Protection of "Magic"? Opps!
a425couple
Series "The Corps, Book IV, Battleground", has some
regards Guadalcanal. And I went to check out some
questions. Ugg! Truth seemed worse than fiction!)
http://www.mcitta.org/rollofhonor.htm
http://www.mcitta.org/cenotaph_wwii.htm
MERLE RALPH CORY was in his mid 40's and working as a civilian cryptanalysis
at the OP-20-GZ (Translation and Dissemination Section), the organization
responsible for breaking the Japanese cryptic code prior to the attack on
Pearl Harbor. Then Mr. Cory, was the translator who intercepted the
encrypted message warning of the Pearl Harbor attack. Following December
7th, he resigned to join the Marine Corps. He was too old for a regular
enlistment, but was offered a direct commission as a 2nd Lieutenant to fill
the Marine Corps' crisis shortage of Japanese linguists. Cory was assigned
to the S-2 of the Fifth Marines of the 1st Marine Division. He soon found
himself aboard ship heading for Guadalcanal on August 7, 1942. On
Guadalcanal, Lt Cory interrogated several Japanese prisoners of war,
discovering that a large number of Japanese "Marines" and laborers were
willing to surrender. Based on this information, LtCol Frank Goettge
organized a 25-man patrol, along with Lt Cory, to bring them in. On August
12, The Goettge Patrol deployed to the designated area and was immediately
taken under fire from the Japanese. Col Goettge was killed with the first
burst of fire, and Lt Cory fell gravely wounded with a bullet in the
stomach. The ensuing battle left the entire patrol killed, save three. Cory
was listed as missing in action on 13 August 1942, which was changed to
Killed in Action (body not recovered) a year later.
Lt Merle Ralph Cory, USMCR is honored with a headstone erected in New Tacoma
Cemetery, Tacoma, Washington.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Leatherneck_Translator_080404,00.html
Leatherneck: Star-Crossed Translator
Story by Dick Camp
Second Lt Merle Ralph Cory was an expert cryptanalyst, who, ---- joined the
Corps and went to war. His comprehensive knowledge of the American
code-breaking successes caused many to second-guess the decision that
allowed him to risk capture by the Japanese.
Ralph Cory should never have been ---- at Guadalcanal. It was government
policy that anyone connected with MAGIC was expressly prohibited from combat
or duty that put them in close proximity to the enemy. He slipped through
the cracks ---. He saw his duty as being at the front, not "pencil pushing"
in the rear.
2004 Leatherneck Magazine. All rights reserved.
(I believe these two partial paragraphs are within "fair use",
check the sites and other searches for more details.)
Rich Rostrom
> MERLE RALPH CORY .. was the translator who intercepted the
> encrypted message warning of the Pearl Harbor attack.
Alarm bell! There was no such message.
Also, this is a very garbled statements. Messages
were "intercepted" by radio monitoring stations,
The intercepted ciphertexts, and the associated
callsigns and other metadata, were passed to
the signals intelligence HQ, which performed
"traffic analysis" (i.e. seeing what could be
learned from the callsigns and message volume).
Signals also passed the ciphertext to the
cryptanalysts. who deciphered the messags
if possible, The deciphered message was then
passed to translators who rendered them into
English, and analysts who examined the
content.
If Mr. Cory was a translator, he was not involved
in interception or decryption. OTOH Japanese
language skills would be useful to a cryptanalyst
(perhaps necessary, since deciphering Japanese
texts would require good knowledge of Japanese
alphabets and text patterns). Also, of course, to
an analyst.
> Ralph Cory should never have been ---- at Guadalcanal.
Absolutely.
> He slipped through the cracks ...
On his own initiative, or by bureaucratic error?
> He saw his duty as being at the front, not
> "pencil pushing" in the rear.
This implies it was his idea. He should have
been overruled.
The British government had a rule that anyone
associated with the decryption activities at
Bletchley Park couldn't even leave Britain -
except I guess to go to the U.S. after the U.S.
joined the Enigma-breaking effort. (This
obviously applied to the cryptanalysts, not
to the SLU officers and others who delivered
ULTRA intelligence to field HQs.)
Many young men were thus "trapped", despite
their earnest desire for combat service.
I have read of a young man who, after being
assigned to Bletchley Park, received a letter
from his former school headmaster denouncing
him as a "shirker" - and of course could not
defend himself, even to stating in general terms
the secret nature and importance of his work.
I can well understand how Cory might have
wanted to evade the restriction on MAGIC
participants. If he was in his 40s, he had been
old enough to serve in WW I; and possibly he
was embarrassed at not seeing combat then.
a425couple
>"a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> MERLE RALPH CORY .. was the translator who intercepted the
>> encrypted message warning of the Pearl Harbor attack.
> Alarm bell! There was no such message.
> in interception or decryption. OTOH Japanese
> language skills would be useful to a cryptanalyst
> (perhaps necessary, since deciphering Japanese
> texts would require good knowledge of Japanese
> alphabets and text patterns). Also, of course, to
> an analyst.
I certainly agree with all the above.
So "garbled" in fact, that I was pretty much dismissing
the first two sites that gave reference to him.
(I'd been surprised that the fiction of Lt. Cory
was a real name! The fiction raised major "alarm bells"
just on the fear that as a experienced translator he
might have had knowledge/supposition of the existance
of "Magic" = fact we could read their messages).
I felt it best to just leave those quotes "as is/was".
Because "The Leatherneck" and others verify the
core issue - which is he knew of "Magic",
and was definitely in harms way!
>> Ralph Cory should never have been ---- at Guadalcanal.
> Absolutely.
>> He slipped through the cracks ...
> On his own initiative, or by bureaucratic error?
Certainly, he had his "own agenda".
That is why I said "Opps!"
Mistakes happen in a huge bureaucracy functioning
in real time with individuals, and their actions----.
(especially in WWII times, pre computer data bases)
> Many young men were thus "trapped", despite
> their earnest desire for combat service.
> I have read of a young man who, after being
> assigned to Bletchley Park, received a letter ---
The feelings described in your example are very true,
and long lasting. True for me, for many in my cohort,
generations before and after.
(ehhhh, I'll just skip my silly past situation ---)
Alan
Prados, Corry [Prados's spelling] had been "working on Japanese codes
in Washington" before being assigned as an interpreter for the 5th
Marines. He doesn't go into any further details, which is probably
significant, seeming to suggest he was not one of the code breakers.
As Mr. Rostrom says, none of the code breakers would have been allowed
into combat.
Alan
William Black
More to the point, the translators would almost certainly not be told
what the source of their material was.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Bill Shatzer
> Alan wrote:
>> Prados talks about this in "Combine Fleet Decoded". According to
>> Prados, Corry [Prados's spelling] had been "working on Japanese codes
>> in Washington" before being assigned as an interpreter for the 5th
>> Marines. He doesn't go into any further details, which is probably
>> significant, seeming to suggest he was not one of the code breakers.
>> As Mr. Rostrom says, none of the code breakers would have been allowed
>> into combat.
> More to the point, the translators would almost certainly not be told
> what the source of their material was.
Wouldn't the source be readily apparent from the context?
pbrom...@aol.com
>
> More to the point, the translators would almost certainly not be told
> what the source of their material was.
>
And how long do you think it would take for them to figure it out? A
couple of days? Hours?
The translators had to know they were reading Japanese naval or
diplomatic communications. How would they be able to do their jobs
properly if they weren't told that? They wouldn't need to be told any
details about codes, etc., but they couldn't possibly not recognize
what they were reading day after day.
William Black
But they wouldn't have known what the source was, especially with MAGIC
where the obvious source was that the stuff could have been received
from a suborned clerk.
William Black
Depends on what he was working on.
Diplomatic telegrams had been stolen before...
pbrom...@aol.com
>
> But they wouldn't have known what the source was, especially with MAGIC
> where the obvious source was that the stuff could have been received
> from a suborned clerk.
This is unrealistic. A suborned clerk could never keep up a stream of
documents in almost real time. And after December 7, just what clerk
available to any US personnel would ever have access to communications
between, say, the Japanese Foreign Ministry and the imperial
ambassador to Nazi Germany?
If you were sitting in Washington on Dec 9, translating a
communication from Berling to Tokyo referring to Hitlers reaction on
Dec 8 to the events of Dec 7, wouldn't you have a pretty good idea how
it got to you?
wjho...@aol.com
> William Black wrote:
>
> > But they wouldn't have known what the source was,
> This is unrealistic..
Yes, it is. The MAGIC production line was broken down
into three sections, each well aware of what the others
were doing.
First there were the intercept stations. Next the
cryptographic group where the actual breaking of the coded
messages into readable Japanese took place. Finally there
were the translators.
The bottleneck was often in the translation section because
of the heavy volume of traffic being intercepted and broken,
and the limited number of translators.
As Kahn points out in his monumental work, "The
Codebreakers:"
..."Interpreters of Japanese were even scarcer than
expert cryptanalysts. Security precluded employing Nisei or
any but the most trustworthy Americans. The Navy scoured
the country for acceptable translators and ....in 1941 it doubled
its translation staff--to six. These included three whom Kramer
(head of OP-20GZ) called 'the most highly killed Occidentals in
the Japanese language in the world.'"
WJH
Rich Rostrom
> This is unrealistic. A suborned clerk could never keep up a stream of
> documents in almost real time.
Furthermore, intercepted messages
were often imperfect, with missing
or garbled letters. This of course
would be very different from stolen
messages, which would be perfect.
Alan
> The bottleneck was often in the translation section because
> of the heavy volume of traffic being intercepted and broken,
> and the limited number of translators.
Unfortunately, because of paranoia and racism, the Japanese Americans
were, for the most part, not allowed to serve in this respect.
*Very early in the war the USMC did recruit some language officers
from this source. "Combined Fleet Decoded" John Prados
Alan
wjho...@aol.com
> On Oct 28, 1:03 am, "wjhopw...@aol.com" wrote:
>
> > The bottleneck was often in the translation section because
> > of the heavy volume of traffic being intercepted and broken,
> > and the limited number of translators.
>
> Unfortunately, because of paranoia and racism, the Japanese
> Americans were, for the most part, not allowed to serve in this
> respect. *Very early in the war the USMC did recruit some
> language officers from this source. "Combined Fleet Decoded"
> John Prados
Well, it wasn't "racism," and after the suprise at Pearl Harbor
there was much for the U.S. to be paranoid about. We were
at war with nation of Japan, not the heritage of the ethnic
Japanese.
It was only prudent that JAs were precluded from working on
the highly sensitive MAGIC program for myriad reasons among
which were the following:
Most Nisei over age 17 at the time were dual
citizen (Japanese and American). Also, pre-Pearl Harbor
code-breaking of Japanese diplomatic messages had
themselves revealed the existence of Japanese agents
among the West Coast Japanese population. There were
numerous Japanese patriotic societies made up of Nisei
and Issei who were sending money to Japan for the
Japanese war effort in Asia, as well as large number of JAs
in Japan at the time. On the West Coast there were, among
the Nisei,thousands of who had been educated in Japan who
had returned to the U.S., having had training in and holding
reserve status in the Japanese armed forces.
As for Prados, let me point out that he doesn't actually say
any Nisei served in the Marine Corps. He only notes that
before the war some Nisei were recruited by the Marines on the
West Coast and brought to Hawaii to attend classes at Univ. of
Hawaii to brush up on the Japanese language. Indeed, Prados
notes that such recruitment was stopped when FDR's EO9066 (exclusion
order) was issued after Pearl Harbor.
The Army did, however, accept and train several thousand
Nisei to be used as translators and interpreters and a few of
these were temporarily attached to the Marines at Iwo Jima
where bull horns were rigged in trying to flush the Japanese
out of their caves, with little success.
Interestingly, Prados does note that a Nisei was among those
accompanying the high-ranking team of Japanese officers who
came to Manila after the surrender to work out the surrender
formalities. He wrote:
"....the Imperial Navy's component consistred of six
individuals led by Rear Admiral Yokoyama Ichiro....(one of the six)
Mizota George Chuichi, happened to be a Nisei...with Mizota as
interpreter, the officers found themselves quietly arranging
modalities of the surrender."
It has been reliably estimated that somewhere between 5000
and 7500 Nisei served in the Japanese armed forces during WWII,
and that several thousand others served Japan in other capacities such
as POW guards, radio propagandists, interpreters,etc.
WJH
Alan
> It was only prudent that JAs were precluded from working on
> the highly sensitive MAGIC program for myriad reasons among
> which were the following:
Were German Americans or Italian Americans also excluded?
Alan
wjho...@aol.com
No reason to, inasmuch as MAGIC was a program for
the interception, breaking, and translating of Japanese
messages, not those of the Germans and Italians.
As for the "racism" motivation you are driving at
(which seems to be an attempt to evaluate the
realities of WWII by the socio/political perceptions
of the 21st Cetury), logistically, the German
and Italian enemy alien situation, coupled with the
perceived military threat at the time, was much
different than the situation vis-a-vis the ethnic
Japanese. Accordingly, simple prudence dictated
different methods for solution.
WJH
Alan
> No reason to, inasmuch as MAGIC was a program for
> the interception, breaking, and translating of Japanese
> messages, not those of the Germans and Italians.
>
> As for the "racism" motivation you are driving at
> (which seems to be an attempt to evaluate the
> realities of WWII by the socio/political perceptions
> of the 21st Cetury), logistically, the German
> and Italian enemy alien situation, coupled with the
> perceived military threat at the time, was much
> different than the situation vis-a-vis the ethnic
> Japanese. Accordingly, simple prudence dictated
> different methods for solution.
>
> WJH
I see, so if you're a Nazi sympathizer it's OK to work on MAGIC
because it doesn't affect the Nazis. I guess if the Nazis learned
about MAGIC they wouldn't tell the Japanese.
Racism is a word with a meaning. That meaning hasn't changed since
1940.
I'm amazed that you seem not to acknowledge an error that was
ackhowledged by the US goverment many years ago. During WWII, Japanese
Americans, when given the chance, served their country as faithfully
as any other Americans.
Alan
Shawn Wilson
> I see, so if you're a Nazi sympathizer it's OK to work on MAGIC
> because it doesn't affect the Nazis. I guess if the Nazis learned
> about MAGIC they wouldn't tell the Japanese.
Uh, we didn't let enemy citizens work on top secret US military
projects period, German, Italian, or Japanese. People keep forgetting
that the internees were (while not universally) Japanese citizens. We
treated enemy aliens like everyone treated enemy aliens. We just had
a lot of them.
The down side of dual citizenship is that if the two countries go to
war with one another, you're screwed both ways. Japanese citizens in
the US were treated infinitely better than American citizens in
Japanese custody (large numbers, especially in the Phillippines). The
US had nothing to apologize for.
> Racism is a word with a meaning. That meaning hasn't changed since
> 1940.
And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
Italian citizens.
> I'm amazed that you seem not to acknowledge an error that was
> ackhowledged by the US goverment many years ago.
The US didn't make an error in WWII.
During WWII, Japanese
> Americans, when given the chance, served their country as faithfully
> as any other Americans.
