rivercitybirdie, interesting point. Just because he invented it doesn't mean he would use the bomb.

Ah, to be back in the good old days, where liberals could be racists with clear consciences.

i would add this question (minor comment):

how were the german-americans and italian americans treated?

i have read a few books recently (frank sinatra and lucky luciano bios) that said the government called in the mob to root out informers in the ports during WW2.

sinatra bio said that italian-americans living near key ports were ordered to leave... my guess is they were encouraged to leave but then didn't (might have made some show of leaving but didn't actually do it)

was japan more of a threat to continental USA than germany? unless you can make a strong argument for that then i think japanese internment is basically ugly racism...... also, germans blend in much better (so much bigger threat) and hitler was very popular in USA before the war (probably no one cared about japanese emperor that much in USA b4 pearl)... weren't there a few submarine incidents off both costs?

an interesting question that comes out of this: would hitler have remained popular in USA if 1) USA didn't enter war; 2) details of his mass extermination of jews was well known. i'm sure people would have been quieter in support but would they have stopped supporting him.

It was racist, but something like 9000 Germans were interned in the US. They were mostly German nationals.

Not only were German Americans white, there were millions of them and most from earlier immigration.

One of the difference was that with German Americans is that we had already fought a war with them and knew what to expect. BTW there was a lot of anti German WW1 feeling then. What we call Swiss steak now was always called German Steak. And Hot Dogs were Frankforters back then. Also large part of German Americans were totally assimulated by then. Active German Bund/Nazi members were intereed. Don't know so much about Italians.

Canadians and Australians interned both Germans and Italians.

Like I said, it was racist, but a much higher percentage of Japanese than Germans or Italians in the US were not citizens.

American-born children of German or Italian immigrants were not interned. American-born children of Japanese immigrants were interned.

If you don't count the Aleutions as part of continental US, then by most measures Japan was clearly less of a threat than Germany. Germany landed people (from submarines) in both the US and Canada. Japan never landed anybody in the US or Canada. Germany sank about 100 times as much tonnage of shipping in US waters as the Japanese did. German bases were much closer to the US than were Japanese bases. However, Japan did manage to kill 5 US civilians when a boy tampered with an unexploded incendiary bomb dropped by an unmanned balloon.

Yup. But racism, especially against non-Europeans, was a lot more socially acceptable than.

Japanese subs shelled the US at least twice and Canada at least once, but injured nobody and caused no significant damage. Japanese subs sank a negligible number of ships off the US west coast. In contrast, German subs sank hundreds of ships off the US east coast and operated far up the St. Lawrence river in Canada.

I'm not sure it is accurate to claim that Hitler was ever popular in the US. He had support in some quarters, but not with the US population as a whole.

In 1939 and 1940, non-interventionists > pro-British >>>> pro-German.

Internment of enemy nationals is not racist, not uncommon, and possibly prudent. Internment of one's own citizens based on their ancestral origins is racist, less common and unjustifiable.

For those interested, Richard Reeve has a new book on the subject, "Infamy." $23.03 today on Amazon.

Sorry but this is just stupid hindsight. Keep repeating it doesn't make it true. See my previous points. Majority of Japanese were not! citizens!!!! And when you take a look at ages it becomes even more lop sided. If you would remove those under 18 from camps who were there because of being there with non citizen parents it becomes even more true.

Was it right, may not. Was it effective? Yes.

Actually, nearly 2/3 of those interned were American citizens.

The majority of adults were non citizens....remove the kids...

What you are saying is that it is unreasonable to remove people connected to a country that you are at war with from an area that might be attacked by them?

In the mean time we can't get the Jap bastssd to say sorry for the forced rape of comfort women? And we are saying how we were so racist to people who come from a society that was and IS one of the most racist in the world. Does anyone see the irony?

If our relative lack of racism is something to be proud of, you should stop making racist posts.

You might be right. Perhaps it was racist to intern enemy aliens.

No what makes it true is there is no credible evidence of any real possibility of a substantial attack by the Japanese on the US mainland or of any risk that US citizens of Japanese ancestry were in any way involved in any attempt to aid such an invasion.

I wish I hadn't.

No about 2/3 were citizens.

About 1/4 of the internees were children. A significant portion of those were children of citizens. If we assume that all children were citizens, and subtact them from the number of citizen internees, the number of remaining citizen internees was still greater than the non-citizens.

Effective at what? Preventing a Japanese invasion? LOL

We already went over that. The majority of adults internees were citizens. The majority of the non-citizen internees would have become naturalized citizens if they had not been prevented from doing so by racist laws.

No, I am saying that the vast majority of internees had no ties to Japan of the sort that made them a real security risk, and that there was no real threat of a serious attack. For many, the only tie was racial, so the internment of these citizens was by definition racist. Also illegal. Also unjustified by the circumstance. The illegality and the lack of justification are both findings of US courts.

Coral Sea was not a draw. It was a strategic victory for the Allies although at the time it might have looked like a minor victory for Japan. Their attempt to invade Port Moresby by sea was turned back and their steady tide of advancement was halted. It was particularly important to Australia.

All that said, the internment was not justified in reality. But in the perceptions at the time, maybe it was. This question can have two answers, depending on your point of view.

For many, the only tie was racial, so the internment of these citizens was by definition racist.

