the personal attacks and accusations of racism. It does nothing to support your side of the debate. --History Student (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Other detention camps

"This data was..." I apologize for being picky, but "data" is plural. It's the plural of "datum."[7] Dick Kimball (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes strictly true, but normal English usage seems to be to treat data as being short for "the set of data". David Underdown (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1944 Supreme court ruling

The opening paragraph states that "In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity."" However, later in the article, under the heading "the internment ends", it is stated: "In December, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional." These two statements seem to be at odds. Unless there were two separate rulings by the supreme court. So, does anyone know which of the two is true? Lorangriel 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lorangriel, you bring up a mini-example of what is wrong with this article as a whole. The content ranges from convoluted to inaccurate to half-truths to outright lies.

Perhaps the paragraphs are attempting to discuss the Kormematsu and Endo cases.

In Korematsu, (October 1944) the Supreme Court ruled that the evacuation was constitutional and nothing more than an exclusion order. The Supreme Court didn't make a ruling on "detention". In this respect, the opening paragraph is historically inaccurate.

In Endo, (December 1944) the Supreme Court did not hold the detention of one whom the government had not yet conceeded to be loyal, is unlawful.

In other words, under the existing circumstances, detention of persons of questionable loyalty is constitutional until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. The lifting of the orders coupled with the announced closing of the centers was a shock to the residents. They didn't want the centers closed and petitioned the government to keep them open until the end of the war.

Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the residents didn't want to leave?

So again, the paragraph stating, "Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal citizens unconstitutional" is historically inaccurate. The detainment of loyal citizens is constitutional until it has been determined they are loyal. --History Student 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to read the published opinions of the supreme court and see if I can see a way to fix this article a little bit. There seem to be a lot of strong opinions floating around, from what I see on the main page and on the discussion page, and the article could use a fresh pair of eyes. Lorangriel 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this history is controversial, just as it was back in 1942. These days, those who defend the evacuation as necessary are usually labeled "racists". The military, Congress, Supreme Court, President Roosevelt, American people...all just a bunch of "hysterical racists". My opinions are strong, but at least I can back them up with historical facts.

The desire to seek out and document the whole truth as been trumped by the desire to pervert the truth in order to support one's ideology. It's been a real mess over the last 25 years and will take time to correct. --History Student 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you can back your opinions up with distortion of the facts. It was racist hysteria that motivated the "internment": the baseless paranoia that anyone of Japanese ancestry would be loyal to the Japanese Empire, even if they were born American citizens and had never even seen Japan. And regardless of Supreme Court's decision (one that's now rightly ranked with Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson as one of the most infamous in its history), indefinitely imprisoning American citizens on entirely arbitrary grounds is a blatant defiance of the Constitution.

As for your crack about the residents of the camps not wanting to leave? You seem to be ignoring (willfully?) the fact that the prisoners were essentially being dumped to live on the streets without any of their possessions that had been stolen without compensation when they were sent to the camps. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a load of nonsense. Where are your facts to back up your knee-jerk emotional diatribe?

If it was as you say, "racist hysteria" and "baseless paranoia" why were ethnic Japanese living outside the militarized zones not affected at all?

Nobody's ranking Korematsu with Dred Scott except the Japanese-American reperations movement and their political cronies. It's good law to this day.

They weren't prisoners, they weren't imprisoned, the government cared for their property and paid out claims in the 1948 Evacuation Claims Act to the tune of $48 million (1948) dolllars. How many other Americans who suffered during the war got such a deal?

But you bring up a good point regarding the Relcation Centers. Their purpose was to avoid people "being dumped in the street" after being evacuated from the military zones.

Here are some quotes regarding closing the Relocation Centers:

P.372 "Among the evacuees the announcement that the centers were to be closed brought another wild emotional upheaval....The outraged reaction was perhaps best expressed by a Nisei girl at Minidoka who exclaimed: 'This is a town. You can't close a town.'.... "Soon there were the now familiar protests and petitions. The centers couldn't be closed. Many of the people remaining in them were Issei men and women too old to start over..."

P.373 "One evacuee who had been planning to resettle angrily canceled his plans. He would hang on until he was 'shoved through the gate.' Talk went around about a sit-down strike..."

P.383 "A well-to-do evacuee at Heart Mountain expressed the sentiments of those remaining in the centers: 'I guess I'll just have to go..I don't want to go. I sort of like it here. My work is interesting. I have time for golf and fishing....I have no worries. My wife likes it here all right and my daughter has her friends. We're used to it..Oh, I'll go. I have to..But I don't want to.'"

-Democracy on Trial" by Page Smith, PhD History, UC Santa Clara; Chapter 24 of that book, titled "Closing the Relocation Centers:

Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the "prisoners" didn't want to leave? --History Student 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that our token ignorant bigot is still here. Yes, HS, the concentration camps in Europe also had their freed inmates who stayed in the camps -- once the jailers were gone -- because (like so many of the Nikkei) they had no other place to go and their prewar lives had been destroyed. Their homes and livelihoods were gone, but they at least had shelter in the camps. As you noted, the alternative was being "dumped in the streets" after being forced to leave their homes. Some of the "evacuated" Jews left the camps directly for Israel in 1946, over a year after the National Socialists were defeated, and Dachau was used for "refugee" housing into the 1950s.

I do admire they way you keep your mantra that "they weren't prisoners, they weren't imprisoned . . ." So, please explain the death of James Wakasa, killed by a guard at Topaz. If he wasn't a prisoner, why was he shot for approaching the barbed wire? If they weren't imprisoned, why the barbed wire and locked gates in the first place? Why the machineguns facing into the compound? Why were the "evacuees" not permitted to leave without official permission, even from the camps which were outside the Exclusion Zones? Why were they subject to removal to other camps on a moment's notice? I DO look forward to your explanations. Critic-at-Arms 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Critic! I see you still haven't evolved past hurling accusations of racism and comparing the evacuation to Nazi Germany. No surprise, though. Regarding your other comments, let's look at the historical facts.

"James" Hatsuaki Wakasa was not an American citizen, he was a Japanese national, an ENEMY-ALIEN, and he was still allowed to reside in a relocation center and not a DOJ internment camp.

He was shot and killed by a military police guard while attempting to leave camp without a pass. He had made two previous attempts to leave the center without a pass and was warned by the guards on each occasion. He was shot while making his third attempt to cross the barb wire enclosure between sentry stations. This occured on April 11, 1943. You may recall their were numerous riots and disturbances at Topaz by fanatical pro-Japan militants at this time which is why the guards were there in first place. Wakasa was a known troublemaker.

Read all about it here: [8]

You can also read how events at Topaz up to that time were spiraling out of control because fanatical pro-Japan militants were attempting to take over the camp - which is why the guards were brought in in the first place to quell the disturbances. It's on the same page as the link above.

If evacuees could provide for themselves outside the military zones and swear an oath of allegiance to the United States they could leave the centers. Suffice to say the government didn't want a bunch of Hatsuaki Wakasa's running around the country. Thousands did so and the WRA had offices in every major city east of the military zones to assist evacuees in finding work and getting on with their lives.

The barb wire was three-strand cattle wire used as perimeter fencing. Guards were only used when the pro-Japan fanatics were causing trouble in the centers. The disturbances and shooting of Wakasa were in part the reason the WRA turned part of Tule Lake into a Segregation Center for the fanatics.

It's amazing what hisorical facts can provide rather than knee-jerk emotional comments, Critic. Coming from you however, I'll not hold my breath. --History Student 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

HS, you remind me of Lucy when she was teaching Linus. She taught him about how butterflies come up from Brazil, then when told the "butterfly" is a potato chip, she wonders how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil. That's the way you handle being proven wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own "hisorical" facts. You change your "facts" with the changing of the tide, demanding that we pay no attention to last week's pravda, it's been replaced by this week's pravda.