You mean the ones who weren't serving in the Japanese military...?
wjho...@aol.com
>
> I see, so if you're a Nazi sympathizer it's OK to work on MAGIC
> because it doesn't affect the Nazis. I guess if the Nazis learned
> about MAGIC they wouldn't tell the Japanese.
I'm afraid you miss the point. I doubt that there were
many Germans and Italians fluent in Japanese. And,
of course, if there had been, the rather thorough vetting
process would probably have weeded them out, a process
considered to have been free of predictable associations,
familial and otherwise, than would have been occasioned
by the vetting of JAs for reasons previously mentioned.
> Racism is a word with a meaning. That meaning hasn't
> changed since 1940.
No, but the current conventional wisdom of some, particularly
among the younger generations, that "racism" was a primary
factor governing important WWII national security decisions,
sadly reflects too many years of social conditioning rather than
a reasoned judgement of events in the context of the time and
circumstances in which they occurred.
> I'm amazed that you seem not to acknowledge an error that was
> ackhowledged by the US goverment many years ago.
You shouldn't be. It was an acknowledgement made by a
different government in a different time and under different
circumstances, and certainly not without heavy political
overtones.
> During WWII, Japanese Americans, when given the chance,
> served their country as faithfully as any other Americans.
Indeed so. With distinction. But unfortunately the number of
individual medals and awards they received has been greatly
exaggerated over the years to the embarrassment of those JAs
who served and who needed no embellishment of their records.
WJH
Alan
> I'm afraid you miss the point. I doubt that there were
> many Germans and Italians fluent in Japanese. And,
> of course, if there had been, the rather thorough vetting
> process would probably have weeded them out, a process
> considered to have been free of predictable associations,
> familial and otherwise, than would have been occasioned
> by the vetting of JAs for reasons previously mentioned.
Now you are making my point. With careful vetting, JAs could have
provided the same service as a Japanese speaking German American or
Italian American. However because of the policies of the government &
military, they weren't given the chance.
Are you now saying the JAs were vetted? If so that was not what you
said in your orginal post.
Alan
PS Right and wrong don't change over time. Though with hindsight they
can become clearer.
Alan
> On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Alan <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I see, so if you're a Nazi sympathizer it's OK to work on MAGIC
> > because it doesn't affect the Nazis. I guess if the Nazis learned
> > about MAGIC they wouldn't tell the Japanese.
>
> Uh, we didn't let enemy citizens work on top secret US military
> projects period, German, Italian, or Japanese. People keep forgetting
> that the internees were (while not universally) Japanese citizens. We
> treated enemy aliens like everyone treated enemy aliens. We just had
> a lot of them.
I guess sarcasm is lost on you.
> > Racism is a word with a meaning. That meaning hasn't changed since
> > 1940.
>
> And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
> Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
> Italian citizens.
Why would we lock up the citizens of countries that were our allies?
Neither German Americans or Italian Americans were locked up
indiscrimanately.
> > Americans, when given the chance, served their country as faithfully
> > as any other Americans.
>
> You mean the ones who weren't serving in the Japanese military...?
How many JAs served in the Japanese Army? How many GAs served in the
German Army? How many IAs served in the Italian Army? Or is this
sarcasm?
Alan
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock 'em
in concentration camps.
Treat the white guys on a case-by-case basis, whether they're Americans
or not.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Alan <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I see, so if you're a Nazi sympathizer it's OK to work on MAGIC
> > because it doesn't affect the Nazis. I guess if the Nazis learned
> > about MAGIC they wouldn't tell the Japanese.
> Uh, we didn't let enemy citizens work on top secret US military
> projects period, German, Italian, or Japanese. People keep forgetting
> that the internees were (while not universally) Japanese citizens. We
And in fact, most were not Japanese; most were Americans.
> treated enemy aliens like everyone treated enemy aliens. We just had
> a lot of them.
No, we had far fewer Japanese-descended citizens and immigrants than
German or Italian.
> The down side of dual citizenship is that if the two countries go to
> war with one another, you're screwed both ways. Japanese citizens in
It's alos the downside if you're not a dual citizen, and in fact
fought for the US in WWI.
> the US were treated infinitely better than American citizens in
> Japanese custody (large numbers, especially in the Phillippines). The
> US had nothing to apologize for.
Right; it's not like we try to be better than others.
> And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
Yes it was.
`
> Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
> Italian citizens.
No, we locked up some, on a markedly smaller scale.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Actually, German nationals (at least) served in the US Army, on the
front lines, and did so at the time the US was locking up the "dangerous"
American veterans of Japanese descent.
Mike
David H Thornley
>
> Well, it wasn't "racism," and after the suprise at Pearl Harbor
> there was much for the U.S. to be paranoid about. We were
> at war with nation of Japan, not the heritage of the ethnic
> Japanese.
>
Which you couldn't tell from treatment of Japanese-Americans,
or from the wartime propaganda.
> It was only prudent that JAs were precluded from working on
> the highly sensitive MAGIC program for myriad reasons among
> which were the following:
It was certainly prudent to exclude many of them. I am
questioning whether it was sane to exclude all of them.
> Most Nisei over age 17 at the time were dual
> citizen (Japanese and American).
And many had shown loyalty to the US and not Japan.
Also, pre-Pearl Harbor
> code-breaking of Japanese diplomatic messages had
> themselves revealed the existence of Japanese agents
> among the West Coast Japanese population.
There were certainly German and Italian attempts to recruit
agents in the US, and a good many people who were primarily
loyal to Germany and Italy. Oddly enough, this didn't
stop a guy with the distinctly German name of Eisenhower
from serving somewhere in the MTO and ETO, in an important
position.
There were
> numerous Japanese patriotic societies made up of Nisei
> and Issei who were sending money to Japan for the
> Japanese war effort in Asia, as well as large number of JAs
> in Japan at the time.
Right - track them down and exclude them from sensitive work.
No problems there.
On the West Coast there were, among
> the Nisei,thousands of who had been educated in Japan who
> had returned to the U.S., having had training in and holding
> reserve status in the Japanese armed forces.
>
Again, a suspicious group. Probably not a good choice for
sensitive work.
So far, you've named some untrustworthy groups. Your error
is in extending them to all US citizens of Japanese descent.
There was a vital need for people who could translate Japanese
into English. Excluding most of the available candidates on
the basis of ethnicity alone was positively stupid. (Excluding
on the basis of observed attachment to the enemy was correct,
of course.)
Obviously, any translator would have to be heavily vetted, but
it beggars the imagination to think that there weren't any
loyal Americans in that population.
>
> Interestingly, Prados does note that a Nisei was among those
> accompanying the high-ranking team of Japanese officers who
> came to Manila after the surrender to work out the surrender
> formalities. He wrote:
So? A fair number of US citizens fought in the German and
Italian armies, mostly those unfortunate enough to be visiting
the homeland at the wrong time. As far as I know, the process
was to process them into the US armed forces when captured and
send them to the Pacific.
> It has been reliably estimated that somewhere between 5000
> and 7500 Nisei served in the Japanese armed forces during WWII,
> and that several thousand others served Japan in other capacities such
> as POW guards, radio propagandists, interpreters,etc.
>
Not all of whom served willingly, I'd bet. The Japanese authorities
at the time were not noted for kind treatment of people who weren't
Japanese patriots. If drafted, it was a whole lot safer to serve.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > Racism is a word with a meaning. That meaning hasn't
> > changed since 1940.
> No, but the current conventional wisdom of some, particularly
> among the younger generations, that "racism" was a primary
> factor governing important WWII national security decisions,
Odd; I don't believe most would put Reagan or Bush, Sr in the category
of "younger generation", and they are the ones who instigated and
initiated the apologies to the people so mistreated.
> sadly reflects too many years of social conditioning rather than
> a reasoned judgement of events in the context of the time and
> circumstances in which they occurred.
Tell, which "reasoned judgement" leads you to believe that US
citizens should be locked up due to race?
> > I'm amazed that you seem not to acknowledge an error that was
> > ackhowledged by the US goverment many years ago.
> You shouldn't be. It was an acknowledgement made by a
> different government in a different time and under different
> circumstances, and certainly not without heavy political
> overtones.
Yes, both Reagan and Bush were noted for bowing to political pressure.
> > During WWII, Japanese Americans, when given the chance,
> > served their country as faithfully as any other Americans.
> Indeed so. With distinction. But unfortunately the number of
> individual medals and awards they received has been greatly
> exaggerated over the years to the embarrassment of those JAs
> who served and who needed no embellishment of their records.
Well, perhaps it's understandable that some might want this displayed
prominently. After all, the several hundred Americans of Japanese descent
who fought in WWI were unceremoniously dumped into the same concentration
camps as those who actually were suspect, regardless of their record or
loyalty.
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
....
> > It was only prudent that JAs were precluded from working on
>
> It was certainly prudent to exclude many of them. I am
> questioning whether it was sane to exclude all of them.
i wouldn't say that FDR and his closest advisors who made
the EO9066 decision were "insane." That's a rather uninformed
view of WWII history. There was plenty of cause to exclude
thousands of ethnic Japanese, alien and citizen alike. Others,
as hindsight tells us, need not have been excluded. That problem
was aptly addressed by the Supreme Court in its 1944 Korematsu
decision upholding the exclusion order:
"There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of
some, the military authorities considered that the need for action
was great, and time was short. We cannot--by availing ourselves
of the calm perspective of hindsight--now say that at that time
these actions were unjustified."
> > numerous Japanese patriotic societies made up of Nisei
> > and Issei who were sending money to Japan for the
> > Japanese war effort in Asia, as well as large number of JAs
> > in Japan at the time.
>
> Right - track them down and exclude them from sensitive work.
> No problems there.
Don't be naive. How long do you think it would have taken to
track individual members numbering in the thousands in order
for a thorough screening to have taken place?
>>On the West Coast there were, among the Nisei,thousands
>> who had been educated in Japan who had returned to the U.S.,
>> having had training in and holding reserve status in the Japanese
> >armed forces.
> Again, a suspicious group. Probably not a good choice for
> sensitive work.
Indeed. And how long do you think it would have taken to
track down and identify such persons to, as General
DeWitt so delicately put it, "to separate the sheep from the
goats?"
> So far, you've named some untrustworthy groups. Your error
> is in extending them to all US citizens of Japanese descent.
You're wrong. What I have done is to point out the
monumental time-consuming task it would have been to identify
the untrustworthy from the loyal individuals. After the exclusion
such screening went on at a leisurely pace in the relocation
centers but to give you an idea of the extent of the disloyalty
problem, of the some 110,000 evacuees, by war's end only
33,000 had been given security clearances to leave the centers.
Of those not cleared, some 18,000 were segregated in a special
center for disloyals. Interestingly, when given an opportunity to
pledge their allegiance, some twenty-six percent of the
Japanese-Americans in the centers refused to take an unqualified
oath of allegiance to the United States. In addition, during the
war, the government received 13,000 applications from or on behalf
of those born in the United States to renounce their U.S. citizenship
and be expatriated to Japan. Over 5,000 of those had been processed
by war's end.
> There was a vital need for people who could translate Japanese
> into English. Excluding most of the available candidates on
> the basis of ethnicity alone was positively stupid.
But they were only excluded from the MAGIC and ULTRA
decoding programs. Some 6000 JAs were accepted as translators
and interpreters under the Army's Military Intelligence Program and
approx 3000 if them served in the Pacific theater.
> Obviously, any translator would have to be heavily vetted, but
> it beggars the imagination to think that there weren't any
> loyal Americans in that population.
Well, your imagination should be relieved and your knowledge
increased. Some were accepted for such duties (see above).
> > It has been reliably estimated that somewhere between 5000
> > and 7500 Nisei served in the Japanese armed forces during WWII,
> > and that several thousand others served Japan in other capacities > > such as POW guards, radio propagandists, interpreters,etc.
>
> Not all of whom served willingly, I'd bet.
Perhaps not. But an American shot by an unwilling Japanese server
was just as dead as if the JA had been a gung ho Banzai warrior,
which many were. And those of our POWs who suffered atrocities
at the hands of a Nisei guard couldn't have cared less about the
willingness of the Nisei who tortured them.
WJH
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock 'em
> in concentration camps.
The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago
... why is it popping up again??
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Uh, no, it is not a "canard", Mr Kozel.
What you and others stated was that you do not like the term. The US
government, however still uses it
The Manzanar state historical plaque reads as follows;
"Manzanar In the early part of World War II, 110,000 persons of Japanese
ancestry were interned in relocation centers by executive order NO. 9066,
issued on February 19, 1942. Manzanar, the first of ten such concentration
camps, was bounded by barbed wire and guard towers, confining 10,000
persons. The majority being American citizens. May the injustices and
humiliation suffered here as a result of hysteria, racism and economic
exploitation never emerge again. California Registered Historical Landmark
NO. 850 Plaque placed by the State Department of Parks and Recreation
in cooperation with the Manzanar committee and the Japanese American
Citizens League, April 14, 1975."
Take it up with the State Department.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 29, 7:00 pm, David H Thornley <da...@thornley.net> wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> > It was certainly prudent to exclude many of them. I am
> > questioning whether it was sane to exclude all of them.
> i wouldn't say that FDR and his closest advisors who made
> the EO9066 decision were "insane." That's a rather uninformed
> view of WWII history. There was plenty of cause to exclude
> thousands of ethnic Japanese, alien and citizen alike. Others,
Actually, no reason at all to exclude them all, other than race.
> as hindsight tells us, need not have been excluded. That problem
No, actual foresight by, say, the head of the FBI, told us that the
military was overreacting, and that there was no need for such an
action.
> > Right - track them down and exclude them from sensitive work.
> > No problems there.
> Don't be naive. How long do you think it would have taken to
> track individual members numbering in the thousands in order
> for a thorough screening to have taken place?
Oddly, the FBI and military intelligence seemed to believe they had a
handle on it.
However, let's take your argument at face value; how long would it have
taken to track individuals of Italian descent and determine their loyalty?
And yet the effort was made.
What's the difference, other than race?
> > Again, a suspicious group. Probably not a good choice for
> > sensitive work.
> Indeed. And how long do you think it would have taken to
> track down and identify such persons to, as General
> DeWitt so delicately put it, "to separate the sheep from the
> goats?"
Not long; Ringle in fact indicated they were identifiable.
But again, you bring up "how long"; if time was so much of the essence,
why did the mass roundups not begin until months later?
Or, if the military is so incompetent as to be unable to identify these
odious traitors-in-waiting, what would have kept them from pretending to
be, say, Chinese?
> > So far, you've named some untrustworthy groups. Your error
> > is in extending them to all US citizens of Japanese descent.
> You're wrong.
No, he's quite correct; you are indeed stating point blank that a man
born in Hawaii, serving in the US military and holding only US citizenship
would have to be considered untrustworthy because of his race.
> What I have done is to point out the
> monumental time-consuming task it would have been to identify
> the untrustworthy from the loyal individuals.
Then why wait months and months?
> > Obviously, any translator would have to be heavily vetted, but
> > it beggars the imagination to think that there weren't any
> > loyal Americans in that population.