Sorry, but this proves that you know nothing about Japanese culture as it was preWW2. You seem to think that all of that disappeared as soon as they moved here. I guess you have never know any immigrants that still have strong ties to the homeland. And remember back then the Emperor was a god.

No what makes it true is there is no credible evidence of any real possibility of a substantial attack by the Japanese on the US mainland or of any risk that US citizens of Japanese ancestry were in any way involved in any attempt to aid such an invasion.

No what makes it true is there is no credible evidence of any real possibility of a substantial attack by the Japanese on the US mainland or of any risk that US citizens of Japanese ancestry were in any way involved in any attempt to aid such an invasion.


You quoted me so much. How did you miss my one about how we came with in a couple lucky carrier strikes of losing the Pacific Sea war to the Japanese. Example: in Coral Sea Japanese bombers almost landed on one of our carriers thinking it was theirs the first day. They had just jettisoned the bombs. Would have changed the outcome of the war if it had been 10 minutes sooner. We only won Midway because a Japanese cruisers catapult malfunctioned. Don't argue with me about fact..you are unarmed. I probably read more books last week than you did last year.

Argue evidence etc,,,,,,,,,,,,, keep personal attacks and emotions in check. Thanks.

FYP

On the contrary. I have known several people of Japanese ancestry who were born in North America and interned during WW II.

All you need to do is look at the warship production production of the US vs. the Japanese to know how silly it is to claim that the US losing Midway or Coral Sea would have resulted in losing the whole Pacific sea war to the Japanese.

Anybody who knows the first thing about amphibious warfare knows how silly it is to contemplate that the Japanese ever had a realistic chance of launching an invasion of the continental US.

No, it would have changed some of the timing of events in the Pacific war. The outcome was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

You've already been corrected on this one.

And yet, you are the one who is making factual errors in this thread. More disturbing are the conclusions you are drawing.

You'd have to be a phenomenally fast reader with no life. But volume isn't the only thing that matters. There is also the question of the quality of the material you are reading, your ability to absorb the material, and your ability to draw appropriate conclusions.

Given what we've seen from you, I think it is a safe bet that over our lifetimes I have spent more time in the company of professional military historians, librarians and archivists than you have; that I have spent more time in military museums and archives than you; that I know more serving and retired military officers than you do; that I have interviewed more veterans of the Pacific theatre than you, that I have spoken with more actual internees of Japanese ancestry than you, that I have had more access to classified material and restricted access sites than you; and that I have read more original source material than you.

Last week, while you were reading more books than me, I was spending time meeting with and communicating with senior officers and senior civilian defence employees about an ongoing operation, force composition, training capacity and a protocol matter. I was also consulting with agents of certain agencies on matters of cultural acclimatization of immigrants, mainly of Asian origin.

I know many 1st generation Asians send large amounts of money back overseas (Philippines, Thailand) as part of their culture. Thus, if asked they would send war secrets no doubt in my mind. Many like to compare them to German concentration camps. They interview one guy and they said as a kid they gave them fishing poles to fish the nearby creeks. No one was shot or hurt at these places. However, what was wrong was not securing their property or retributions for after the war. Also the living quarters could have been better. I Don't think many Japanese were really that disgruntled, and they got to escape in any actual fight. Would you rather be in Japan or on Normandy beach than at a U.S. concentration camp? Also being at the camp is what you make of it, you can sit in your room and cry, or turn it into a party it is your choice.

You see a lot of U.S. bashing on the forums and this thread and the U.S. is still the last best hope for humanity. The answer is we should do it again tomorrow but only better if we had to.

You are talking about two generations later. That wouldn't have been practical back then.

The current Asians you know are acting out of family loyalty, not national loyalty, and are taking advantage of communication and banking systems that didn't exist in the first half of the 20th century. Most of them are probably not US citizens.

Concentration camps are a British invention.

Yeah, it was just a fun adventure - summer (and winter) camp!

That's not true. Several internees where shot to death and others wounded in alleged escape attempts, many of which were later found not have been actual escape attempts.

What was wrong was imprisoning citizens who had committed no crime.

LOL

A significant portion of the military service-aged men, when given the opportunity, chose to fight.

Unbelievable.

LOL.

I enjoy visiting the US so couldn't be said to be a US basher but comments like the above are just the sort of thing that really encourages it. It's almost delustional.

Anyway /derail from me

As a US citizen, I have to say I'm used to the bashing and over time, I've begun to take less offense.

The internment was flat out wrong. If what comprises "the last best hope for humanity" is the commitment to individual liberty, the internment fails that test miserably.

Not to mention that the militarization of the police in the US over the past 30 years plus the further erosion of liberty since 9/11 suggests to me that the US that might have been "the last best hope" no longer exists (if it ever did, but that's another topic).

Often quoted, but not true.

The Spanish 'reconcentrado' policy which established concentration camps when dealing with a revolt in Cuba 1896 pre-dates the Boer war and the camps in South Africa and was a contributing factor to the Spanish-American War in 1898.

WARNING: graphic pictures
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/...entration.html
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/weyler.html


General Weyler claimed that the inspiration for the camps came from his study of the American Civil War - specifically General Order No 11 issued by General Thomas Ewing. This authorised the forced removal of the rural population in western Missouri to prevent them supplying Confederate guerrillas.
(President Truman's mother was one of those forcibly dispossessed.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General..._No._11_(1863)

So, if General Weyler's version is accepted then concentration camps are actually a US invention.