Make up your mind. You earlier said that there was no barbed wire, and when this was disproved, you then say it was "only" 3-strand cattle wire. But even this "fact" (offered without proof) makes one wonder how all that high wire fencing got there. It also makes me wonder what kind of military planner would put up 3-foot fence around "ENEMY ALIENS" who were such a hazard that they had to be shot for trying to leave. And, with only 3-wire fence around these dangerous 2-year-old spies and saboteurs, why put 6-foot fence at the front gate? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm committing heresy by actually looking at military matters from the standpoint of someone with a military-science education. I look forward to YOUR explanation. But you never answered the dozen or so questions from months ago, even those which contradicted your other "facts," so I'm not going to hold my breath that you will actually provide an answer to these facts.

Make up your mind. First, they weren't surrounded by armed guards and towers, then "guards were only used when the pro-Japan fanatics were causing trouble in the centers." Where are the records to back this up? And, sorry, your website is NOT a reliable source.

Make up your mind. Either they were prisoners or not. Prisoners need permission to leave their prison. If they weren't prisoners, they would need no such permission, and nobody would shoot them for trying to leave.

Please explain why a 63-year-old "ENEMY ALIEN" had to be shot for supposedly trying to go out into empty desert, 15 miles from the nearest town, while hundreds of thousands of German and Italian enemy aliens of all ages were not removed from the areas surrounding such places as the Philadelphia Navy Yard, the Grumman Aircraft plant, or the District of Columbia? BTW, Wakasa was on the west side of the camp, while Delta is east. Maybe he was just a saboteur-spy with no sense of direction, who was so blind that he couldn't see the lights of the town . . ?

Sorry, History Student, you just come off like the kind of brave guy who blew out the brains of a young Mormon child, saying "Nits make lice." You are just as unthinking and unwilling to consider the possibility that you're wrong. I'm glad that I WAS willing to look at the big picture, and went from believing that the internment was justified to seeing that even the promoters clearly didn't believe it, based on their own actions and writings (it's amazing what you can find in the National Archives). Critic-at-Arms 19:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Critic, I'll ignore your personal attacks and just refute you incorrect facts, which is about one paragraph of your response.

There was no high wire fencing at the relocation centers, it was three strand cattle wire used as perimeter fencing and was routinely crossed. Please provide a link to a relocation center that shows high wire fencing. It doesn't exist. But if you want some proof, let's hear what a Nisei had to say:

Japanese American Evacuation O.H. 649 Harry Nakamura Interviewed by John McFarlane on May 2, 1971 California State University Fullerton Oral History Program Japanese American Project

McFarlane: Were you conscious of the enclosure, the barbed wire and the guards, there at the camp?

Nakamura: Well, our camp didn't have that barbed wire. We were able to go to the Colorado River and hiking to the mountains. The only guard I know of that they had was at the main gate. So other than that I don't think it was very strict.

McFarlane Then you didn't see the guards, they weren't very apparent; they weren't driving around watching you?

Nakamura Oh, no.

Critic, perhaps the three strand cattle wire should have been used to ensure that what you call "two year old spies" didn't wind up wondering around in the desert, as that was the purpose of the fencing. Or perhaps you believe it would have been better to seperate the "two year old spies" from their parents. Some humanitarian you are.

Critic, the fact is thousands left the centers that were set up initally to to provide housing evacuated people. The government could have dumped them at the border of the military zones to fend for themselves. Are convicts allowed to answer a few questions regarding their loyalty, provide proof of a means of support and leave San Quentin? Of course not. The evacuees were not prisoners, but the government and military knew amongst their community some should be prisoners and they needed to be seperated from those who were loyal. Of course the Japanese community in America at the time didn't provide much assistance in this regard...

Critic, did you read the report on Wakasa? It's self explanatory as to why he got shot. He should have been sent to a real internment camp and not a relocation center.

Why weren't Italian and German enemy aliens not moved off the east coast? Hundreds of thousands? First off, you numbers are way off, but thousands of Italian and German enemy aliens were sent to internment camps where they lived side by side with Japanese enemy aliens. Of course they didn't get an apology or $20,000 because their ethnic grievence lobby wasn't as powerful as the Japanese.

Those Italian and German enemy aliens who were not not interned, if any, off the east coast were not for the same reason Japanese were not- - IT WAS OUTSIDE THE WEST COAST MILITARY ZONES. As for the Grumman aircraft plant, I don't recall reading any info on Germans in the MAGIC intercepts or the German or Italian navy bombing Pearl Harbor. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Critic you are the poster boy for the passive understanding of history and proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. --History Student 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One last note, Critc. It is laughable that you say internment archives is an "unreliable source" when it is composed almost entirely of raw, primary historical documentation. You don't want to believe what it says so you call it an "unreliable source". Another great example of an open-minded search for the 100% truth you are. Ha! ha! --History Student 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now, will you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain how Wakasa was killed by a guard who wasn't there, for approaching wire which wasn't there? Oh, and please explain the piles of 6-foot wire and guard tower footings which are still to be seen at Topaz and Amache. Of course, you're wrong on both counts, as shown in the film shot by Dave Tatsuno -- or are you going to claim that the wire seen over the heads of internees was put there by CGI?

While you're at it, please tell us where they interned the tens of thousands of German and Italian nationals who were living in Southern California in 1942.

Gee, you're right, noting in the MAGIC intercepts mentioned German or Italian forces attacking Pearl Harbor. Strangely, though, I didn't see those intercepts which described the involvement of the 2-year-old orphans, the schoolgirls, the farmers and the merchants. For that matter, there are NO intercepts detailing any involvement of Japanese Americans in Pearl Harbor or any other action against the United States.

Lastly, your website is an unreliable source because it is NOT composed of "raw" documentation -- it has information which has been carefully filtered to provide only that information which supports your position. You have consistently dodged any attempt to get you to back up your assertions with any real proof, while at the same time you have provided none of the thousands of pages of records which would have been made of trials, convictions, etc -- so one must either assume that the government was too stupid to follow up on what you claim to be true, or that what you claim is NOT true.

I won't hold my breath for you to come up with any facts to refute with. Have a nice day. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

History Student has a rabid, fanatical agenda. His words regarding the article's content he says, "ranges from convoluted to inaccurate to half-truths to outright lies" would be more aptly applied to his own rants. The article is about EO 9066, not Japanese Spies, German Spies, Korematsu, Nazi Concentration Camps, or the debate on whether silver labrador retrievers are actually a mix of chocolate labs and yellow labs. He easily misconstrues facts like, "The exclusion orders were lifted before the decision was released. The lifting of the orders coupled with the announced closing of the centers was a shock to the residents. They didn't want the centers closed and petitioned the government to keep them open until the end of the war...Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the residents didn't want to leave?" Yes, HS. Oddly over 150,000 survivors of the Nazi concentration camps did not want to leave, and some remained in the concentration camps as late as 1950.title Holocaust Timeline This is part of the reason for the United States's Displaced Persons Act of 1948 allowing some of them to emigrate to the United States (amended in 1950 to allow more Jews, because some of them were still living in the DP camps... incidentally, some of the DP camps were just the Nazi Arbeitslager and Todeslager camps converted because the internees had nowhere to go, so asked to stay).US Holocaust Memorial Museum Inflammatory statements lacking fact and context like his "not wanting to leave" statement are only intended to sway by emotion. Broad POV statements like "shock to the residents. They didn't want the centers closed," show a reaching attempt to miscolor the facts. If I can find some Americans who believe African Americans are inferior and should not be allowed to marry whites, does that mean all Americans believe this and all Americans are racist? Am I supposed to believe like General DeWitt that all Japanese descended people are different, and by some weird twist of logic therefore believe they have a uniform opinion? There is not even a starting point for making such an argument, and no historical possibility or arguing pro or con on the issue. These aren't facts, it's selective distortion.