> Well, your imagination should be relieved and your knowledge
> increased. Some were accepted for such duties (see above).
Likewise, though we hold no such real hope.
Mike
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>
>> The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago
>> ... why is it popping up again??
>
> Uh, no, it is not a "canard", Mr Kozel.
>
> What you and others stated was that you do not like the term.
Well, no, the paralleling it to the Nazi concentration camps is
considered demagoguery, considering that the latter were death camps.
> The US government, however still uses it
>
> The Manzanar state historical plaque reads as follows;
The plaque was erected by a -state-, and possibly even by a private
organization, not the U.S. government.
David H Thornley
> On Oct 29, 7:00 pm, David H Thornley <da...@thornley.net> wrote:
>> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
>>> It was only prudent that JAs were precluded from working on
>>> the highly sensitive MAGIC program for myriad reasons...
>> It was certainly prudent to exclude many of them. I am
>> questioning whether it was sane to exclude all of them.
>
> i wouldn't say that FDR and his closest advisors who made
> the EO9066 decision were "insane." That's a rather uninformed
> view of WWII history.
Really? It's based on a good deal of study and consideration.
The US desperately needed Japanese translators, and chose to
exclude en masse their best source, which included some US
and dual citizens that had demonstrated a great deal of loyalty
to the US.
There was plenty of cause to exclude
> thousands of ethnic Japanese, alien and citizen alike.
That we agree on.
Others,
> as hindsight tells us, need not have been excluded.
Or some authorities at the time.
That problem
> was aptly addressed by the Supreme Court in its 1944 Korematsu
> decision upholding the exclusion order:
> "There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of
> some, the military authorities considered that the need for action
> was great, and time was short.
>
Meaning that the military authorities could do anything they wanted
to anybody if they really wanted to and had a shred of evidence?
There's a difference between the Supreme Court going along with an
action and an action being wise, as it happens, so I'm not real
impressed with that.
What we have is a decision made by people, not on the basis of a
consensus, some months after it would conceivably have made sense.
We know there was racism involved in the decision, although we have
no direct evidence that racism was the primary cause.
Moreover, I'm not talking about the exclusion zones here. I'm
talking about finding a small number of loyal Japanese-Americans
for highly important work that suffered for lack of a few people.
>> Right - track them down and exclude them from sensitive work.
>> No problems there.
>
> Don't be naive. How long do you think it would have taken to
> track individual members numbering in the thousands in order
> for a thorough screening to have taken place?
>
You mean as was done for Germans and Italians? Not all of their
nationals were removed from real war zones, after all.
Nor am I talking about screening thousands, not at first. There
was an urgent need, but not for thousands. Start with the most
loyal-appearing, and screen them.
You seem to be trotting out arguments for a different position
(which I also disagree with, but which I don't want to discuss
in this thread).
>> So far, you've named some untrustworthy groups. Your error
>> is in extending them to all US citizens of Japanese descent.
>
> You're wrong. What I have done is to point out the
> monumental time-consuming task it would have been to identify
> the untrustworthy from the loyal individuals.
To repeat myself, for this particular purpose you don't have
to do mass identifications. You have to pick a few trustworthy
individuals.
You start with those that look the most loyal. Concentrate on
them. It shouldn't take too long to find a few dozen you're sure
you can rely on, and that will make a whole lot of difference to
the intelligence effort.
>> There was a vital need for people who could translate Japanese
>> into English. Excluding most of the available candidates on
>> the basis of ethnicity alone was positively stupid.
>
> But they were only excluded from the MAGIC and ULTRA
> decoding programs.
As a race. There was no provision for finding exceptionally
loyal ones.
>> Obviously, any translator would have to be heavily vetted, but
>> it beggars the imagination to think that there weren't any
>> loyal Americans in that population.
>
> Well, your imagination should be relieved and your knowledge
> increased. Some were accepted for such duties (see above).
>
Not the duties I was talking about.
>>> It has been reliably estimated that somewhere between 5000
>>> and 7500 Nisei served in the Japanese armed forces during WWII,
>> Not all of whom served willingly, I'd bet.
>
> Perhaps not. But an American shot by an unwilling Japanese server
> was just as dead as if the JA had been a gung ho Banzai warrior,
> which many were.
You know, that's exactly true to US soldiers who opposed US
citizens drafted into the European Axis armies.
As I mentioned earlier, they were not charged with treason
(although that's well within the Constitutional definition),
but were quietly repatriated and generally enlisted in our
own armed forces (considering that these were usually fit
men of military age).
I'm at a loss as to why any rational person would decry
Japanese-Americans who wound up in the Japanese army, and not
German-Americans who wound up in the German Army, or Italian-
Americans who wound up in the Italian army.
Stephen Graham
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>
>> Scott M. Kozel <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>>
>>> The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months
>>> ago ... why is it popping up again??
>>
>> Uh, no, it is not a "canard", Mr Kozel.
>>
>> What you and others stated was that you do not like the term.
>
> Well, no, the paralleling it to the Nazi concentration camps is
> considered demagoguery, considering that the latter were death camps.
Strictly speaking, the German concentration camps (die
Konzentrationslager f�r Zivilpersonen) weren't death camps either. Those
were the Vernichtungslager.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >
> > Scott M. Kozel <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >>
> >> The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago
> >> ... why is it popping up again??
> >
> > Uh, no, it is not a "canard", Mr Kozel.
> >
> > What you and others stated was that you do not like the term.
> Well, no, the paralleling it to the Nazi concentration camps is
> considered demagoguery, considering that the latter were death camps.
Then take it up with those "paralleling it" to the Nazi concentration
camps. The term was in use then for the camps, and is still in use now.
> > The US government, however still uses it
> >
> > The Manzanar state historical plaque reads as follows;
> The plaque was erected by a -state-, and possibly even by a private
> organization, not the U.S. government.
Again, take it up with them.
Mike
Shawn Wilson
> > And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
> > Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
> > Italian citizens.
>
> Why would we lock up the citizens of countries that were our allies?
I dunno. I didn't bring up racism. If racism were the motive, we
would have locked up others of the same race and not locked up
whites. We didn't and we did. The issue wasn't racism.
> Neither German Americans or Italian Americans were locked up
> indiscrimanately.
Neither were Japanese.
> > > Americans, when given the chance, served their country as faithfully
> > > as any other Americans.
>
> > You mean the ones who weren't serving in the Japanese military...?
>
> How many JAs served in the Japanese Army? How many GAs served in the
> German Army? How many IAs served in the Italian Army? Or is this
> sarcasm?
That a great many Japanese-Americans DID serve in the Japanese
military, against the US, is prima facia evidence that the J-As as a
class were not all that 'loyal' to the US. Some were. Others were
disloyal. Many didn't care.
These were not the betrayed saints people seem to want them to be
portrayed as.
Under the circumstances US policy was perfectly reasonable. Letting
very large numbers of enemy aliens run around the US unchecked would
have been stupid beyond all imagining.
Shawn Wilson
> > Uh, we didn't let enemy citizens work on top secret US military
> > projects period, German, Italian, or Japanese. People keep forgetting
> > that the internees were (while not universally) Japanese citizens. We
>
> And in fact, most were not Japanese; most were Americans.
No, the vast majority had Japanese citizenship. Specifically they had
dual Japanese-American citizenship. Whent eh two countries go to war,
you're screwed both ways...
> > treated enemy aliens like everyone treated enemy aliens. We just had
> > a lot of them.
>
> No, we had far fewer Japanese-descended citizens and immigrants than
> German or Italian.
But we did NOT have fewer people with Japanese citizenship than we had
people with German or Italian citizenship, which made all the
difference.
> > the US were treated infinitely better than American citizens in
> > Japanese custody (large numbers, especially in the Phillippines). The
> > US had nothing to apologize for.
>
> Right; it's not like we try to be better than others.
Being better than others is what motivated Nazi Germany. Be careful
how you use the concept...
> > And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
>
> Yes it was.
Then why didn't we lock up Chinese and Phillippinoes? They were the
same race as the Japanese? Why did we lock up Germans and Italians?
They weren't Japanese.
> > Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
> > Italian citizens.
>
> No, we locked up some, on a markedly smaller scale.
Fewer of them.
pbromaghin
> The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago
> ... why is it popping up again??
Your memory of this does not coincide with mine. It was never proven
a canard, nor soundly refuted.
wjho...@aol.com
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> > The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several
> >months ago ... why is it popping up again?
>Uh, no, it is not a "canard", Mr Kozel.
>What you and others stated was that you do not like the
>term. The US government, however still uses it
> The Manzanar state historical plaque reads as follows;
>
> "Manzanar In the early part of World War II, 110,000
> persons of Japanese ancestry were interned in relocation
> centers by executive order NO. 9066 issued on February
> 19, 1942. Manzanar, the first of ten such concentration
> camps,..... Plaque placed by the State Department of Parks
> and Recreation IN COOPERATION WITH THE MANZANAR
> COMMITEE AND THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS
> LEAGUE, April 14,1975" [Emphasis added]
As can be seen, the "concentration camp'" wording on the
plaque were not the words of the U.S. government but of
the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation which was
influenced by Japanese American groups which, at the
time, were pursuing a political agenda leading toward the
payment of reparations from U.S.taxpayers to former enemy
aliens, dual citizens, and even JA children born in the
relocation centers, which had the highest birth rates of any
other segment of the U.S. during the war. A number of
JA families became relatively wealthy as a result.
In that connection, in his excellent book, "Prisoners of the
Japanese," Gavan Daws wrote:
"...the site of the internment camp for Japanese at
Manzanar in California was officially named by the federal
government as a national historic landmark...it had a
California state marker too, FOR TOURISTS TO READ
AND BELIEVE, calling it a concentration camp. One old
POW with a lot of miles on him---Bataan death march,
(pow camps) O'Donnell, Cabanatuan, hellship,...saw the
story on the evening news, and it was too much for him.
He got in his car, drove two-hundred miles...and pissed
on the plaque." (Prisoners of the Japanese, P.391)
[Emphasis added]
WJH
Bill Shatzer
> On Oct 29, 3:07 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
-snip-
>>No, we had far fewer Japanese-descended citizens and immigrants than
>>German or Italian.
> But we did NOT have fewer people with Japanese citizenship than we had
> people with German or Italian citizenship, which made all the
> difference.
That would be incorrect. There were, at the time of Pearl Harbor, some
600,000 Italian-born immigrants who had never obtained US naturalization
and some 300,000 German-born immigrants who likewise had never been
naturalized.
Even if all 120,000 interned Japanese were technically still Japanese
citizens, they were outnumbered several fold by those who were still
Italian and German citizens. Only some 2,000 Italian citizens and
12,000 Germans were deemed worthy of internment as opposed to the
blanket internment applied to both Japanese immigrants and native-born
ethnic Japanese who were US citizens from birth.
It should be noted that most of the German and Italian immigrants had
-chosen- not to become naturalized US citizensand to thus remain alien
citizens. Japanese immigrants had no such choice, they were forbidden by
law from being naturalized or becoming US citizens.
wjho...@aol.com
>
> ....I didn't bring up racism. If racism were the motive, we
> would have locked up others of the same race and not
Right. And further with regard to the "racism"
myth, if we interned or relocated the Japanese enemy
aliens and JAs because of their race, why didn't we
intern or relocate all of them? It is seldom acknowledged
by those who love to play the race card that those ethnic
Japanese who resided in areas outside of the West Coast
(and part of Arizona) military zones of evacuation, were
not disturbed at all. That certainly puts a lie to the
"racism" baloney
WJH.
wjho...@aol.com
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > ....the paralleling it to the Nazi concentration camps is
> > considered demagoguery, considering that the latter
> > were death camps.
>
> Strictly speaking, the German concentration camps (die
> Konzentrationslager f�r Zivilpersonen) weren't death camps
> either. Those were the Vernichtungslager.
I believe the usual reference to the German camps as "death
camps" is meant to connote the infamous extermination camps
run by the Nazis. There were obviously other institutions such
as POW camps and internment facilities for civilians which
were not death camps per se. In that connection, let's take a
look at how POWs and civilian internees fared under the Nazis
vis-a-vis under the Japanese:
The late Gilbert M. Hair, civilian internee of the Japanese
at the infamous Santo Tomas internment camp in Manila, and
former Executive Director of The Center for Internee Rights,
researched the matter and came up with the following figures:
U.S.Military
Held by the Japanese 33021
Died while POW 12526 (38%
Held by the Germans 96914
Died while POW 1121 (1%)
U.S.Civilians
Held by the Japanese 13996
Died while interned 1536 (11%)
Held by the Germans 4749
Died while interned 168 (4%)
WJH
Stephen Graham
> That a great many Japanese-Americans DID serve in the Japanese
> military, against the US, is prima facia evidence that the J-As as a
> class were not all that 'loyal' to the US. Some were. Others were
> disloyal. Many didn't care.
There were 8-10,000 US-born individuals in the Japanese military during
World War II. The majority had been taken back to Japan as children by
their parents following the 1924 exclusion policy.
The number of US-born individuals in the German, Italian, Hungarian,
Rumanian and Bulgarian militaries is unknown. They did exist, though,
and numbered in the thousands. That's equally good evidence that
German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Hungarian-Americans,
Rumanian-Americans, and Bulgarian-Americans weren't loyal to the US as a
class either.
Alan
> I dunno. I didn't bring up racism. If racism were the motive, we
> would have locked up others of the same race and not locked up
> whites. We didn't and we did. The issue wasn't racism.
I see, so if you hate Japanese, you must hate all Asians. This doesn't
follow.
> > Neither German Americans or Italian Americans were locked up
> > indiscriminately.
>
> Neither were Japanese.
Nearly 120,000 of the 127,000 Japanese Americans living on the west
coast were interred, half of which were women and children. Of all the
German Americans and Italian Americans in the US at the time, only
11,000 and 3,000 were interred. Sounds indiscriminate to me.
> > How many JAs served in the Japanese Army? How many GAs served in the
> > German Army? How many IAs served in the Italian Army? Or is this
> > sarcasm?
>
> That a great many Japanese-Americans DID serve in the Japanese
> military, against the US, is prima facia evidence that the J-As as a
> class were not all that 'loyal' to the US. Some were. Others were
> disloyal. Many didn't care.
Numbers please, blanket statements like this are quite meaningless.
How many Japanese Americans served the Japanese Empire?
> These were not the betrayed saints people seem to want them to be
> portrayed as.
Who said they were betrayed saints? Please don't put words in my
mouth.
> Under the circumstances US policy was perfectly reasonable. Letting
> very large numbers of enemy aliens run around the US unchecked would
> have been stupid beyond all imagining.
Many if not most of the Japanese Americans interred were citizens.
Just like all the German Americans & Italian Americans running around?
------------------------------
I guess the constitutional right to be presumed innocent means nothing
to you. If you belong to some group that in the future is deemed to be
a danger to the state, you may find yourself, without proof or trial,
put behind a fence.
Alan
Stephen Graham
Or it indicates that racism had regional variations. Other varieties of
American racism varied by region of the country. Why wouldn't prejudice
against the Japanese?