The absolutely inane statements such as, "thousands of Italian and German enemy aliens were sent to internment camps where they lived side by side with Japanese enemy aliens. Of course they didn't get an apology or $20,000 because their ethnic grievence lobby wasn't as powerful as the Japanese" shows massive distortion for the sake of winning an argument, ignoring the debate regarding US citizens of Japanese ethnicity versus "enemy aliens," and willingly ignoring or ignorant of the fact most of the European enemy aliens referred to were those with either a pro-Axis history, German/Italian citizens travelling in the US when the war broke out, merchantmen on enemy vessels captured, or enemy aliens dumped on the US when they were expelled from other countries. HS's "Those Italian and German enemy aliens who were not not interned, if any, off the east coast were not for the same reason Japanese were not- - IT WAS OUTSIDE THE WEST COAST MILITARY ZONES," ignores Americans of German or Italian descent were not excluded from Military Zones. The most insipid being, "I don't recall reading any info on Germans in the MAGIC intercepts or the German or Italian navy bombing Pearl Harbor. Perhaps you can enlighten me." Quite obviously, MAGIC, the decryption of Japanese diplomatic code has nothing to do with Germans and Italians, and is circular in its argument. On the other hand, Axis spy rings were very active on the east coast and were crippling the early convoy efforts. Despite the obvious fact that caucasian spies could blend more easily than oriental spies, no racially based effort to imprison Americans of German or Italian descent was even contemplated.

History Student's reliance on the "Internment Archives" web site's carefully screened information (the website is sponsored by Athena Press Inc, author Lowman) is wholly unreliable. Based on Lowman's agenda, we would be equally well served to find "facts" on the KKK website about why other races are inferior (that they can produce raw data and "facts" proving their argument doesn't mean the raw data or facts are good... especially when selected, removed from context and edited to prove a fact). Despite some access and declassification of MAGIC, any request for info under Freedom of Information Act will result in redacted and censored transcripts, specifically toward any information that may impugn the US government or which may result in legal action or civil lawsuits against the government until such time as any beneficiary of any such legal action is no longer living. It will be another 20-30 years before full transcripts are available, if ever.

No doubt there were Japanese spies, and many of the Japanese citizens remained loyal to Japan, but his arguments have little to do with EO 9066, and its controversy, (and I readily admit the following statement is my POV:) which was the internment in concentration camps of about 100,000 US Citizens along with Japanese citizens on the basis of their racial heritage and without evidence of their disloyalty and without due process. The primary difference between the Americans of Japanese descent and the Americans of German and Italian descent (not enemy aliens) was that interment of other races required probable cause for suspicion, while according to a chief WRA architect, "one drop of Japanese blood" was enough to deserve internment in the US concentration camps.Karl Bendetsen

Bigotry and racism have no place in attempting to establish the simple facts regarding the EO9066 for a Wikipedia article--TMIndy (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, refugees displaced by the war lived in some of the camps such as Dachau after the war was over. Of course at that point the camps were not under administration of the Nazis. Further the majority of displaced persons living in what had become refugee camps weren't Jews although some were. This is hardly a comparison to Japanese demanding the Relocation Centers stay open for their benefit.

As I've said here already, the German and Italian enemy aliens were not considered to be a threat to the West Coast while plenty of evidence existed that the Japanese were. Of course Bendetsen is the reperations activists favorite whipping boy, but he opposed the evacuation of all American citizens from the West Coast and supported the evacuation of all enemy aliens including Germans and Italians. Quoting five words from Bendetsen is hardly history. Why not quote the entire piece? Not to mention his report was meant for the American public and the Japanese Government. Should he have told the truth? Should he have said, "We cracked the Purple Code indicating fifth column activity so we're evacuating the Japanese"? Of course not. It does make for great fodder for Japanese apologists like TMIndy, though.

If you had taken the time to do a little research TMIindy, you would learn that as late as March 30, 1942 DeWitt had ordered Germans and Italians evacuated off the West Coast with the exception of those over 70 years of age and those with family serving in the military. He wasn't the chief WRA architect, either. He was responsible for the evacuation from the war zones.

As for "Internment Archives" I don't see how you can quarrel with primary historical documents, regardless of whether you consider them to be "carefully screened" or not. The same could be said for the Japanese apologists and the plethora of taxpayer funded propaganda they have published. "Personal Justice Denied" was a legal brief, not history. Your saying the bible of the reperations movement wasn't "carefully screened". What a joke. P.S. Lowman died. He isn't sponsoring anything. He was the National Security Agency executive reponsible for declassifying the MAGIC intercepts, though. He's entirely qualified. The only reason you're slining him is because you don't like what he's said. This is a typical Japanese apologist tactic.

And lastly, while I tire of repeating myself. Japanese, Germans and Italians were all interned under the same procedures for the same reasons. The Japanese were evacuated from the West Coast War Zones because plenty of evidence existed of fifth-column activity within the Japanese community, they resisted assisting the U.S. Government in weeding out the disloyals (unlike the Italians and Germans there)and they were a threat to the security of the country in a time of total war.

Young Japanese Americans today need to suck it up, acknowledge the truth of the era and avoid finding solace in hurling accusations of "racism and bigotry" as the cause of the evacuation. --History Student (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, misstatement, incorrect "facts", distortion, and a rabid POV. Your replies only show an intention to win an argument, but have no basis in point or fact. Please allow me to dissect your reply.

Para 1 - "Actually..." You seem determined to take my statements out of context. I stated internees lived in the former Nazi concentration camps for up to 5 years after the war. I never stated the camps were run by the Nazis afterwards, or that the majority of DP's were Jews. The point I made is a reply to your question, "Ever hear of a concentration camp where people didn't want to leave." The answer is yes. The comparison is very apt, because the Jewish internees did not want to leave for some of the very same reasons the Japanese internees didn't want to leave their concentration canps... and in both cases it is "some," and not "all."

Para 2 - Bendetsen is not a "whipping boy." He is a historical figure on the record for his views. He did not have to say anything about "Purple Code" because he was not on the MAGIC lists and knew nothing about them. Why not quote the entire piece? Because there are links, and there is a limit to space. Whether I quote his entire life's speech, the point remains he stated his determination to incarcerate persons with even a drop of Japanese blood. Your other statement regarding "enemy aliens" camoflages the real problem, that the order would apply to all enemy aliens, but the only US Citizens to which it applied were of Japanese descent, as noted by Justice Murphy in the Korematsu ruling, who directly chides DeWitt for applying "racial guilt." I am not a "Japanese apologist," I just refused to be duped by loud arguments and out of context weak "facts" presented by racist apologists.

Para 3 - If you had taken the time to do a little researh, HS, you would learn DeWitt never ordered Americans of German and Italian descent evacuated off the West Coast, but he did order all Americans of Japanese descent off the West Coast ( Final Report, Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast, 1942, by Lt. Gen. J. L. De Witt, dated June 5, 1943). As a former officer of the US military, I can tell you the the military commander responsible is responsible for his decisions, and it was DeWitt's decision to designate the zones (not Roosevelt, who only authorized the military commanders to designate zones), and it was his decision to what level limitations such as curfew or internment would be required.

Para 4 - If I edit primary documents and refuse to post primary documents refuting my POV, then I have a bias. If I am only willing to examine documents supporting my arguments and ignore mountains of docs refuting my argument, I'm on my way down the path of capable Holocaust Denier. That's how they do it. You stated, "Your saying the bible of the reperations movement wasn't "carefully screened". What a joke." I never stated any such thing, but it's another wonderful example of your blinding ability to prevaricate. I never made any mention of any bible of the reparations movement (BTW, I'm against reparations...most of those people are dead or have little life left, what's the point?). There is no denying the "Internment Archives" web site is sponsored by Athena Press Inc, which publishes and republishes Lowman's work. I stated the site is sponsored by Athena, and the truth seems to upset you, although you don't deny it. It doesn't matter that Lowman is dead, there will always be people around promoting his agenda attempting to justify the racist basis for the US concentration camps. I bet you could even find examples of such mindless devotion to that racist agenda on this very page.

Para 5 - So far out there, I don't know where to begin. Germans, Japanese and Italians were incarcerated on the same basis? Germans and Italians did not have to report to the Assembly Centers, nor were Americans of German and Italian descent forced to report. You don't seem to want to mention General DeWitt's April 13, 1943, testimony to the House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to Investigate Congested Areas, Part 3, pp. 739-40 (78th Cong ., 1st Sess.)in which he states that the very fact that there has been no detection or sign of sabotage or spying from the Japanese Americans is the best proof that it is bound to happen. Your arguments are as circular as DeWitt's. Your accusations that they resisted weeding out spies is a blanket accusation, begs the question of weeding out a problem that didn't exist, and has no basis in fact.

Para 6 - "Young Japanese Americans today need to suck it up, acknowledge the truth of the era and avoid finding solace in hurling accusations of "racism and bigotry" as the cause of the evacuation." Grow up. This isn't about young Japanese Americans. It's an article about the Japanese Internment. Let's stick to the pertinent and SUPPORTABLE facts. And by the way, racism did exist then, and still exists now (Obviously). --TMIndy (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The displaced persons arrived at the refugee camps after the war. They were former concentration camps converted to refugee camps and any Jews continuing to stay were in the vast minority. Readers can judge your analogy of the Relocation Centers to Nazi camps and decide for themselves.

2. He also stated Americans of Japanese ancestory should not be evacuated and Italian and German enemy aliens should be evacuated. He may not have known of MAGIC specifically but was certainly aware of information the MAGIC intercepts were providing because it was being re-written in various MIS reports. Of course the intelligence reports also revealed that U.S. Citizens of Japanese decent were involved in fifth-column activity. Justice Murphy can chide away. His was a minority opinion.

3. As a military officer you should also know that DeWitt has his superiors in Washington who disagreed with his view. The evacuation decision was made in the War Department and instructions to DeWitt for instrumentation thereof differed markedly from DeWitt's final recommendation in a number of respects. But the fact is that from early on to his final recommendation prior to the Evacuation Decision made in Washington, DeWitt was consistent in his opposition to the detainment of American citizens of Japanese descent. As a good soldier, however, he bowed to the orders of his superiors and carried out their instructions to the best of his ability.

4. You said the site is sponsored by Lowman which is wrong. Then you agree Personal Justice Denied and the entire reperations movement is POV. Of course Lowman's book was published by Athena Press and Internment Archives is produced by the same. So what? It's credible primary source information. Use it in addition to other information. Calling it "racist" is your own POV.

5. Assembly Centers had nothing to do with internment. They dealt with evacuation. You're highly confused on this issue, I know. Try to be more precise. It's obvious that Japanese were involved in fifth column activity as there is plenty of evidence to support, much of which I have posted all over this discussion page. To state a problem didn't exist is not only naive, but dangerous - especially for a former military officer.

6. Well your last paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but this controversy is all about Japanese American young people today because this history is a part of their legacy. They can choose to learn a much fuller understanding of Japanese culture including ultra-nationalism of the 1930s and 1940s and it's effect on Japanese colonies worldwide at the time. Or, they can support a vindictive biased history whereby Japanese at the time were victims of racism, were 100% loyal to the United States during the war and were entirely unsupportive of Japan even though the vast majority of their parents or grandparents were Japanese citizens or dual citizens. Of course choosing the latter will ensure a gray cloud over Japanese Americans for years to come. After all, white-washing an entire people is equally as racist as tarring an entire people.

Of course racism existed then and still exists now. I can't deny that. The evacuation was not based on racism, however and I have provided quite a few facts on this page over the years to prove just that. You don't think they're supportable or lack credibility and that's fine. I'm not out to convince the unconvinceable, although after reading your comments I find your accusations of POV to be truly laughable. --History Student (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The point was your statement, "Ever hear of a "concentration camp" where the "prisoners" didn't want to leave?" I answered yes and have proven your point incorrect. The point was not percentages, but did internees in other concentration camps, in this case Jews incarcerated in Nazi camps, not want to leave. The answer is an obvious "yes," as late as 5 years after the war.

2. You make much of MAGIC, but don't seem to understand it's contemporary compartamentalization. NIS was very careful with the dissemination of information that could even hint at MAGIC. MIS reports also stated an invasion of Hawaii and the West Coast was imminent in December or January, so reporting intelligence projections as facts is a little iffy. As to quoting a minority opinion in a 6-3 case, minority opinion exists for the protection of the Constitution and to point out flaws specific to the application of the broader ruling and "are sometimes cited as persuasive authority when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a dissent in an earlier case is used to spur a change in the law." Dissenting Opinion Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote: “A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”Dissenting Opnion: Information

3. My point stands on its own... 9066 did not designate zones or specifics.

4. *Sigh* I stated the site is sponsored by Athena which reprints Lowman, not that the site was sponsored by Lowman, and I clarified this is the point 3 above. My mention of Lowman immediately following the mention of Athena was so those in the know would recognize the sort of material propagated. Continue to misquote me if it makes you feel better.

5. Your attempt to belittle me and call me "confused" on this issue for presenting evidence and supporting documentation is a continution of your "big lie" arguments. The Point 5 Para continues to stand on its own despite your amusing insults. I'm not naive and previosuly stated on this page, "No doubt there were Japanese spies, and many of the Japanese citizens remained loyal to Japan." I'm not stating the problem of spies and sabotage didn't exist, but you can't make blanket arguments and guilt by race or location. As a military officer, I know it is illegal to shoot everyone in a village because I believe someone in that village knows something or is guilty of something. The Peers Report. You stated, "The Japanese were evacuated from the West Coast War Zones because plenty of evidence existed of fifth-column activity within the Japanese community, they resisted assisting the U.S. Government in weeding out the disloyals (unlike the Italians and Germans there)and they were a threat to the security of the country in a time of total war." Let me state now the majority of Japanese Americans were likely innocent, and the innocent can not provide information on something they do not know (this is why torture is ineffective, HS). Your statement is just a POV, a repeat of the sort of statements made by DeWitt and Bendetsen, and history will eventually judge whether such statements made by them are racist (and I think already has). America had the problem of over 100,000 Japanese and Americans with Japanese blood and handled it the way they handled it. Britain had the problem of 74,000 Germans and Austrians which by appearance could blend in with the population. During a 6 month period, Britain screened all 74,000 with 112 alien tribunals set up to screen, released 64,000 without restriction, 12,000 with restriction and incarcerated about 2,000(Kempner, 'The Enemy Alien Problem in the Present War,' 34 Amer. Journ. of Int. Law 443, 444-46; House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.), 280-1.) I don't think I'm confused or naive about the issue, I just don't have a knee jerk reaction to the issue and I'm willing to look at various aspects and examine all of the facts. When you state, "To state a problem didn't exist is not only naive, but dangerous - especially for a former military officer," I can reply that I'm glad I don't know of too many officers who blindly accept propoganda, especially dangerously racist propoganda, which is why we spend time making sure we understand the portion of our oath to uphold "lawful orders," understanding we are also bound to disobey unlawful orders. They teach us to think, HS, not be automatons.