Stephen Graham
> On Oct 30, 12:18 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, the German concentration camps (die
>> Konzentrationslager f�r Zivilpersonen) weren't death camps
>> either. Those were the Vernichtungslager.
>
> I believe the usual reference to the German camps as "death
> camps" is meant to connote the infamous extermination camps
> run by the Nazis. There were obviously other institutions such
> as POW camps and internment facilities for civilians which
> were not death camps per se.
I wasn't referring to civilian internment or POW camps. There was a
specific category of concentration camps separate from either the death
camps, the internment camps or the POW camps.
David H Thornley
> Then why didn't we lock up Chinese and Phillippinoes? They were the
> same race as the Japanese? Why did we lock up Germans and Italians?
> They weren't Japanese.
>
common to consider, say, Germans to be a race. Few people would have
objected to references to the Japanese race.
Why did we lock up Germans and Italians? We did, on a much smaller
scale, and did them by individuals rather than race or ethnicity
over a large geographic area.
Alan
So, they had lived in Japan for 16 years, but, they're still
Americans. Oh, sorry, more sarcasm on my part.
--------------------------
This also brings up a point which hasn't been made until now. Many
laws had been passed that were aimed at the Japanese way before Pearl
Harbor was attacked. Immigration laws, as Mr. Graham points out here.
Naturalization laws as pointed out by Mr. Shatzer in his post.
Of the 150,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii, only about 1,500 were
interred. Why such a small percentage in Hawaii and a large percentage
in California? If the reasons were purely military, it should have
been the other way around.
Alan
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > > And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
> > > Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
> > > Italian citizens.
> >
> > Why would we lock up the citizens of countries that were our allies?
> I dunno.
Why lock up citizens of our own country?
> I didn't bring up racism. If racism were the motive, we
> would have locked up others of the same race and not locked up
> whites. We didn't and we did. The issue wasn't racism.
Sorry, but the term "race" was used very differently then; people referred
to a Japanese "race", a German "race", etc.
> > Neither German Americans or Italian Americans were locked up
> > indiscrimanately.
> Neither were Japanese.
OK, I see where your confusion lies; yes, they were. Regardless of citizenship,
personal history, loyalty, etc., they were removed from their homes on the
West Coast, and inland, to be locked up.
You're welcome.
> That a great many Japanese-Americans DID serve in the Japanese
> military, against the US, is prima facia evidence that the J-As as a
> class were not all that 'loyal' to the US. Some were. Others were
And many served in German and Italian militaries, as indicated by others.
So, that's "prima-facie" evidence of disloyalty by the others?
What of those who had already served in the US Army? Or those who were
currently serving, but were discharged.
> disloyal. Many didn't care.
And you treat every member of the ethnic group as if they were all the same.
That is, by definition, racist.
> These were not the betrayed saints people seem to want them to be
> portrayed as.
Who's portraying them as saints? Be specific.
> Under the circumstances US policy was perfectly reasonable. Letting
> very large numbers of enemy aliens run around the US unchecked would
> have been stupid beyond all imagining.
So why let Germans and Italians in the same areas that Americans of Japanese
descent were removed?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
The exception to that being the veterans of WWI, who were allowed to naturalize
(these were predominately from Hawaii or California.) Many had never been
to Japan, nore were they "dual citizens". There were several hundred of
these, as best I can find.
They were locked up as well.
MIke
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 29, 3:07 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > > Uh, we didn't let enemy citizens work on top secret US military
> > > projects period, German, Italian, or Japanese. People keep forgetting
> > > that the internees were (while not universally) Japanese citizens. We
> >
> > And in fact, most were not Japanese; most were Americans.
> No, the vast majority had Japanese citizenship.
No, the majority did not; they had to be registered, and in fact immediately
after the outbreak of the
> Specifically they had
> dual Japanese-American citizenship. Whent eh two countries go to war,
> you're screwed both ways...
Nope. In fact, dual German and Italian citizens were not treated the way
those of Japanese extraction were treated.
> > > treated enemy aliens like everyone treated enemy aliens. We just had
> > > a lot of them.
> >
> > No, we had far fewer Japanese-descended citizens and immigrants than
> > German or Italian.
> But we did NOT have fewer people with Japanese citizenship than we had
> people with German or Italian citizenship, which made all the
> difference.
No, I believe the numbers were posted on earlier threads, but there were
more than 100,000 dual German citizens, which is close to the total
number of Nisei/Issei/Sansei locked up.
And BTW, Italian nationals were not locked up en mass, regardless of
living in areas that "Japanese" were removed from, to the camps.
> > > the US were treated infinitely better than American citizens in
> > > Japanese custody (large numbers, especially in the Phillippines). The
> > > US had nothing to apologize for.
> > Right; it's not like we try to be better than others.
> Being better than others is what motivated Nazi Germany. Be careful
> how you use the concept...
I was; the Nazis had similar concepts of racial loyalty.
> > > And the motivation of the policy was not racism. We didn't lock up
> > Yes it was.
> Then why didn't we lock up Chinese and Phillippinoes? They were the
> same race as the Japanese?
No, they aren't, as the word race was used then, and is now somtimes used.
> Why did we lock up Germans and Italians?
How many days did DiMaggio's parents spend in concentration camps.
> > > Chinese or Phillippinoes after all, and we did lock up Germans and
> > > Italian citizens.
> >
> > No, we locked up some, on a markedly smaller scale.
> Fewer of them.
^^^^^
You misspelled "far more". In fact, that was one of Mr Hopwood's previous
arguments; there were too many of them to round up.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 30, 3:57 pm, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> >
> > ....I didn't bring up racism. If racism were the motive, we
> > would have locked up others of the same race and not
> > locked up whites....The issue wasn't racism.
> Right. And further with regard to the "racism"
> myth, if we interned or relocated the Japanese enemy
> aliens and JAs because of their race, why didn't we
> intern or relocate all of them?
And if it wasn't, why were German and Italian nationals allowed to live
in areas considered "too sensitive" for American citizens of Japanese
descent?
MIke
Alex Potter
> Of the 150,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii, only about 1,500 were
> interred.
Seems rather a high death rate.
IGMC
--
Regards
Alex
wjho...@aol.com
.
(Re different treatment of Germans and Italians from
Japanese)
>... that was one of Mr Hopwood's previous
> arguments; there were too many of them to round up.
Quite so. And it is the argument of anyone else giving
the matter serious consideration. Indeed, historian
Arnold Krammer, in his book "Undue Process--The
Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees,"
had this to say:
"The prospect of including Germans and italians
as well as Japanese only complicated the situation....
Mostly, however, the issue was numbers...in 1940,
1,237,000 people of German birth lived in the United
States...if one considered the children of families in
which both parents were German-born, the number
of Germans in the country reached 5 million."
Krammer goes on to say that those of Italian heritage
numbered even more, and notes that "For military
authorities. any mass evacuation of Germans and
Italians in the United States would have been a
disaster."
Accordingly, the argument set forth that because
Germans and Italians were not evacuated, relocated,
or interned as a group and the Japanese were, proves
that the action taken in the case of the Japanese was
motivated by "racism," is ludicrous on its face and
should be put to bed once and for all. .Logistically, with
the Japanese it could be done. With the Germans and
Italians it could not be done.
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
>
> Of the 150,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii, only about
>1,500 were interred. Why such a small percentage in Hawaii
> and a large percentage in California? If the reasons were
> purely military, it should have been the other way around.
You are apparently unaware that Hawaii was under the
martial law. It was an armed camp with every conceivable
control of activities in place. Even the courts were under
Army jurisdiction. Had the West Coast been similarly
controlled, there would have been no need for the evacuation
of the Japanese population. But martial law would have
severely hampered war production and was ruled out.
As an aside, Alan, in your posts please stop saying we
"interred" the Japanese. We "interned" some of them but
we really didn't bury them. Thanks.
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
>wjhopwood wrote:
> >... Japanese who resided in areas outside of the West Coast
> > (and part of Arizona) military zones of evacuation, were
> Or it indicates that racism had regional variations. Other varieties of
> American racism varied by region of the country. Why wouldn't
> prejudice against the Japanese?
What if it did? It would have had no affect on the military
situation. The decision to evacuate was not made by
different folks in different regions of the country on the
basis of local social attitudes or custom. It was an outright
military decision made in Washington solely for military
reasons affecting only one region of the country where the
concentration of enemy alien Japanese and dual-citizen
Japanese was the heaviest on the mainland, where war
production was significant, and where the possibility that
enemy action might be forthcoming was not ruled out.
WJH
Alan
> Alan wrote on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:03:25 -0400:
> > Of the 150,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii, only about 1,500 were
> > interred.
> Seems rather a high death rate.
Oops, my bad. I meant interned.
Alan
Stephen Graham
>> Or it indicates that racism had regional variations. Other varieties of
>> American racism varied by region of the country. Why wouldn't
>> prejudice against the Japanese?
>
> What if it did? It would have had no affect on the military
> situation.
Yet we have other examples from the time period of the military altering
its policies and practices on a region-by-region basis to accommodate
local prejudice within the United States.
A major factor was that there were only 5,000 Japanese-Americans in the
eastern two-thirds of the United States. They simply weren't perceived
as a threat. To pick an extreme, people in Mississippi likely didn't
spend a lot of time worrying about the one Japanese-American in the
state. Those colored people on the other hand....
David H Thornley
> production was significant, and where the possibility that
> enemy action might be forthcoming was not ruled out.
>
was an actual war zone, with U-boats patrolling and sinking numerous
ships.
David H Thornley
>
> Krammer goes on to say that those of Italian heritage
> numbered even more, and notes that "For military
> authorities. any mass evacuation of Germans and
> Italians in the United States would have been a
> disaster."
>
Japan and Germany, since they had lots of forces, and
concentrated on Thailand and Romania.
After all, if we're only going to do what's easy to do,
why attack the hard targets?
One might also figure that large numbers of enemy
aliens and dual citizens do present a threat, and seek
to intern the more dangerous, as opposed to picking
out one medium-sized group by itself.
Or, one could note that enemy aliens were allowed to
remain in areas where enemy action was occurring,
as opposed to people of one particular enemy descent
being removed from a large area that was attacked
ineffectually by two submarines.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 6:07 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:
> >> wjhopwood wrote:
> >> Or it indicates that racism had regional variations. Other varieties of
> >> American racism varied by region of the country. Why wouldn't
> >> prejudice against the Japanese?
> >
> > What if it did? It would have had no affect on the military
> > situation.
> Yet we have other examples from the time period of the military altering
> its policies and practices on a region-by-region basis to accommodate
> local prejudice within the United States.
And in fact sometimes on a person-by-person basis, the most noted being
the DiMaggios.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> >
> > Of the 150,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii, only about
> >1,500 were interred. Why such a small percentage in Hawaii
> > and a large percentage in California? If the reasons were
> > purely military, it should have been the other way around.
> You are apparently unaware that Hawaii was under the
> martial law.
Everyone was aware of that.
You seem to place some sort of bizarre faith in that, though. If martial
law was what caused Hawaii to be safe, then why discharge Americans of
Japanese descent from the military? After all, German NATIONALS were
serving in combat regions in Europe (if one is to believe Bill Mauldin.)
Mike
Alan
> You are apparently unaware that Hawaii was under the
> martial law. It was an armed camp with every conceivable
> control of activities in place. Even the courts were under
> Army jurisdiction. Had the West Coast been similarly
> controlled, there would have been no need for the evacuation
> of the Japanese population. But martial law would have
> severely hampered war production and was ruled out.
So if the Japanese in Hawaii were rendered harmless, why move 1,500 of
them to relocation camps?
Alan
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 30, 7:16 pm, mtfes wrote
> .
> (Re different treatment of Germans and Italians from
> Japanese)
> >... that was one of Mr Hopwood's previous
> > arguments; there were too many of them to round up.
> Quite so. And it is the argument of anyone else giving
> the matter serious consideration. Indeed, historian
Right; better to let a potentially LARGE number of spies, sabatuers, and
enemy agents run loose than a smaller number.
After all, how else can one expect to win a war?
> Krammer goes on to say that those of Italian heritage
> numbered even more, and notes that "For military
> authorities. any mass evacuation of Germans and
> Italians in the United States would have been a
Public relations
> disaster."
Now it's more correct. A striking example would be the Dimaggios.
> Accordingly, the argument set forth that because
> Germans and Italians were not evacuated, relocated,
> or interned as a group and the Japanese were, proves
> that the action taken in the case of the Japanese was
> motivated by "racism," is ludicrous on its face and
> should be put to bed once and for all. .Logistically, with
Actually, it screams racism; a larger, more potentially dangerous group was
treated much better than a smaller, more localized group.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 30, 6:07 pm, Stephen Graham wrote:
> >wjhopwood wrote:
> > >... Japanese who resided in areas outside of the West Coast
> > > (and part of Arizona) military zones of evacuation, were
> > > not disturbed at all...
> >
> > Or it indicates that racism had regional variations. Other varieties of
> > American racism varied by region of the country. Why wouldn't
> > prejudice against the Japanese?
> What if it did? It would have had no affect on the military
> situation. The decision to evacuate was not made by
> different folks in different regions of the country on the
> basis of local social attitudes or custom.
This is wrong. In fact, steps were taken in individual cases to PREVENT
unnaturalized enemy aliens from being relocated/interned.
Mike
Shawn Wilson
> > > Neither German Americans or Italian Americans were locked up
> > > indiscriminately.
>
> > Neither were Japanese.
>
> Nearly 120,000 of the 127,000 Japanese Americans living on the west
> coast were interred, half of which were women and children. Of all the
> German Americans and Italian Americans in the US at the time, only
> 11,000 and 3,000 were interred. Sounds indiscriminate to me.
The Germans and Italians didn't live in the exclusion zone, the
Japanese did. The US had reason to fear Japanese invasion of the West
Coast and support of such an invasion from the local Japanese. We had
no reason to fear invasion of the East coast.
> > That a great many Japanese-Americans DID serve in the Japanese
> > military, against the US, is prima facia evidence that the J-As as a
> > class were not all that 'loyal' to the US. Some were. Others were
> > disloyal. Many didn't care.
>
> Numbers please, blanket statements like this are quite meaningless.
> How many Japanese Americans served the Japanese Empire?
Someone posted 8000-10,000.
> > These were not the betrayed saints people seem to want them to be
> > portrayed as.
>
> Who said they were betrayed saints? Please don't put words in my
> mouth.
All that "loyal American" er, stuff. They were people, not dyed in
the wool patriots. A hell of a lot of them were more loyal to Japan
than the US.
> > Under the circumstances US policy was perfectly reasonable. Letting
> > very large numbers of enemy aliens run around the US unchecked would
> > have been stupid beyond all imagining.
>
> Many if not most of the Japanese Americans interred were citizens.
Of Japan, yes. That's why we interned them...
> Just like all the German Americans & Italian Americans running around?
They were in Areas they could do serious harm to the war effort.