6. My Para 6 makes sense because this article is not about the "controversy" racists wish to create, but is an encyclopediac article which should stick to the facts pertinent to the article. You state, "this controversy is all about Japanese American young people today because this history is a part of their legacy." This article is supposed to be about the interment, not about Japanese American young people today. They can deal with the emotional backwash of the issue individually on their own time, one way or the other. Sticking to the facts pertinent to the subject is not an attempt to whitewash an entire race. There should be detailed and unbiased articles on subjects such as the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the Manchurian killings, etcetera, but the article on internment should not be a forum for every misdeed of Japanese in America, nor should those misdeeds by blanket guilt by race for the entire population of Americans with Japanese blood. Let's stick to the article and to the supportable facts, and we'll decide if decaf coffee has toxic impurities another time.--TMIndy (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh....provide me evidence that Jews didn't want to leave the Nazi camps. Have you even read the Lowman book? Of course not. If you had you would know that MAGIC intelligence was re-written in a variety of Army, Navy and FBI reports. No one is denying the majority of Japanese Americans were loyal. The government didn't have the time to weed out the loyal from the disloyal. I'm not finding your comments to be very compelling or worth responding to. You talk of facts and then don't provide any. Rather you go off on a tangent about British internment. If you'd like to debate this article and find ways to improve it that great. If you going to be a wingnut I'd rather pass. --History Student (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

peripherally related deletion discussion

There presently is a discussion about a high school that is trying to preserve the history of their local camp. Please put your two cents in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granada Undivided High School. Thanks, Chris 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out and comment. What are the chances the history will be fair, partial and accurate? --History Student 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironic

• Despite the fears that Japanese-Americans were "spys" in 1942 there was a Japanese Spy in the US-the non-Japanese Velvalee Dickinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.149 (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact ethnic Japanese in the United States were spying for the enemy is fact, not fear. Dickinson wasn't the only white person spying for Japan, there were others - most of them worked for or had close relationships with the Japanese, including Dickinson herself.

P.S. It's spelled "spies", not "spys". --History Student 19:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was truly a "fact", then it could be proven in each alleged instance by due process. It was NEVER a fact that ethnicity itself proved anything. The fact that no citizens of German ancestry were interned on the basis of their ethnicity proves the racist basis of the treatment of Japanese American citizens. The German secret services were even more active than the Japanese in attempting to recruit help from among German Americans. Yet the US government never blinked in putting the fate of the country in the hands of two German America military commanders. Tmangray (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually immigrants with german ancestry were interned!81.173.152.159 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Valid fears

I love the Japanese, but I must say that many of the fears of Japanese immigrants helping the Japanese war effort were valid. Michelle Malkin's book opens with a description of an incident in Hawaii illustrating this. --Uncle Ed 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Malkin is not a historian, her book was not peer-reviewed, she's noted for opposition to many kinds of immigrants (she seriously believes Mexican illegals are full of people who want to take the Southwest back for Mexico), and less relevantly she's Filipino. I only mention that because Filipinos have been treated like dirt by the Japanese and in my experience they resent that a bit. Anyway worse than her is one of the links used in this article. The "Internment Archives" website states it believes that "For the last 25 years our country has been subjected to an Orwellian construct of that event's history and millions in government money have been spent to propagate this incorrect account of the evacuation, largely for the benefit of a particular racial group who wished to obtain money and power."

That being said I imagine some Japanese may have been pro-Japan. Although the main justification I've heard from people who were actually there is that anti-Japanese hostility meant they were safer in camps. If the main issue had been "valid fears" they would've done a selective internment of mostly Issei.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the people who try to justify the internment as a "safety measure" for the Nikkei as the same ones screaming about "revisionism." The safety issue wasn't mentioned anywhere until long after the war. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

This title is confusing. It's linked to from the front page, and I immediately assumed it meant Japanese interment camps for Americans, not American interment camps for Japanese(-Americans). Maybe I've just been watching too much Ken Burns lately, but I think a hyphen would go along way here. -- 146.115.58.152 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to hyphenating the title, though that could be the amount of KB I've been watching too.... Has anyone else had any trouble with this, or would they care to voice an opinion? Geeman 03:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is the excessive effort to be "values neutral". Or maybe a misguided or even sneaky effort.

Some people even assert that the Nazi Holocaust and the US internment of Japanese immigrants are morally equivalent. I remember my frustration, talking with a college professor who insisting on calling Manzanar a "concentration camp", even though he knew full well that nearly everyone applies the connotation of "death camp" to that term.

The survival rate for Manzanar was not materially different for that of the general U.S. population. Likening US internment camps for its Japanese citizens to a Nazi extermination camp doesn't seem to serve our readers well. --Uncle Ed 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I took Asian American history, but I remember historically there being a big fuss about whether to hyphenate "Japanese-American" vs "Japanese American". Since all related articles are without hyphen (Japanese American, Category:Japanese Americans, etc) it stands to reason that there should be no hyphen here as well. I personally don't care myself, but I would argue for consistency. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the hyphen issue is that "Japanese-American" would put "Japanese" and "American" on equal footing, or balanced. "Japanese-American diplomatic relations" would be the relations between the countries with neither country being more important. But "Japanese American" makes "Japanese" an adjective and "American" a noun, meaning the person is an American with Japanese characteristics. That's the theory anyway. I prefer "American with Japanese ancestry." Readin (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Style manuals call for no hyphen. Also my Webster's 11th tells me that Japanese is an adjective that can mean "a person of Japanese descent"; therefore, "Japanese American" means an American of Japanese descent. I've made the fixes in the article, except for one article title which may or may not have the hyphen in the original. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

More on the title

I propose retitling this article as Internment experience of Japanese Americans. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

wat up

i need some information on japanese american internment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.108.3 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Which citizenship?

Were the internees asked to renounce their Japanese or their American citizenship? This section seems contradictory: Jpatokal (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Several pro-Japan groups formed inside the camps, and demonstrations[38] and riots occurred for various reasons in many camps, most notably Tule Lake, which caused the WRA to move "troublemaker" internees to Tule Lake. When the government asked whether internees wished to renounce their U.S. citizenship, 5,589 of them did so. Of those who renounced their citizenship, 1,327 were repatriated to Japan, although many of these deportees were not accepted by the Japanese Government.[citation needed] However, the American Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged most of these renunciations as invalid because of the conditions under which the government obtained them. These conditions were described as "coercion, duress, and mass compulsion" by Marvin Opler, a WRA official who had observed some of the renunciation hearings and supported the restoration of citizenship to the expatriated Japanese Americans.[citation needed] It is interesting to note that many of the deportees were Issei (first generation Japanese; immigrants) who often had difficulty with English and often did not understand the questions they were asked.[citation needed] Even among those Issei who had a clear understanding, Question 28 posed an awkward dilemma: Japanese immigrants were denied US citizenship at the time, so when asked to renounce their Japanese citizenship, answering "Yes" would have made them stateless persons. Faced with possible deportation to Japan, the Issei largely refused to renounce their only citizenship.

No Germans/Italians were interned for ethnicity?

"In glaringh contrast to the japanese americans?" Japanese were interned in accordance to geography, so you could also make the claim they were not tragetted for their ethnicity, hence this is completely meaningless rhetoric that seems intended to make the internment of the japanese more "unfair" than that of German/Italian americans. Frankly, it's quite racist. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It WAS more unfair. No CITIZENS of German or Italian ancestry were interned based on their ethnicity. Geography is irrelevant. If it were relevant, how do we explain putting two German Americans in charge of the Allied war effort in both theaters? Why weren't Italian Americans and German Americans on the East Coast interned? Racism was the reason. It preceded WWII on the west coast by many decades. Tmangray 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Germans or Italians, it was possible to tell someone was Oriental by looking at them, hence the Chinese-Americans wearing buttons that read "I am Chinese". Another factor to be considered, though, is that Japan actually launched attacks directly on the United States. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a factor at all. These were citizens, not foreign nationals or spies. Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on Germany. Yet there were no qualms at all in putting the fate of the US in the hands of people named Nimitz and Eisenhower. Tmangray 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No question there was a major racist factor. However, the fact remains that Japan directly attacked the

U.S. and Germany did not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was also an opportunist factor. Propert y taken from the interred Japanese-Americans sometimes found its way into the possession of politicians. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is isolationism. While there had been overt prejudice against German-Americans and Italian-Americans in WWI, this was a generation later, and (as you implicitly indicate) those groups were assimilated and were in positions of trusted authority. The U.S. was reluctant to go to war in Europe, which is why we did nothing substantial for 2 1/2 years after Germany invaded Poland. This was "somebody else's war". However, the Japanese attacks on the U.S. forced us into the war. So the resentment against Japanese was running high not just for the attacks but for having sucked us into the war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about the Japanese, but American citizens. The reasons you cite "work" in relation to Japanese nationals and spies, but not as to citizens. C'mon, we're grownups; racism was/is a fact of life, and it came into play bigtime given the chance to, using the very rationalizations you cite. Tmangray 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Racism or ethnicism was at the core of it, yes. It's similar to the suspicions that many Americans (presumably white Christian Americans) have developed or augmented toward Muslims since 9/11/01, including those Muslims who are American citizens. Because they are "different", there is suspicion that their loyalties are with Islam rather than the United States and Christianity. The difference is that (in general) they aren't being trucked to internment camps. But there is a commonality - the sense that "the Muslims" attacked "us", just as "the Japanese" collectively, including, by implication, Japanese-Americans attacked "us" in 1941. The Germans never attacked us directly, plus they were white and Christian (in theory), so they were relatively "not so different" from "us". There was plenty of anti-German sentiment in WWI here, but not so much in the 1940s, relatively. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There are similarities and also significant differences between the Moslem American and Japanese American situations, about which I'd be happy to engage further, but I think we're straying too far into a discussion about the subject rather than the editing. Tmangray 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

German Americans on the east coast and throughout the country were arrested, interned, and in some cases deported. Almost 11,000 German Americans were interned in the U.S. during World War II. Many German Americans sat, worked, played and went to school in the same camps as their Japanese American counterparts.

Furthermore even before the first person was interned, 600,000 Italian Americans and 300,000 German Americans were deprived of their civil liberties when they (all persons, male and female, age 14 and older) were required to register as "Alien Enemies." This registration entailed photographing, fingerprinting and the issuance of identification cards which the Alien Enemies had to have on their possession at all times. In addition they were forbidden to fly; to leave their neighborhoods; to possess cameras, short-wave radio receivers, and firearms. Finally, these persons were required to report any change of employment or address to the Department of Justice.

That said, The Tolan committee looked very closely at the need to evacuate Germans and Italians from the West Coast combat zones, also.

It was learned that the vast majority of the German enemy aliens were Jewish Germans who had escaped Hitler's oppression starting in the early 1930's. The Italians were by and large illiterate farmers who had never gotten around to applying for citizenship.

After careful thought and discussion it was decided these people were not a threat to the West Coast combat zones to the extent the ethnic Japanese were a threat.

To argue there must be some kind of proportionality between Germans and Japanese because they both happen to be the enemy without acknowledging the extent of the security threat from ethnic Germans compared to ethnic Japanese is poor logic. --History Student (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we're talking about Japanese enemy aliens who were not citizens. Approximately two-thirds of the ADULTS among those evacuated were Japanese nationals--enemy aliens. The vast majority of evacuated Japanese-Americans (U.S. citizens) were children at the time. Their average age was only 15 years. In addition, over 90% of Japanese-Americans over age 17 were also citizens of Japan (dual citizens)under Japanese law. Thousands had been educated in Japan. Some having returned to the U.S. holding reserve rank in the Japanese armed forces.

At no point was the government interested in "locking up" or "trucking into interment camps" the evacuated Japanese. From the beginning if the evacuation should occur the plan was to relocate them to areas in the interior with suitable farmland where the majority being in agriculture could continue producing for the war effort. From the begining religious, social service and even the JACL demanded that if the evacuation should occur the Japanese shouldn't just be "kicked out" of the combat zones.

The government should be responsible for feeding, housing, providing employment and medical care for the evacuated people - and assiting them in re-establishing themselves in the interior - in as humane an environment as could be provided. That is just what the government did with the Relocation Centers. --History Student (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're all grownups, so here are more facts that prove the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast were a security threat and the evacuation was not based on "racism".

1.Office of Naval Intelligence memorandum for the Chief of Naval Operations, Feb 12, 1941,"Japanese Espionage Organization in the United States," which suggests that the information therein be brought to the attention of the President and stating that the Japanese government had decided to strengthen its intelligence network by, among other moves to employ "Nisei Japanese and Japanese resident nationals" using extreme caution in doing so.

2. The Tachibana case (March 1941) about which Peter Irons' wrote in his "Justice at War": "...There was no question that Tachibana headed an espionage ring on the West Coast that enlisted a number of Japanese Americans, both aliens and citizens (sic), nor that the government knew the identities of its members..."

3. Military Intelligence Div. 336.8, Honolulu, 14 October 1941. "Japanese Ex-Service Men's Organization" which reports on two Japanese ex-military member groups active in the U.S. with 7200 members, stating in part: "...these two organizations have pledged to do sabotage (railroads and harbors)in the states mentioned (California, Washington, Oregon, and Utah) in time of emergency. Similar organizations are in Hawaii. Sixty-nine local units of these two organizations are said to be carrying on activities."

4. U.S.Army MID Information Bulletin No.6 of Jan.21, 1942,titled "Japanese Espionage," forwarded to Ass't SecWar John J. McCloy by Brig. General Mark J. Clark,then Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S.Army, which, among its conclusions states: "Their espionage net containing Japanese aliens, first and second generation Japanese and other nationals is now thoroughly organized and working underground."

Not to mention the MAGIC intercepts, the Nihau incident and the thousands of nisei at Tule Lake marching around demanding to be sent back to Japan to fight for the emporer. --History Student (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately confusing immigrant German nationals with US citizens, and omitting that the US citizens of German ancestry who were detained were accused of specific acts of spying. No US citizens of German ancestry were detained simply for being of German ancestry. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They were aliens, not US citizens. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But what about the East Coast? German subs were far more active there than the Japanese were off the West Coast. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a strongly logical argument to support the charge of racism, which in any case, preceded the war on the West Coast. The war provided an excuse to disposess a non white minority. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If so, then those cases could be prosecuted as evidence is alleged to have existed. No evidence at all existed that ethnicity itself was a crime. Look even President Ronald Reagan acknowledged the wrongness of the internment of US citizens. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More reports existed about the recruitment activities of the Gestapo and other German agencies among German Americans. Not one US citizen of German ancestry was interned simply for being of German descent. Tmangray (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the demonstration at Tule Lake actually occurred as you claim, it seems understandable given the outrageousness of citizens being interned simply for being of Japanese ancestry. Rage in such a circumstance is very reasonable. If your country treats you as a foreigner and a criminal, what the hell? Others reacted by joining the US Army. Tmangray (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tmangray, in the interest of clarity, post your respones at the bottom of the thread rather than at the bottom of each comment. It makes the thread much easier to follow. Don't bust up my posts with your comments.