> I guess the constitutional right to be presumed innocent means nothing
> to you. If you belong to some group that in the future is deemed to be
> a danger to the state, you may find yourself, without proof or trial,
> put behind a fence.
Proof of what? Being an enemy alien? We had that.
wjho...@aol.com
> So if the Japanese in Hawaii were rendered harmless,
> why move 1,500 of them to relocation camps?
A little background seems to be in order to
straighten you out here.
Originally, the Military Commander of Hawaii,
General Emmons, lnformed the War Department
that " it would probably be necessary to evacuate
100,000 Japanese from Hawaii to ensure removing
all the potentially disloyal." This was not thought
feasible for a number of practical reasons. General
Emmons then estimated that of the total, some 1500
were "the most dangerous Japanese aliens and
citizens" but advised and that "circumstancss may
arise at any time making it advisable to raise this
estimate to muchj larger figures." [cite--CWRIC
report "Personal Justice Denied."]
As it turned out the severe restrictions imposed by
Martial Law obviated the necessity to intern many
more in Hawaii, but by the end of the war over
3,000 including the original 1500 Japanese aliens
and citizens had been selected for evacuation to
internment camps or relocation centers on the
mainland.
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> > production was significant, and where the possibility that
> > enemy action might be forthcoming was not ruled out.
>
> As opposed to the East Coast, which by the time of the evacuation
> was an actual war zone, with U-boats patrolling and sinking numerous
> ships.
This thread is getting sillier. You seem unable to grasp
the fact that because one action was feasible (evacuation
of 110,000 Japanese) and another action was not (evacuation
of millions of Germans and Italians) that the first should not
have been done simply because the second could not.
Apparently you believe that wartime military decision should
be governed by the principlles of "equal opporunity" and
"affirmative action."
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
> wjhopw...@aol.com <wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > ....It would have had no affect on the military
> > situation. The decision to evacuate was not made by
> > different folks in different regions of the country on the
> > basis of local social attitudes or custom.
>
> This is wrong. In fact, steps were taken in individual cases to
> PREVENT unnaturalized enemy aliens from being
> relocated/interned.
Be specific. Are you trying to say that despite possible
adverse military considerations the Gov't deliberately
arranged to prevent some enemy alien(s) from being
relocated or interned? Or are we back to your poor old
Pappa DiMaggio obsession again? Be specific--who,
when, where---racially motivated? Who says (source
of your claim?
WJH
(racism?) were these alleged steps taken?
Don Kirkman
wrote in article <hchj3a$ep0$6...@usenet.stanford.edu>:
>wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 7:03 pm, Alan wrote:
>> > Of the 150,000 Japanese Americans in Hawaii, only about
>> >1,500 were interred. Why such a small percentage in Hawaii
>> > and a large percentage in California? If the reasons were
>> > purely military, it should have been the other way around.
>> You are apparently unaware that Hawaii was under the
>> martial law.
>Everyone was aware of that.
And apparently martial law was not a reaction to Pearl Harbor, but a
previously planned measure:
[Begin quote]
According to U.S. Army records, the proclamations issued by Gen. Short
were already in a special file in March 1941. "Plans were also made
for the creation of a military judicial system to augment or replace
the civilian courts."
"The large number of aliens in the Hawaiian Islands is a matter of
grave concern to our national government and years of study by
civilian, military and naval authorities, of the probable attitude of
certain of the island-born Orientals has led to the conclusion that
but doubtful reliance can be placed upon their loyalty to the United
States in the event of a war with an Oriental power," the report
quotes an unnamed "civilian educator" as saying.
As military governor, Short assumed the powers of the courts and
suspended the writ of habeas corpus, the judicial process which
determines the legality of a person's detainment or imprisonment.
[End quote]
http://archives.starbulletin.com/1999/09/13/special/story5.html
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Alan
Command.
Despite admitting that no, ZERO, acts of espionage had been committed
up to then, DeWitt calls this "a disturbing and confirming indication
that such action will be taken" (Memorandum to the Secretary of War,
13 FEB 1942).
So, these tens of thousands of enemy sympathizers had more than two
months to do something, anything, yet hadn't. Then, this complete lack
of action is used against them.
Maybe, he had already made up his mind, just like Gen Short.
Alan
David H Thornley
> On Oct 30, 3:01 pm, Alan <alan_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:>
> The Germans and Italians didn't live in the exclusion zone, the
> Japanese did. The US had reason to fear Japanese invasion of the West
> Coast and support of such an invasion from the local Japanese. We had
> no reason to fear invasion of the East coast.
>
one heavy raid against Hawaii, and had two submarines attack the West
Coast, completely ineffectually, and that was months ago. Since then,
the Japanese had been completely occupied in the Philippines and Dutch
East Indies and such places.
At this time, the US and Japanese navies were aboout equal in aircraft
carrier strength. After the repair of the lesser-damaged battleships at
Pearl Harbor, the US had twelve battleships and the Japanese had ten or
eleven. Further, the USN felt they had qualitative superiority, a
belief that didn't go away until May 1942 for carriers and August or
so for cruisers. (See Lundstrom, "The First South Pacific Campaign",
and most accounts of the Solomons battles.) Bear in mind that launching
an invasion over five thousand miles or so depends on naval superiority,
not inferiority. The US Torch invasion was considered a major feat,
and that was against no enemy surface ships en route, and was superior
to the enemy forces on the other end.
There was no intelligent reason to fear that the Japanese could send
a full-scale invasion force all the way across the Pacific, much farther
than they had sent a one-day raid with fast warships. No reason to
fear an invasion of, say, Arizona.
In the meantime, while the decision was being made, the East Coast was
a war zone. U-boats roamed freely where they would. Oil slicks and
dead seamen washed up on American beaches.
>> Numbers please, blanket statements like this are quite meaningless.
>> How many Japanese Americans served the Japanese Empire?
> Someone posted 8000-10,000.
>
How many German-Americans served in Germany, and how many Italian-
Americans served in Italy? There were, indeed, some. We know of
some cases. We further know that any dual citizen of military
age who happened to be visiting the old homeland at the wrong time
would wind up being drafted.
In a quick Google search, I can't find much on this. It seems to
have been forgotten. The general procedure seems to have been to
quietly gloss over it, and if the war was still on to enlist the
soldier in the US armed forces and send him to the Pacific.
I believe this is a double standard.
>> Many if not most of the Japanese Americans interred were citizens.
> Of Japan, yes. That's why we interned them...
>
If you were correct, then only Japanese citizens would have been
interned, possibly with their minor dependents. The adult US
citizens of Japanese descent who had never also had Japanese
citizenship would have been left alone.
There weren't many of them, but they were swept up by all the rest.
Ergo, you are incorrect. The sweep was based on grounds that at that
time would have been called racial, but would more likely be called
ethnic nowadays.
>> Just like all the German Americans & Italian Americans running around?
>
> They were in Areas they could do serious harm to the war effort.
>
As opposed to, say, New York City, which was totally trivial. Right?
Enemy nationals (not just dual citizens) were allowed to stay in
East and Gulf coast areas where there was actual war going on. In the
much larger, and hence potentially more dangerous, populations of
Italian-Americans and German-Americans, individuals were interned when
they appeared to be individually dangerous.
>> I guess the constitutional right to be presumed innocent means nothing
>> to you. If you belong to some group that in the future is deemed to be
>> a danger to the state, you may find yourself, without proof or trial,
>> put behind a fence.
>
> Proof of what? Being an enemy alien? We had that.
>
The executive order applied regardless of citizenship. All that was
important was Japanese descent.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:hcdma2$bti$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>>
>> Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock 'em
>> in concentration camps.
>
> The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago ...
> why is it popping up again??
Think of the Vietnam war quote along the lines of "it was the only way
to save it" as a village was destroyed by bombs. The passion for the
cause outweighs the losses being caused.
The USA had concentration camps, the Nazis had concentration camps,
therefore the USA = Nazis. Enter either a list of claimed USA mass
murders, or the propaganda film or Red Cross examination version of
the Nazi camps, to try and rewrite WWII history in favour of the Nazis.
For the majority of people concentration camp in WWII means the
real Nazi version, with large death rates. In December 1942 around
10% of the concentration inmates died, it was 8% in January 1943,
no winter clothes in winter does this sort of thing. In the second half
of 1942 the average monthly death rate was 9.89%, the Nazis
realised they needed the manpower, and the death rates had declined
to a monthly average of 5.72% in the first half of 1943.
>From the report to Himmler on 30 September 1943.
The USA had concentration camps like the Nazis. Meant to outrage,
using the title of the US camps and the facts of the Nazi camps.
By the way the USS Iowa BB4 and the USS Iowa BB61 were both
battleships, should be an even match, as both are battleships.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Joel Shepherd
<b3767705-04ca-4308...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"wjho...@aol.com" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> This thread is getting sillier. You seem unable to grasp
> the fact that because one action was feasible (evacuation
> of 110,000 Japanese) and another action was not (evacuation
> of millions of Germans and Italians) that the first should not
> have been done simply because the second could not.
There were many better reasons that the first should not have been done.
The fact that it was feasible to intern selected Italian- and
German-Americans on the east coast should have indicated it was feasible
to do the same on the west coast.
Yet, that's not what happened on the west coast. Why not?
--
Joel.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > So if the Japanese in Hawaii were rendered harmless,
> > why move 1,500 of them to relocation camps?
> A little background seems to be in order to
> straighten you out here.
I believe you are confused here, Mr Hopwood.
> Originally, the Military Commander of Hawaii,
> General Emmons, lnformed the War Department
> that " it would probably be necessary to evacuate
> 100,000 Japanese from Hawaii to ensure removing
> all the potentially disloyal." This was not thought
> feasible for a number of practical reasons. General
Actually, considering the number of troops we would transship through
Hawaii, it was more than practical.
> Emmons then estimated that of the total, some 1500
> were "the most dangerous Japanese aliens and
> citizens" but advised and that "circumstancss may
> arise at any time making it advisable to raise this
> estimate to muchj larger figures." [cite--CWRIC
> report "Personal Justice Denied."]
And, of course, circumstances did not.
> As it turned out the severe restrictions imposed by
> Martial Law obviated the necessity to intern many
> more in Hawaii,
But somehow, the severe restrictions imposed by being IN the armed
forces did not obviate this?
>but by the end of the war over
> 3,000 including the original 1500 Japanese aliens
> and citizens had been selected for evacuation to
> internment camps or relocation centers on the
> mainland.
So what you're saying is that it was fairly trivial to select the worst
potential offenders right away, and deal with the others later.
Thank you. That's what we've saying.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > > > Neither German Americans or Italian Americans were locked up
> > > > indiscriminately.
> >
> > > Neither were Japanese.
> > Nearly 120,000 of the 127,000 Japanese Americans living on the west
> > coast were interred, half of which were women and children. Of all the
> > German Americans and Italian Americans in the US at the time, only
> > 11,000 and 3,000 were interred. Sounds indiscriminate to me.
> The Germans and Italians didn't live in the exclusion zone, the
> Japanese did.
This is incorrect; both German and Italian nationals lived in regions from
which ALL of Japanese descent were removed.
> The US had reason to fear Japanese invasion of the West
Not really, and none at all by the time the internments began in earnest.
> Coast and support of such an invasion from the local Japanese. We had
> no reason to fear invasion of the East coast.
The Germans actually landed agents on the East Coast, and received help
from certain locals.
> > Numbers please, blanket statements like this are quite meaningless.
> > How many Japanese Americans served the Japanese Empire?
> Someone posted 8000-10,000.
And several thousand in the German army.
> > > These were not the betrayed saints people seem to want them to be
> > > portrayed as.
> >
> > Who said they were betrayed saints? Please don't put words in my
> > mouth.
> All that "loyal American" er, stuff.
You mean that qualifies one for sainthood.
> They were people, not dyed in
> the wool patriots. A hell of a lot of them were more loyal to Japan
> than the US.
A lot more of them were not. Many had even proven their loyalty prior to
the outbreak of the war.
> > > Under the circumstances US policy was perfectly reasonable. Letting
> > > very large numbers of enemy aliens run around the US unchecked would
> > > have been stupid beyond all imagining.
> >
> > Many if not most of the Japanese Americans interred were citizens.
> Of Japan, yes.
No.
> > Just like all the German Americans & Italian Americans running around?
> They were in Areas they could do serious harm to the war effort.
You mean, in many cases, the same areas the "Japanese" could?
Were the "Japanese" somehow more clever?
> > I guess the constitutional right to be presumed innocent means nothing
> > to you. If you belong to some group that in the future is deemed to be
> > a danger to the state, you may find yourself, without proof or trial,
> > put behind a fence.
> Proof of what? Being an enemy alien? We had that.
You are sadly confused, Mr Wilson. In fact, more Italians lived in the
areas of the West Coast than Japanese, yet far fewer of Italian descent
were rounded up.
Why keep ignoring that?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hcdma2$bti$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock 'em
> >> in concentration camps.
> >
> > The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago ...
> > why is it popping up again??
> The USA had concentration camps, the Nazis had concentration camps,
> therefore the USA = Nazis.
The British had concentration camps; indeed, they are often creditted with
the term.
Does UK=Nazis, Mr Sinclair?
> For the majority of people concentration camp in WWII means the
> real Nazi version, with large death rates.
Not sure who's responsible for "the majority of people", but it seems that
some education might then be in order.
> The USA had concentration camps
True.
>like the Nazis.
Or the British, or others.
> Meant to outrage,
> using the title of the US camps and the facts of the Nazi camps.
Then take it up with FDR, Truman, Ike, Biddle, and the US Supreme Court.
> By the way the USS Iowa BB4 and the USS Iowa BB61 were both
> battleships, should be an even match, as both are battleships.
So, what you're saying is that your whole argument was specious?
Thank you; we agree.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 31, 9:34 am, David H Thornley wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> > > production was significant, and where the possibility that
> > > enemy action might be forthcoming was not ruled out.
> >
> > As opposed to the East Coast, which by the time of the evacuation
> > was an actual war zone, with U-boats patrolling and sinking numerous
> > ships.
> This thread is getting sillier.
Agreed.
> You seem unable to grasp
> the fact that because one action was feasible (evacuation
> of 110,000 Japanese) and another action was not (evacuation
> of millions of Germans and Italians) that the first should not
> have been done simply because the second could not.
You seem unable to grasp two simple concepts;
1) if the presence of 120,000 "enemy aliens" (though most were US citizens)
presented a security risk, then the presence of hundreds of thousands
MORE presented a greater security risk.
2) The East Coast, not the West Coast, was the scene of much GREATER outright
enemy activity.
> Apparently you believe that wartime military decision should
> be governed by the principlles of "equal opporunity" and
> "affirmative action."
Apparently you believe that wartime military decision should be based on
principles of "Oh, that looks hard. Can we do something easier, even if
it's sillier?"
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Oct 31, 12:50 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com <wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > ....It would have had no affect on the military
> > > situation. The decision to evacuate was not made by
> > > different folks in different regions of the country on the
> > > basis of local social attitudes or custom.
> >
> > This is wrong. In fact, steps were taken in individual cases to
> > PREVENT unnaturalized enemy aliens from being
> > relocated/interned.
> Be specific.
Among others, as noted, the DiMaggios, who lived in San Francisco the
entire time, though he was scheduled to be interned.
> relocated or interned? Or are we back to your poor old
> Pappa DiMaggio obsession again? Be specific--who,
"obsession"?
Odd; is everything that refutes your views someone's "obsession"?
We'll take this as a tacit admission that indeed, there were policital
aspects to these "relocations".
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
> A quote by Lt Gen DeWitt:,admitting that no...
> espionage had been committed up to then
> "a disturbing and confirming indication
> that such action will be taken" (Memorandum
> to the Secretary of War 13 FEB 1942).
> ..Maybe, he had already made up his mind...
So what? i don't see that mentioned in DeWitt's
official memo to the War Department of that date
but if the remark was made at all it was meaningless
because the memot didn't reach the War Department
until Feb.18, after the evacuation decision had already
been made by SecWar in consultation with his staff
and most of DeWitt's recommendations and opinions,
including that he (DeWitt) was opposed to the
evacuation of citizen JAs except on a voluntary
basis, were ignored. [See Conn--"Guarding the U.S.
And Its Outposts" Chapter V.]
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > A quote by Lt Gen DeWitt:,admitting that no...
> > espionage had been committed up to then
> > "a disturbing and confirming indication
> > that such action will be taken" (Memorandum
> > to the Secretary of War 13 FEB 1942).
> > ..Maybe, he had already made up his mind...
> So what?
It's pretty clear; he takes the absence of action to be proof that action
will be taken.
In other words, he'd made up his mind.
i don't see that mentioned in DeWitt's
> official memo to the War Department of that date
> but if the remark was made at all it was meaningless
So it's your claim that DeWitt had no input, and as such his opinion
did not matter?
That's surreal, even from you.
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
> "wjhopw...@aol.com" wrote:
>
> >....one action was feasible (evacuation of 110,000
> > Japanese) and another action was not (evacuation
>
> The fact that it was feasible to intern selected Italian
> indicated it was feasible to do the same on the west
> coast.
Try to understand, if it is possible for you to do so,
that theoretically had all intelligence, military, numbers
of people, and logistical situations been the same,
the feasibility might also have been the same in both
cases. But all of the above considerations were quite
different as the historical record (absent latter-day social
revisionism) makes abundantly clear. Hence one was
feasible and one was not.
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
>
>... indeed, there were policital
> aspects to these "relocations".
But you've been telling us forever that
it was all "racism." What will it be next?
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Nov 1, 2:08 pm, mtfes...wrote:
> >
> >... indeed, there were policital
> > aspects to these "relocations".
> But you've been telling us forever that
> it was all "racism."
Try to keep up, Mr Hopwood; the "racism" referred to the Japanese-descended
internees.
The political aspects refers to all of them.
> What will it be next?
Hopefully, you will learn to read next.
Mike
Alan
No, I have not "been telling [you] forever". If you refer back to
my original post, which I will copy here ....
<begin>
Unfortunately, because of paranoia and racism, the Japanese Americans
were, for the most part, not allowed to serve in this respect.
<end>
.... I put paranoia first. My post of 10/31, again copied here ....
<begin>
A quote by Lt Gen DeWitt, commanding 4th Army and Western Defense
Command.
Despite admitting that no, ZERO, acts of espionage had been committed
up to then, DeWitt calls this "a disturbing and confirming indication
that such action will be taken" (Memorandum to the Secretary of War,
13 FEB 1942).
So, these tens of thousands of enemy sympathizers had more than two
months to do something, anything, yet hadn't. Then, this complete
lack
of action is used against them.
<end>
.... clearly demonstrates paranoia was the driving factor in the
relocation of Japanese Americans on the west coast. Indeed, the fact
they had done nothing, to DeWitt, is all the more reason they will do
something in the future.
That this was acceptable to many other Americans & nearly all on
the west coast is clearly discernable in legislation that had been
passed all the way back to 1905 when California's anti-miscegenation
law was amended to prohibit marriages between Caucasians and
"Mongolians", which included Japanese.
Perhaps you are unaware of who Lt General John L DeWitt was. As
stated, he was in command of the 4th Army and the Western Defense
Command. As such he was the officer who decided what to do about
EO-9066 in his area of responsibility. It is also pertinent to note
that he, more than any single person was responsible for EO-9066
happening in the first place. He had been trying since the war started
to bypass the law in various ways. It is also important to note that
EO-9066 did not require any military commander to take any action
beyond what he deemed appropriate. So, entirely on his own, he decided
that every person of Japanese descent was a security risk. He freely
admitted he had no evidence that one of these people had done anything
wrong, yet they had to go.
Perhaps General Short, if he had not been relieved after Pearl
Harbor, would have done the same. Or perhaps the "impractical" reason
was the persons of Japanese descent were working many of the farms
that were providing much of the food to the US sailors and soldiers in
Hawaii. The logistics of sending the JAs in Hawaii to the west coast
certainly wouldn't have stopped him. A great many ships were coming to
Hawaii full and going back empty.
You have tried to drop the actions of DeWitt at FDR's door. While
FDR should get some of the blame {though I'm sure you would say
credit}, his part was minor compared to DeWitt's. FDR's part in this
was allowing the various commanders to determine what was a reasonable
interpretation of the order.
You have also said the supreme court sanctioned all that was done.
This is not true. The supreme court sanctioned the creation of
military zones from which persons could be excluded. The supreme court
also said that singling out of persons of Japanese descent was outside
the scope of the lawsuit that it was deciding on.
Alan
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:hck8tc$5na$1...@usenet.stanford.edu...
> Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hcdma2$bti$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock
>> >> 'em
>> >> in concentration camps.
>> >
>> > The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago
>> > ...
>> > why is it popping up again??
Think of the Vietnam war quote along the lines of "it was the only way
to save it" as a village was destroyed by bombs. The passion for the
cause outweighs the losses being caused.
>> The USA had concentration camps, the Nazis had concentration camps,
>> therefore the USA = Nazis.
> The British had concentration camps; indeed, they are often creditted with
> the term.
>
> Does UK=Nazis, Mr Sinclair?
You can if you like, if you are going to use the titles as method,
the trouble though is the UK term dates from the Boer war, and
certainly has its own baggage, the large death rates before
changes were made, but not the WWII baggage as used by the
Nazis.
Using concentration camp in WWII carries additional overtones.
>> For the majority of people concentration camp in WWII means the
>> real Nazi version, with large death rates.
>
> Not sure who's responsible for "the majority of people", but it seems that
> some education might then be in order.
Yet somehow that appears to be a problem for someone else,
not the person making sure the US camps are continually called
concentration camps without bothering to note the differences
between those and the Nazi ones.
As for responsible try the inevitably abbreviated history courses
primary and high school students receive, the inevitable outcome
of covering thousands of years of history in a short amount of time.
I note the reality of the Nazi camps has been dropped, why the
need to delete the information?
"In December 1942 around
10% of the concentration inmates died, it was 8% in January 1943,
no winter clothes in winter does this sort of thing. In the second half
of 1942 the average monthly death rate was 9.89%, the Nazis
realised they needed the manpower, and the death rates had declined
to a monthly average of 5.72% in the first half of 1943.
>From the report to Himmler on 30 September 1943."
>> The USA had concentration camps
>
> True.
In title, but not in effect the same as the Nazi ones.
>>like the Nazis.
>
> Or the British, or others.
Oh good so the US and UK camps are being declared like the Nazi ones.
>> Meant to outrage,
>> using the title of the US camps and the facts of the Nazi camps.
>
> Then take it up with FDR, Truman, Ike, Biddle, and the US Supreme Court.
No take it up with someone doing it now, and clearly intending to
keep using the title without explaining the realities.
>> By the way the USS Iowa BB4 and the USS Iowa BB61 were both
>> battleships, should be an even match, as both are battleships.
>
> So, what you're saying is that your whole argument was specious?
No, I note I simply did the same thing as you, use the title to
imply things were the same. I am glad you do think the names
must mean the same thing idea is specious.
> Thank you; we agree.
Excellent, an explanation of the differences will be put in future posts,
not just the title without the differences explained.
By the way, since this has resurfaced, and last time you claimed FDR
was better educated than me, have you found my academic qualifications
yet?
Also, on the Japanese Americans, the claim was,
"and to marching them hundreds (or more) miles from home?"
You were asked last time how many were marched hundreds of miles,
hopefully you can tell us now. Then of course marching numbers of
people hundreds of miles should mean some died on the way. Deaths
on marches, death marches, like the Nazis and IJA, simple really.
Come on you can do it, death marches to the US concentration
camps, really make it clear how bad you think they were. Given the
transport system of South Africa during the Boer war undoubtedly
many had to move by foot (March) to the concentration camps and
there is a good chance some died (Death) on the way.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:hck8tc$5na$1...@usenet.stanford.edu...
> > Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:hcdma2$bti$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> > mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >> >> Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock
> >> >> 'em
> >> >> in concentration camps.
> >> > The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months ago
> >> > ...
> >> > why is it popping up again??
> Think of the Vietnam war quote along the lines of "it was the only way
Why are you repeating yourself?
> > The British had concentration camps; indeed, they are often creditted with
> > the term.
> > Does UK=Nazis, Mr Sinclair?
> You can if you like,
I neither like, nor dislike Mr Sinclair.
It is YOU who are proclaiming that people use the term concentration camp
to equate the US with the Nazis.
If so, do you also claim that the UK can be so equated, yes, or no?
Please answer the question, so that we can proceed with the discussion.
> the trouble though is the UK term dates from the Boer war, and
"the trouble"?
No, the "point" was that despite 10s of thousands of deaths in those camps.
the US STILL used the term, and, of course, it is still used today.
Sorry, but again, the plaque is right there.
> Using concentration camp in WWII carries additional overtones.
If one is simple-minded enough that all one can do is think immediately
of one nuance, then yes.
However, this is more-or-less a discussion of the history of WWII, and the
readers are generally expected to be able discern that there were a range
nuances, meanings, etc., in this term as in others.
> > Not sure who's responsible for "the majority of people", but it seems that
> > some education might then be in order.
> Yet somehow that appears to be a problem for someone else,
You mean the person who somehow can't admit that the term was used then
and now?
Well, take it up with that person.
> As for responsible try the inevitably abbreviated history courses
> primary and high school students receive,
So, are you complaining that you are a victim os such teaching of history?
If so, that's something we can do anything about. If not, again, what
makes you believe you speak for them?
> I note the reality of the Nazi camps has been dropped, why the
"dropped"?
No, but the discussion is about the term used on the US camps.
Or did you not realize that?
However, since you are so delicate, let me ask you a question;
It is irrefutable that the Nazis were racist. Other nations (such as
the US, UK, Australia) were also racist.
Now, does that mean the UK/US/Aus were also Nazis?
Or are you now going to complain that one cannot use the term "racist"
to describe the 3 allied nations?
It's a simple question.
It is equally irrefutable that the UK set up concentration camps earlier.
It is further irrefutable that in those camps, 10s of thousands of civilians
died, mostly women and children.
Are you NOW claiming that THOSE camps cannot be called "concentration camps",
yes or no?
> >> The USA had concentration camps
> >
> > True.
> In title, but not in effect the same as the Nazi ones.
Uh, who said they did?
Other than you, in order to refute it, that is.
> >>like the Nazis.
> >
> > Or the British, or others.
> Oh good so the US and UK camps are being declared like the Nazi ones.
A name is a name.
> >> Meant to outrage,
> >> using the title of the US camps and the facts of the Nazi camps.
> >
> > Then take it up with FDR, Truman, Ike, Biddle, and the US Supreme Court.
> No take it up with someone doing it now,
"Manzanar, the first of ten such concentration camps, was bounded by barbed
wire and guard towers, confining 10,000 persons. "
Do you want an address?
Like
"Manzanar, the first of ten such concentration camps, was bounded by
barbed wire and guard towers, confining 10,000 persons. "
> keep using the title without explaining the realities.
Sorry, I do not "close caption for the educationally deficient".
> >> By the way the USS Iowa BB4 and the USS Iowa BB61 were both
> >> battleships, should be an even match, as both are battleships.
> >
> > So, what you're saying is that your whole argument was specious?
> No, I note I simply did the same thing as you, use the title to
> imply things were the same.
I did not imply they were the same. You simply cannot
> I am glad you do think the names
> must mean the same thing idea is specious.
Uh, that was rather the whole point of this.
However, UNLESS you're saying that only one of your examples can be called
a "battleship", then you are agreeing with my point.
> > Thank you; we agree.
> Excellent, an explanation of the differences will be put in future posts,
So, which battleship was not a battleship in your example?
> By the way, since this has resurfaced, and last time you claimed FDR
> was better educated than me, have you found my academic qualifications
> yet?
You went to Harvard?
> Also, on the Japanese Americans, the claim was,
> "and to marching them hundreds (or more) miles from home?"
It's a figure of speech, clear from the context.
Surely and "educated" man such as yourself doens't need EVERYTHING
spelled out?
> Come on you can do it, death marches to the US concentration
> camps, really make it clear how bad you think they were.
I'm a bit confused here, Mr Sinclair; where did I say the US instigated
"death marches" in the case of the "Japanese" interned in WWII?
Or, perhaps, your education gives you the ability to see words the rest of
us cannot see.
Mike
David H Thornley
is such an objection to the use here of a term that was used during
WWII. I don't understand why a respected poster here is arguing
vehemently against it.
The camps the Japanese-Americans were held in were referred to at the
time as concentration camps. This was reminiscent of the concentration
camps used by the British in the Boer War, and the term did not have
positive connotations even then. As it happens, these camps were better
than the British ones, and both were far better than what the Germans
called concentration camps (and, even worse, the death camps that
are often confused with the concentration camps).
I don't think the term is really useful in general discussion nowadays,
because of the additional baggage it acquired during the last months of
WWII. That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate in a more informed
discussions, like the ones we have here.
If we call them internment camps or relocation camps, we miss the
historical implications. The authorities did call these concentration
camps, and did so knowing that it wasn't a positive thing to call them.
By using more neutral terms, we run the risk of obscuring what went
on and how the authorities of the time thought about them.
Similarly, the modern meaning of the word "race" obscures the thinking
of the time. Race is a social term, not a scientific one, and in
discussing what was going on at the time the current usage is
misleading. At that time, the Japanese could be spoken of as a separate
race, and treated as such. Currently, we would consider them as the
same race as the Chinese, Indochinese, Koreans, and others.
What else shall we do? Shall we remove all mention of cigarettes from
the description of GIs? Talk about the men and women that stormed
Normandy on June 6, 1944? Refer to a certain unit that fought well at
Bastogne as the 969th Field Artillery Battalion (African-American)?
Let us remember what words and phrases were used at the time, and what
they meant then. Let's not chop up the history to match modern
culture and usage.
wjho...@aol.com
> On Nov 1, 4:39 pm, " wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 2:08 pm, mtfes...wrote:
>
> > >... indeed, there were policital
> > > aspects to these "relocations".