"You are deliberately confusing immigrant German nationals with US citizens, and omitting that the US citizens of German ancestry who were detained were accused of specific acts of spying. No US citizens of German ancestry were detained simply for being of German ancestry."

That's entirely wrong. Thousands of German American kids were interned with their parents just as Japanese American kids were interned with their parents. You can read about it heres. [9]

You also fail to acknowledge Japanese issei were not US citizens either. They were Japanese nationals, enemy aliens. The majority of their nisei kids were dual citizens.

But what about the East Coast? German subs were far more active there than the Japanese were off the West Coast.

Neither Germany nor Italy had a navy that could sufficiently project enough power to invade the East Coast of the United States. Japan had developed such a force that had succeeded in developing the largest empire in the history of mankind in a matter of months. One reason for the lack of preparedness that led to Pearl Harbor was the belief Japan could not project forces so far to the east. Besides, the east coast was never declared a combat zone like the west coast.

It's actually a strongly logical argument to support the charge of racism, which in any case, preceded the war on the West Coast. The war provided an excuse to disposess a non white minority.

Nonsense. I don't know of anyone who has studied the issue and concluded that the so-called "internment" was justified who denies that there was racial prejudice against resident Japanese aliens and Japanese Americans at the time of Pearl Harbor.

But the fact that racism existed doesn't mean that racism was the reason for the "internment. On the contrary, had "racism" been the reason for the "internment" why was it that the thousands of ethnic Japanese not living in the West Coast military areas were not bothered at all?

If so, then those cases could be prosecuted as evidence is alleged to have existed. No evidence at all existed that ethnicity itself was a crime. Look even President Ronald Reagan acknowledged the wrongness of the internment of US citizens.

A military comabat zone does not operate under the same conditions has peacetime civil society. Why would the government want to reveal intelligence in a civil court that would be beneficial to the enemy? There was no need to prosecute individual cases when evacuation quickly and efficently dealt with the security threat without revealing sensitive intelligence. After the evacuation, espionage by ethnic Japanese completely stopped. Plenty of evidence exists that the Japanese on the west coast at the time were a security threat. I provided much of it above.

Reagan didn't try too hard to acknowledge anything. He sat on the bill for years and reluctantly signed it in 1988 (an election year) against the advice of his own Department of Justice. There is an excellent scholarly piece by Professor Tim Maga desribing the intense lobbying effort directed at President Reagan by Japanese American ethnic activist lobbiests and their political allies. It was a full court press. It was ugly and it's a perfect example of why politicians should not be in the business of legislating revisionist history.

More reports existed about the recruitment activities of the Gestapo and other German agencies among German Americans. Not one US citizen of German ancestry was interned simply for being of German descent.

Besides the fact this comment is entirely wrong why not provide some evidence "more reports" existed.

Assuming the demonstration at Tule Lake actually occurred as you claim, it seems understandable given the outrageousness of citizens being interned simply for being of Japanese ancestry. Rage in such a circumstance is very reasonable. If your country treats you as a foreigner and a criminal, what the hell? Others reacted by joining the US Army.

Assuming? That's laughable! Check out these pics! What do you think Tule Lake Segregation Center existed in the first place? [10]

As for the canard that their treatment was justification for being traitors, that didn't make them any less of the threat, did it? --History Student (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the virulent form of racism against the Japanese and Asians preceding the war was generally mostly in the far west. Hawaii was exceptional, and sure enough, no Japanese Americans there were interned just for being of Japanese ancestry. Tmangray (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains the evacuation of Japense nationals, not US citizens. Tmangray (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The same exact thing occurred with the internment of the US citizens of Japanese ancestry. Intense lobbying by virulent racists such as the general quoted in the article created political pressure to deny civil rights to US citizens without due process. Tmangray (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Some folks are still flogging the dead horse that the U.S. Government was in the right to imprison anyone who was of Japanese extraction. The following is "original research" and also unverified, but food for thought as to the real motivation for the internment... a note from my Oregon-native father from some years ago: "A few miles north of Salem, Oregon, there is a former lake bed that is quite fertile. This area, Lake Labish, was farmed successfully by Japanese-Americans, most of whom had been there for many years. Some from the younger generations were students at Willamette University. I knew several of them. The Japanese-Americans were all "relocated" to concentration camps in western deserts. Their Oregon farmland was effectively stolen from them. One state senator in the area got most of the Lake Labish land. Some years alter, this senator died of a slow and painful cancer illness. My father's comment was 'Perhaps there is justice after all.'" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey baseball bugs, maybe you're familiar with this story.

We lived in a cluster of homes five miles north of Salem, Oregon in a rural area called Hayesville. Ron ** and his family lived across the road from us, a road called Milton road. He moved into the neighborhood in the 1930s. Hayesville was very near the main railroad line between San Diego and Seattle.

Lake Labish is located about five miles north of Hayesville. Mr. ** told me that shortly after the war started, an Army officer came to his home to ask a favor. The government was picking up radio signals from the Lake Labish area after trains passed through. The officer said they did not have the man power to investigate where the radio signals were coming from. He ask Mr. ** if he would assemble some people to go to the Japanese village in Lake Labish at night and watch for any strange activity when trains passed though.

Mr. ** said that he got some of his neighbors: Mr. **, Mr. **, and Mr. ** (all men we knew when we were kids), they went to Lake Labish, found a spot in the fir trees over looking the Japanese village, and began to watch.

After a train passed though an old Japanese man came out from one of the small houses, went to a well, pulled up a package from the well, and took it back to his cabin. Mr. ** reported the incident to the officer in Salem. Some time later the officer came back to Mr. **'s house and told him that the Army found a radio tied to a rope in the well. The Army suspected that the old Japanese man was transmitting information about the trains to a submarine.

P.S. baseball bugs, the government didn't confiscate any Japanese owned land. In fact, a federal Alien Custodian of Property was put into place to ensure alien property was protected. This was a top priority before the evacuation even occured.

As for your "concentration camp" comment, at no point was the government interested in "locking up" the evacuated Japanese. From the beginning if the evacuation should occur the plan was to relocate them to areas in the interior with suitable farmland where the majority being in agriculture could continue producing for the war effort. From the begining religious, social service and even the JACL demanded that if the evacuation should occur the Japanese shouldn't just be "kicked out" of the combat zones.

The government should be responsible for feeding, housing, providing employment and medical care for the evacuated people - and assiting them in re-establishing themselves in the interior - in as humane an environment as could be provided. That is just what the government did with the Relocation Centers.--History Student (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the virulent form of racism against the Japanese and Asians preceding the war was generally mostly in the far west. Hawaii was exceptional, and sure enough, no Japanese Americans there were interned just for being of Japanese ancestry.

According to the 1940 census, ethnic Japanese made up 40% of the population of Hawaii. In California, the population was 1.6%. Military authorities had considered moving all ethnic Japanese to Molokai or the West Coast but moving 40% of the population was logistically and indeed financially impossible. That said, there was an internment camp in Hawaii at Sand Harbor. More importantly, Hawaii was under military martial law at the time.

If the the authorities could have evacuated all ethnic Japanese from Hawaii they would have. They could not so they did not.

As an aside, Japan had a battle plan in place for the invasion of Hawaii that intended to utilize ethnic Japanese during the occupation. The plan was scrapped after Japan's defeat at Midway. --History Student (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains the evacuation of Japense nationals, not US citizens.