>
> > But you've been telling us forever that
> > it was all "racism." What will it be next?
>
> > WJH
>
> No, I have not "been telling [you] forever". If you refer back to
> my original post, which I will copy here ....
Get a grip on youself, Alan. Take another look at what you
wrote above. I was not referring you. My post wa clearly
addressed to Mr. Fester, not to you.. You are getting all
shook up over nothing.
(Balance of your post re that matter are inapplicable and
deleted).
>....You have also said the supreme court sanctioned all that
> was done. This is not true....
Indeed it is true. Everything we are covering here was a result
of FDR's Executive Order 9066 which the SC approved in
Korematsu v. U.S. DeWitt was given specific instructions
by from the War Department as to whom to exclude. Although
he was opposed to excluding any American citizens, he was
overruled.
[See Conn--"Guarding the United States and Its Outposts", Ch5.
I suggest you read not only the Korematsu decision but EO9066
as well, and I call your attention particularly to these words from
the Korematsu decision:
"...we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the
war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those
of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the
time they did...It is said that we are dealing here with the case
of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely
because of his ancestry....Our task would be simple, our
duty clear were this a case involving ...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... (Korematsu) was not excluded
from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race.
He was excluded because we we at war with the Japanese
Empire." [Emphasis mine]
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
> I must confess myself at a loss, here. I don't understand why there
> is such an objection to the use here of a term that was used during
>
> The camps the Japanese-Americans were held in were
> referred to at the time as concentration camps.
Only by very few and by hardly anyone after the news
of the Nazi and Japanese death camps became common
knowledge. Even the Supreme Court condemned the
use of the term "concentration camp" to refer to the
assembly and relocation centers as being "unjustifiable."
[Korematsu v. U.S. decision].
It is obvious that using the term today in reference to the
wartime centers is done as a ploy to make the centers
look worse than they were as part of the agenda of
those who condemn the governent's wartime action to
evacuate ethnic Japanese from the West Coast for
reasons of national security..
> Let us remember what words and phrases were used at the time,
> and what they meant then.
Yes. And also what they didn't mean. When info about the
Axis death camps became more widely known, the term "concentration
camp" took on a whole new ugly meaning.
That's why most knowledgeable people shunned the use of
the term in connection with our own relocation camps, and
continue to do so today.
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Nov 1, 1:17 pm, Joel Shepherd wrote:
> > "wjhopw...@aol.com" wrote:
> > >....one action was feasible (evacuation of 110,000
> > > Japanese) and another action was not (evacuation
> > > of millions of Germans and Italians)...
> > The fact that it was feasible to intern selected Italian
> > and German-Americans on the east coast should have
> > indicated it was feasible to do the same on the west
> > coast.
> Try to understand, if it is possible for you to do so,
> that theoretically had all intelligence, military, numbers
> of people, and logistical situations been the same,
> the feasibility might also have been the same in both
> cases.
Try to understand, if it is possible for you to do so, that your
claim was that there were too many Italian/Germans to deal with.
Now, it is shown that, in fact, it was entirely possible deal with
much larger numbers on an individual basis, despite your continual claims
to the contrary.
What will be your next excuse?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Nov 1, 7:23 pm, Alan wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 4:39 pm, " wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 1, 2:08 pm, mtfes...wrote:
> >
> > > >... indeed, there were policital
> > > > aspects to these "relocations".
> >
> > > But you've been telling us forever that
> > > it was all "racism." What will it be next?
> > No, I have not "been telling [you] forever". If you refer back to
> > my original post, which I will copy here ....
> Get a grip on youself, Alan. Take another look at what you
Get a grip on yourself, Mr Hopwood; take another look at the comment
on "political aspects to these relocations" and you will note that...
> wrote above. I was not referring you. My post wa clearly
> addressed to Mr. Fester, not to you..
I was referring to the Italian/German relocations, which you inexplicably
snipped in your reply.
> I suggest you read not only the Korematsu decision but EO9066
> as well, and I call your attention particularly to these words from
> the Korematsu decision:
I call your attention to this particular detail about Koremitsu.
> "...we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the
> war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those
> of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the
> time they did...It is said that we are dealing here with the case
> of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely
> because of his ancestry.... Our task would be simple, our
> duty clear were this a case involving ...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
I suppose they should have taken that up with FDR, who ordered them
into concentration camps.
> nothing but an exclusion order... (Korematsu) was not excluded
> from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race.
Actually, yes he was.
> He was excluded because we we at war with the Japanese
> Empire." [Emphasis mine]
And he was A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. [Emphasis mine]
Since he was a US citizen, and he was rounded up with the NON US citizen,
it is clearly a RACIAL decision.
See how that works, Mr Hopwood?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Nov 1, 10:03 pm, David H Thornley wrote:
> > I must confess myself at a loss, here. I don't understand why there
> > is such an objection to the use here of a term that was used during
> > WWII...
> >
> > The camps the Japanese-Americans were held in were
> > referred to at the time as concentration camps.
> Only by very few
including FDR, Truman, Eisenhauer...
> It is obvious that using the term today in reference to the
> wartime centers is done as a ploy to make the centers
> look worse than they were as part of the agenda of
It is obvious that those who object most strongly to the use of the
term simply fabricate arguments they wish to address, rather than address
the use of the term itself.
> > Let us remember what words and phrases were used at the time,
> > and what they meant then.
> Yes. And also what they didn't mean.
Good; progress then.
"Race" at the time was commonly used to describe groups of people such
as "Japanese", "German", and even "American".
"Concentration camp" was used by the President, the vice-president,
the commander of the US forces in Europe, etc.
> Axis death camps became more widely known, the term "concentration
> camp" took on a whole new ugly meaning.
Mr Hopwood, for one who has claimed to have been "around at the time", you
seem remarkably unaware of the concentration camps preceding those of
WWII. They ALWAYS had ugly meanings, Mr Hopwood; or is the death of
tens of thousands of civilians in the British concentration camps
not "ugly" in your world?
How did you miss that "at the time"?
Mike
David H Thornley
> On Nov 1, 10:03 pm, David H Thornley wrote:
>> I must confess myself at a loss, here. I don't understand why there
>> is such an objection to the use here of a term that was used during
>> WWII...
>>
>> The camps the Japanese-Americans were held in were
>> referred to at the time as concentration camps.
>
> Only by very few and by hardly anyone after the news
> of the Nazi and Japanese death camps became common
> knowledge.
Actually, by a fair number of people *at* *the* *time*.
To repeat, people did use that, and at that time the
reference would doubtless be to the concentration camps
run by the British during the Boer War. To repeat,
even at that time "concentration camp" had something
of a perjorative meaning, although not nearly as much
as it gained later.
This means that anybody denying the use of the term,
and referring to the places merely as assembly centers
or relocation centers or whatever is distorting the
discussion that was occurring *at* *that* *time*.
It is obvious that anybody protesting strongly against
using the term, in its historical context, is doing so
as a ploy to make the centers appear relatively innocuous,
and to disguise the intentions of the authorities at
the time.
I am rather tired of the continuing attempts to use
modern meanings of words to distort a discussion of
WWII policies. In fact, many authorities deliberately
used a phrase that had seriously negative connotations
when planning for these camps, and I believe there can
be no legitimate reason to deny that.
wjho...@aol.com
>
> I am rather tired of the continuing attempts to use
> modern meanings of words to distort a discussion of
"Modern meanings?" You can't be serious. This from the
1982 CWRIC report," Personal Justice Denied:"
"...Government documents of the time frequently
use the 'concentration camps,' but after WWII, with
full realization of the atrocities committed by the Nazis
in the death camps of Europe, that phrase came to have
a very different meaning....To use the phrase 'concentration
camps' summons up images and ideas which are
inaccurate and unfair. The Commission has used 'relocation
centers' and 'relocation camps,' THE USUAL TERM USED
DURING THE WAR....in an effort to find an historically
fair and accurate phrase." lEmphasis added]
That about sums it up. If you want to be "inaccurate and
unfair" in support of your compulsion to criticize U.S.
wartime security efforts, that's your problem.
> In fact, many authorities deliberately used a phrase that
> had seriously negative connotations when planning for
> these camps, and I believe there can be no legitimate
> reason to deny that.
Nor to my knowledge has anybody in this forum denied the
sometime use of the phrase in the "planning for these camps."
It's as the CWRIC noted above, only after the phrase took on
a "different meaning" that only those with a mindset not attuned
to historical accuracy continue to use the 'concentration camp
term to describe the U.S. wartime relocation and internment
camps.
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Nov 2, 12:30 am, David H Thornley wrote:
> >
> > I am rather tired of the continuing attempts to use
> > modern meanings of words to distort a discussion of
> > WWII policies....
> "Modern meanings?" You can't be serious.
He is.
> This from the
> 1982 CWRIC report," Personal Justice Denied:"
> "...Government documents of the time frequently
> use the 'concentration camps,'
Thank you.
We've been trying to drive this point home to you.
> a very different meaning....To use the phrase 'concentration
> camps' summons up images and ideas which are
> inaccurate and unfair.
So, it would be your contention that the term was accurate and fair
when (eg) FDR, Ike, Truman, etc, used it?
> That about sums it up.
Indeed.
Those whose modern sensibilities are offended by how things were need to
be brought up to speed.
> > In fact, many authorities deliberately used a phrase that
> > had seriously negative connotations when planning for
> > these camps, and I believe there can be no legitimate
> > reason to deny that.
> Nor to my knowledge has anybody in this forum denied the
> sometime use of the phrase in the "planning for these camps."
Sorry, was 1944 the planning stage?
Mike
David H Thornley
> On Nov 2, 12:30 am, David H Thornley wrote:
>> I am rather tired of the continuing attempts to use
>> modern meanings of words to distort a discussion of
>> WWII policies....
>
> "Modern meanings?" You can't be serious.
I am. Completely.
This from the
> 1982 CWRIC report," Personal Justice Denied:"
> "...Government documents of the time frequently
> use the 'concentration camps,'
In other words, we agree that government documents often
used the phrase "concentration camps".
but after WWII, with
> full realization of the atrocities committed by the Nazis
> in the death camps of Europe, that phrase came to have
> a very different meaning....
We also agree that the phrase has taken on different meanings,
and now has associations of the horrible Nazi concentration
camps and the even worse death camps. We're making progress
here.
The next point is the connotations of "concentration camp"
at the time.
The phrase appears to have from the concentration camps the
British set up in the Second Boer War, and perhaps the
reconcentration camps used in Cuba slightly earlier. In both
cases, the camps were lethal: tens or hundreds of thousands
of civilians died in them.
In other words, the phrase had similar connotations then and now,
except that the current ones are stronger.
To use the phrase 'concentration
> camps' summons up images and ideas which are
> inaccurate and unfair.
Only in degree, not in kind. Currently, it summons up images of
Jews confined in absolutely horrible conditions and often killed
industrially in very large numbers. Then, it summoned up images of
starving civilians living in filth and dying in moderately large
numbers.
The Commission has used 'relocation
> centers' and 'relocation camps,' THE USUAL TERM USED
> DURING THE WAR....in an effort to find an historically
> fair and accurate phrase." lEmphasis added]
>
Except that I have a real problem with that. The phrases
"relocation center" and "relocation camp" are generally pretty
neutral emotionally. For many purposes, that's just fine.
However, it glosses over the fact that a much more perjorative
term was used frequently.
Since we're discussing (for the 23,634th time) the decision
process that led to the relocation and internment, it is necessary
to look at what these authorities were thinking. If they were
using "concentration camp" in documents, that gives an important
clue as to how they were thinking.
> That about sums it up. If you want to be "inaccurate and
> unfair" in support of your compulsion to criticize U.S.
> wartime security efforts, that's your problem.
>
I'm being accurate, in that the phrase was frequently used.
I'm being fair, in pointing out the meaning of the phrase at
the time. If you want fairer, I'll point out that the
camps in fact were much better than what people at the time
would think of as a concentration camp, let alone what the
phrase came to mean a few years later. The food was apparently
adequate, as was the sanitation, some amenities were provided,
and, most striking of all, people in them seemed to die at
about the regular sort of rate.
>> In fact, many authorities deliberately used a phrase that
>> had seriously negative connotations when planning for
>> these camps, and I believe there can be no legitimate
>> reason to deny that.
>
> Nor to my knowledge has anybody in this forum denied the
> sometime use of the phrase in the "planning for these camps."
Or, apparently, later.
> It's as the CWRIC noted above, only after the phrase took on
> a "different meaning" that only those with a mindset not attuned
> to historical accuracy continue to use the 'concentration camp
> term to describe the U.S. wartime relocation and internment
> camps.
>
If there was a contemporary phrase that had about the same connotations
that "concentration camp" did in 1942, I'd use it. As I don't know of
one, I'll continue to point out the use of the phrase, and use it as
appropriate.
I do, of course, maintain that this use is in strict service of
historical accuracy, and deplore the post-war sanitization of
the language insofar as it leads to a mistaken impression.
wjho...@aol.com
>
> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> > 1982 CWRIC report," Personal Justice Denied:"
> > "...Government documents of the time frequently
> > use the 'concentration camps,'
>
> In other words, we agree that government documents often
> used the phrase "concentration camps".
I agree that there was "sometime" use, but disagree
with the word "frequently." However, when used it was
in a benign sense as the term had not yet assumed the
death camp connotations it later became associated
with. and is still associated with today. That's why it is
either intellectually dishonest or uninformed to use the
term today in describing the wartime relocation and
internment camps.
> We also agree that the phrase has taken on different meanings,
> and now has associations of the horrible Nazi concentration
> camps and the even worse death camps.
Yes we do.
> ...Currently, it summons up images of Jews confined in absolutely
> horrible conditions and often killed industrially in very large numbers.
That and the civilian internment and POW death camps of the
Japanese.
> Then, it summoned up images of starving civilians living in filth and > dying in moderately large numbers.
I doubt that's what those in the U.S. gov't had in mind when the
term was used prior to its subsequent "death camp" connotations.
More likely they had in mind something akin to camps for war
refugees, which, in effect, was what in many respects they were.
> I'm being accurate, in that the phrase was frequently used...
No, it was used infrequently even at first and about zero after
the death camp connotations arose. What was universally
used from the outset of the evacuation by those directly
involved in the process was "internment camp" and "relocation
center," just as the CWRIC report says."
>....the camps in fact were much better than what people at the time
> would think of as a concentration camp, let alone what the
> phrase came to mean a few years later....
Absolutely. And that has been my major point. Actually
we are very close to agreement on this issue.
WJH
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:dMKdnWc1wpAs1nPX...@posted.visi...
>I must confess myself at a loss, here. I don't understand why there
> is such an objection to the use here of a term that was used during
> WWII.
I am not objecting to calling them concentration camps, that is
what they were called, changing the name to something else is
not history I object to the failure to differentiate them from the
other group of concentration camps that were active in Nazi
Germany at the time. They were significantly different in the
death rates at the very least.
As a result the term today carries a different standard meaning.
The neo Nazis use the same name to imply the same treatment
of prisoners.
> I don't understand why a respected poster here is arguing
> vehemently against it.