The vast majority of evacuated Japanese-Americans (U.S. citizens) were children at the time. Their average age was only 15 years. In addition, over 90% of Japanese-Americans over age 17 were also citizens of Japan (dual citizens)under Japanese law. Thousands had been educated in Japan. Some having returned to the U.S. holding reserve rank in the Japanese armed forces.--History Student (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The same exact thing occurred with the internment of the US citizens of Japanese ancestry. Intense lobbying by virulent racists such as the general quoted in the article created political pressure to deny civil rights to US citizens without due process.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. DeWitt was no racist. He was an honorable man with a tuff job who has been vilified by the Japanese American Reperations Movement in an attempt to cover up their own unsavory conduct before and during the war.

As Conn clearly shows, DeWitt, up to his final recommendation to the War Department on 13 Feb. 1942, (prior to FDR's E.O.9066) was consistent in his opposition to the detention of American citizens. His final recommendation to the War Department was that "citizen evacuees would either ACCEPT INTERNMENT VOLUNTARILY OR RELOCATE THEMSELVES with such assistance as state and federal agencies might offer." (Emphasis mine)

In his final recommentation, DeWitt also called for the inclusion of ALL enemy aliens (German and Italians as well as Japanese) in any evacuation decided.

The evacuation decision was made in the War Department and instructions to DeWitt for instrumentation thereof differed markedly from DeWitt's final recommendation in a number of respects. But the fact is that from early on to his final recommendation prior to the Evacuation Decision made in Washington, DeWitt was consistent in his opposition to the detainment of American citizens of Japanese descent. As a good soldier, however, he bowed to the orders of his superiors and carried out their instructions to the best of his ability.

And as I said above that you obviously ignored, a military comabat zone during wartime doesn't abide by the same rules as peacetime civil society so your comments regarding civil rights and due process are moot.--History Student (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What I gather from your various stories is that since they couldn't figure out which Japanese natives and Japanese-Americans were OK and which were enemies, they had to lock them all up, "for their own protection", of course. And white Americans who stole their property were simply getting "the spoils of war", and that's show biz. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually ethnic Japanese were evacuated from the combat zones because plenty of evidence existed that many were assisting the enemy and were a security threat. The government didn't know who they all were and time was of the essence so the military made the right decision and evacuated all of them. Hey, war is hell.

From the outset the WRA's principal objective was to resettle evacuees and get them out of the camps as soon as possible for locations anywhere in the U.S. but in the military zones from which they had been evacuated. Anyone (alien or citizen)could apply to leave the relocation centers and would be approved if he or she met the following criteria: (1) had a job offer or other means of support waiting on the outside, (2) agreed to keep the WRA informed of any changes of jobs or addresses, (3)had a clean record both at the center and with the FBI as well as no record of disloyalty to the U.S. with a military intelligence agency, and (4)there existed reasonable evidence that the person's presence would be acceptable to the community in which he proposed to make his or her new home.

Ironically, the announcement of the resettlement program in September of 1942 brought howls of protest from the evacuees "who saw it as an attempt on the part of the government to evade responsibility of caring for them by turning them into a hostile Caucasian world." ["Democracy on Trial,"-Page Smith, award-winning historian and professor at UC/Santa Cruz.]

The WRA persisted in encouraging (practically begging) the evacuees to apply to leave the centers. Counselers were dispatched to assure them of good treatment on the outside, monetary incentives to leave were offered, WRA resettlement field offices were set up in Chicago, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Milwaukee, New York, and other cities to pave the way for employment of the evacuees. But still many evacuees, particularly the Issei, resisted leaving the camps. In a letter dated February 10, 1981(a copy of which I have), former WRA head,Dillon Myer, responded to a researcher's question in the following words: "The WRA did its very best to get people to leave the camps, and of course many thousands did leave...but many of the older aliens refused to leave... because they felt more secure in the camps."

So, the government didn't "lock them all up", but the government evacuated all of them from the military combat zones because it was known that many within the community were a threat and they had to get off the coast combat zones immediately.

If people who lost land or belongings got shafted by unscrupulous people, it wasn't the U.S. government.

In early March of 1942 the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was given responsibility for handling evacuee property. On March 11 of that year "an Alien Property Custodian was appointed ...and on March 15 the Farm Security Administration assumed responsibility for assisting with (evacuee) farm problems." [Personal Justice Denied" Report of The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.]

Of course in the fog of war losses occurred in some cases and that's why the Evacuation Claims Act was passed when the war was over. Those that had losses could have filed claims under he 1948 Evacation Claims Act which was amended several times throughout the 1950s. Claims up to $100,000 were eligible for hearings and when all was concluded there were only 15 appeals to the settlements offered by the government out of more than 26,000 claims filed. How much fairer could that have been?

Did other Americans who lost everything as a result of the war get such a deal?

No other group in the United States got that kind of special treatment for war losses, and there were plenty of losses other than those by the Japanese.--History Student (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Which other group lost everything solely because the government decided that all members of their racial group were to be imprisoned? Seems to me that the "special treatment" box was opened by FDR -- an action which you have repeatedly supported.

I notice you're tossing out that old canard again, about the Issei being "enemy aliens" because they weren't US citizens. There is something rather hypocritical when you condemn people for not becoming citizens, when you know that they were prevented from becoming citizens. 208.110.159.78 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And why were they prevented from becoming citizens? Because Japan sent Japanese nationals overseas in droves, including to the United States in violation of the First and Second Gentlmen's Agreements, a treaty between Japan and the United States that Japan openly and willfully ignored. The issei were illegal aliens. The United States government then gave them permanent resident status (even though they were illegal aliens)and after Pearl Harbor their status changed to enemy aliens.

According to the U.S.Census, in 1940 there were approx 84,000 Issei in the U.S. and Hawaii, the bulk of them were under 50 years of age. By 1960 there were approx 101,000, no doubt including some war brides. According to INS publication "Persons Naturalized by Former Allegiance" only 32,168 Japanese-born became naturalized U.S.citizens between 1952-1960. That's only 32%. To suggest that issei were falling over themselves to become American citizens is a myth.

As for old canards, all ethnic Japanese in America didn't "lose everything" and they weren't "imprisoned". --History Student (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question for you History Student. If the Japanese Americans were placed in the internment camps due to "plenty of evidence... that many were assisting the enemy..." how come no Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage on American soil? In addition to this, why would there be a need to imprison Japanese Americans who had as little as 1/16th Japanese blood? In other words, my grandchildren would be put in an internment camp if it happened today. Is that fair? it's been almost 100 years since ancestors of mine lived in America.

My grandmother was born on US soil to fully blooded Japanese immigrants who had their citizenship when the internment camps started went to Poston, AZ. There were guards with guns, there were barbed wire fences. To deny these facts is simply ludicrous. They were provided ramshackle housing and had to make their own furniture out of scrap lumber. The holes in the walls had to be fixed and the drafts plugged up to stop the scorpions from getting inside, and to prevent too large of a buildup of sand after the sand storms. The US government wronged an entire race, and your twisting of facts, and blatant bigotism absolutely astounds me. 69.92.233.142 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the sentence at the top of this page that states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese American internment article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Those editors who are working to improve the article would certainly pray for your adherence to this notice. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the comment is pertinent, considering HS' statement that "they weren't 'imprisoned'" and his consistent and extreme defense of the internment, often at the expense of honesty and truth. He has claimed that there were no fences or guard towers at the camps, that guards weren't armed, that people could easily leave the camps, and other things which are known to be incorrect. He holds up one statement (out of context) as proof of his position, then condemns other statements by the same person as being "political correctness." He points to the Niihau incident as proof that all Nikkei were a threat and needed to be interned, while ignoring the fact that 160,000 other Nikkei in Hawaii (including Japanese natives) never were involved in anti-American activity, despite not being interned.

History Student reminds me of Baghdad Bob, and if a Japanese American walked to Alameda from a boat in the middle of San Francisco Bay, I would expect HS to use that as "proof" that Nikkei can't swim. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)