By the way, thanks for the compliment, I am now ordering double
strength ego basking lotion.
> The camps the Japanese-Americans were held in were referred to at the
> time as concentration camps.
Correct. There is also the possibility some US camps were called
transit camps which was the Nazi cover name for some of the death
camps.
> This was reminiscent of the concentration
> camps used by the British in the Boer War, and the term did not have
> positive connotations even then.
Definitely in the UK, probably in the US, but I would be interested
in an idea of how much Boer war knowledge the US actually had.
There was a lot less information flow then.
> As it happens, these camps were better
> than the British ones, and both were far better than what the Germans
> called concentration camps (and, even worse, the death camps that
> are often confused with the concentration camps).
The UK camps were very bad to start with and appear to have
ended up as "modern" standards when they were cleaned up.
So they have a bad reputation at the start and a good one, as
prisons go, at the end, enabling you to pick your preferred
good/bad reputation. Overall they have a deserved reputation
of being bad.
And yes, that is a second problem, death = concentration camp,
yet it is also accurate in at least one instance, Auschwitz.
> I don't think the term is really useful in general discussion nowadays,
> because of the additional baggage it acquired during the last months of
> WWII.
Which is my point. That baggage is attached for a modern audience,
much more than for the people in the US at the time.
As noted in the previous discussion, how much chance do you have
of wearing a swastika in the US and have people comment how nice
to wear a Hindu good luck symbol? Of for that matter its non Nazi
usage in Europe?
Given the number of Hindus and the hopefully ending of any Nazi
rule how long do you think before the current default meaning
in the west changes back to the say pre WWI meaning?
> That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate in a more informed
> discussions, like the ones we have here.
This is a public forum, where undoubtedly the audience varies from
the just curious to the very interested and well read. Should it not
be incumbent on those posting to be aware of the dual meanings
and make appropriate allowances?
> If we call them internment camps or relocation camps, we miss the
> historical implications.
If the name is that important, and I agree we should use the proper
name, then consider calling someone gay in 1940 versus now.
> The authorities did call these concentration
> camps, and did so knowing that it wasn't a positive thing to call them.
Some did, how many is another matter. Concentration comes from
concentrating the population, in South Africa, to prevent them from
helping the other side., makes it a "logical" working title.
Resettlement implies something permanent, as does reservation in
the US anyway.
> By using more neutral terms, we run the risk of obscuring what went
> on and how the authorities of the time thought about them.
Did the US authorities at the time plan to neglect sanitation, to
have the camps at less than modern standards? Since that is
the implication from using the Boer war camps name, using
their bad reputation.
> Similarly, the modern meaning of the word "race" obscures the thinking
> of the time. Race is a social term, not a scientific one, and in
> discussing what was going on at the time the current usage is
> misleading.
I think I would say that society is moving towards the above
definition but the racists are rather further behind. See the
term "Pakis" as in use in England at the moment.
> At that time, the Japanese could be spoken of as a separate
> race, and treated as such. Currently, we would consider them as the
> same race as the Chinese, Indochinese, Koreans, and others.
I do not think the average Japanese would agree with you.
> What else shall we do? Shall we remove all mention of cigarettes from
> the description of GIs?
Why this example? Tobacco use is not relevant, the way it was
encouraged at the time is.
> Talk about the men and women that stormed
> Normandy on June 6, 1944?
Actually remember the female resistance fighters. The nurses that
went ashore very early, the German female auxiliaries and medical
staff caught up at the time.
The women working on the airfields, the radar stations, the AA
guns, the radio interception units and so on.
You are right that as far as we know no women were actually in
the allied assault formations. Not sure how many female German
prisoners the allies took on 6 June.
By the way, looked up how many of the people on board RN ships
during the Napoleonic era were female, including gun crews? Heard
of the women of Nelson's fleet?
> Refer to a certain unit that fought well at
> Bastogne as the 969th Field Artillery Battalion (African-American)?
As noted, use the title as it was, then note the terminology change.
Also understand the racists have different targets in different
societies, the black/white divide in US is usually far more acute
than in other countries, so they are not as sensitive to the US version
of racism. In WWII terms the British treated the African-American
troops quite well, while still confident the British deserved to rule
and treat as second class large numbers of people in Asia and
Africa. Meantime US reporters were helping spread Ghandi's
message about independence for India.
> Let us remember what words and phrases were used at the time, and what
> they meant then. Let's not chop up the history to match modern
> culture and usage.
If someone says our young gay Queen what sort of picture does that
build today, a happy Queen Elizabeth, wife of the future King George
VI, in a newspaper article of the time?
One job of reporting history is to use the terms of the time, another
is explaining what they meant then, not now.
Another is context, the early western prisons were appalling places
by modern standards, they were also an improvement in the justice
system, giving sentencing options beyond death, physical injury,
fines or exile.
Since previous to that most people were only locked up until their
trial, the idea of prison as a punishment had to be accepted.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:hclamf$l5l$3...@usenet.stanford.edu...
> Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:hck8tc$5na$1...@usenet.stanford.edu...
>> > Geoffrey Sinclair <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:hcdma2$bti$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> > mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> >> >> Right; round up Americans if they're of the Japanese race, and lock
>> >> >> 'em
>> >> >> in concentration camps.
>
>> >> > The "concentration camp" canard was soundly refuted several months
>> >> > ago
>> >> > ...
>> >> > why is it popping up again??
>
>> Think of the Vietnam war quote along the lines of "it was the only way
deleted text,
to save it" as a village was destroyed by bombs. The passion for the
cause outweighs the losses being caused.
> Why are you repeating yourself?
Mainly because I note someone is repeating themselves.
>> > The British had concentration camps; indeed, they are often creditted
>> > with
>> > the term.
>
>> > Does UK=Nazis, Mr Sinclair?
>
>> You can if you like,
deleted text,
"if you are going to use the titles as method,"
> I neither like, nor dislike Mr Sinclair.
Fascinating, given the passion for the topic and the need to respond
so forcefully. Why the need to reply to a phrase at a time?
What was gained by the deletion of the phrase, beyond enabling a
non reply?
> It is YOU who are proclaiming that people use the term concentration camp
> to equate the US with the Nazis.
No, I am saying have you seen the neo Nazi propaganda?
Which uses the logic as described, that is all WWII concentration camps
are the same, therefore the US is the same as Nazi Germany.
> If so, do you also claim that the UK can be so equated, yes, or no?
Not in WWII, they did not use concentration camps then. The neo
Nazis tend to use the UK as the "good guy" to claim the purported US
crimes were deliberate. Or occasionally the other way.
However the bomber campaign and UK anthrax experiments are
quoted as part of the UK is evil campaign. The Boer War camps
are mentioned more along the line of claiming the UK (and the
world) have a pathological hatred of Germans, next comes the
claim this makes the standard histories unreliable, believe the neo
Nazi versions instead.
> Please answer the question, so that we can proceed with the discussion.
How about that, answers demanded but not given.
>> the trouble though is the UK term dates from the Boer war, and
deleted text,
"certainly has its own baggage, the large death rates before
changes were made, but not the WWII baggage as used by the
Nazis."
> "the trouble"?
A reply one phrase at a time it seems, deleting the rest.
Yes, it predates the Nazi version, which makes it hard to directly
equate it to WWII. The US and Nazi versions were around 40
years later, at the same time, so people either accidentally or
deliberately confuse them.
> No, the "point" was that despite 10s of thousands of deaths in those
> camps.
> the US STILL used the term, and, of course, it is still used today.
No, the point is the term concentration camp in WWII is equated
to the Nazi version in basic history, using the US term without
explanation indicates a lack of understanding, usually accidental, but
often deliberate.
> Sorry, but again, the plaque is right there.
And the fact one plaque can be found means exactly what?
Is this a Boer War plaque?
There are many more neo Nazi writings than one plaque.
They started almost as soon as WWII ended.
>> Using concentration camp in WWII carries additional overtones.
>
> If one is simple-minded enough that all one can do is think immediately
> of one nuance, then yes.
Ah, I see, simple minded, as opposed to people who want to claim
expertise in an area do their best to ensure they clarify the situation.
> However, this is more-or-less a discussion of the history of WWII, and the
> readers are generally expected to be able discern that there were a range
> nuances, meanings, etc., in this term as in others.
How nice no responsibility will be accepted it seems for failing to
define the terms and great effort will be made to deny the need to
do so if someone else tries
>> > Not sure who's responsible for "the majority of people", but it seems
>> > that
>> > some education might then be in order.
>
>> Yet somehow that appears to be a problem for someone else,
>
> You mean the person who somehow can't admit that the term was used then
> and now?
Ah yes, the standard run to sentence.
Now then, for yet another time, where have I ever said the term was
not used, or suggest it not be used? Come on, show the text. I have
plenty of writings on he subject.
> Well, take it up with that person.
Dear Straw Man, care of Mike Fester.....
>> As for responsible try the inevitably abbreviated history courses
>> primary and high school students receive,
Deleted text,
"the inevitable outcome
of covering thousands of years of history in a short amount of time."
> So, are you complaining that you are a victim os such teaching of history?
Only with the way Mike Fester is simply ignoring the reality, and I am
quite amused by the efforts to ignore objections by picking phrases
and ignoring sentences.
> If so, that's something we can do anything about.
Oh good, you are going to stop this junk or at least add the way the
term concentration camp has different meanings in WWII depending
on where the camp was.
> If not, again, what makes you believe you speak for them?
Who said I was speaking for anybody but me? Dear Straw Man...
I do note however that WWII history teaching is abbreviated,
and only key themes, like the extermination system are covered.
Until you actually take a specific course in WWII.
>> I note the reality of the Nazi camps has been dropped, why the
"need to delete the information?"
> "dropped"?
Yes, the death rates are deleted. For the second time so back
in they go for a third time,
"In December 1942 around
10% of the concentration inmates died, it was 8% in January 1943,
no winter clothes in winter does this sort of thing. In the second half
of 1942 the average monthly death rate was 9.89%, the Nazis
realised they needed the manpower, and the death rates had declined
to a monthly average of 5.72% in the first half of 1943.
>From the report to Himmler on 30 September 1943."
> No, but the discussion is about the term used on the US camps.
Oh how nice, I am pointing out the problems thanks to the Nazi
use of the term and why, so I publish the Nazi death rates, and
those death rates are promptly deleted.
Thanks for really making it clear there will be every effort to avoid
the Nazi version. Thanks for making it clear how much damage
you are doing the Japanese American cause.
> Or did you not realize that?
Yes folks, Mike intends to erase the Nazi version from the
discussion.
> However, since you are so delicate, let me ask you a question;
Can I have the Straw Man concession?
> It is irrefutable that the Nazis were racist. Other nations (such as
> the US, UK, Australia) were also racist.
Name a country that has not been racist, that is at some point had
legislation discriminating against a particular group. This is before
we talk about implicit social rules.
Racism is everywhere, concentration camps have been rare in
history, you need a different example.
> Now, does that mean the UK/US/Aus were also Nazis?
No. Given racism is so prevalent everyone would qualify under
that definition.
Key Nazis were male, therefore......
> Or are you now going to complain that one cannot use the term "racist"
> to describe the 3 allied nations?
You can describe any nation as racist, just look for the examples,
they are present in all societies.
The US had segregated units, the Australian government lobbied
to keep African American units out of the country, but had to give
in because there were not enough support units with the "right"
people in them. Then of course apparently discovered the "wrong"
people caused very little trouble.
Australia spent a lot of time trying to build a single race society, as
defined in the first half of the 20th century, because that was the only
way at the time considered to enable a truly egalitarian society,
since the different races were supposed to be at different stages of
development. At least that was the intellectual argument, the standard
racist ones were more used day to day. Now days 1/4 to 1/3 of the
population was born overseas and Nguyen fights Smith and Jones
for largest number of entries in the phone book. And there are
still racists present.
> It's a simple question.
Dear Straw Man...
> It is equally irrefutable that the UK set up concentration camps earlier.
Yes, at a time when they did not have any other meaning.
> It is further irrefutable that in those camps, 10s of thousands of
> civilians died, mostly women and children.
Quite correct. As I have posted before.
> Are you NOW claiming that THOSE camps cannot be called "concentration
> camps", yes or no?
Dear Straw Man, I am becoming very wealthy after obtaining the concession.
So tell me where I have ever said the relevant US, Nazi or UK camps
should not be called concentration camps.
Go on, produce the evidence.
>> >> The USA had concentration camps
>> >
>> > True.
>
>> In title, but not in effect the same as the Nazi ones.
>
> Uh, who said they did?
Amazingly it seems nothing is getting through. Given the WWII term it
is necessary to qualify it.
> Other than you, in order to refute it, that is.
I note the way the information on the Nazi version keeps being
deleted, I note the flat refusal to even consider pointing out the
differences.
>> >>like the Nazis.
>> >
>> > Or the British, or others.
>
>> Oh good so the US and UK camps are being declared like the Nazi ones.
>
> A name is a name.
So a name is a name and the attempt seems to be made to try guilt by
association.
>> >> Meant to outrage,
>> >> using the title of the US camps and the facts of the Nazi camps.
>> >
>> > Then take it up with FDR, Truman, Ike, Biddle, and the US Supreme
>> > Court.
>
>> No take it up with someone doing it now,
>
> "Manzanar, the first of ten such concentration camps, was bounded by
> barbed wire and guard towers, confining 10,000 persons. "
>
> Do you want an address?
>
> Like
>
> "Manzanar, the first of ten such concentration camps, was bounded by
> barbed wire and guard towers, confining 10,000 persons. "
Amazing, that little plaque, repeated twice.
Who wrote it? FDR, Truman, Ike, Biddle or the US Supreme Court.
Since I am supposed to take it up with them.
Name the author.
>> keep using the title without explaining the realities.
>
> Sorry, I do not "close caption for the educationally deficient".
An attitude which explains how much damage your self proclaimed
help to the Japanese Americans is sending their cause backwards.
You will have to become used to the idea the Nazi camps need to be
separated from the US version.
>> >> By the way the USS Iowa BB4 and the USS Iowa BB61 were both
>> >> battleships, should be an even match, as both are battleships.
>> >
>> > So, what you're saying is that your whole argument was specious?
>
>> No, I note I simply did the same thing as you, use the title to
>> imply things were the same.
>
> I did not imply they were the same. You simply cannot
Ah yes, zero awareness it seems.
>> I am glad you do think the names
>> must mean the same thing idea is specious.
>
> Uh, that was rather the whole point of this.
So why never bother to note the differences?
> However, UNLESS you're saying that only one of your examples can
> be called a "battleship", then you are agreeing with my point.
No.
>> > Thank you; we agree.
>
>> Excellent, an explanation of the differences will be put in future posts,
>
> So, which battleship was not a battleship in your example?
They were both battleships as defined at the time and now, one was
a pre dreadnought. Same name, much different capabilities despite
the same names.
>> By the way, since this has resurfaced, and last time you claimed FDR
>> was better educated than me, have you found my academic qualifications
>> yet?
>
> You went to Harvard?
No, you claimed you knew FDR was better educated than me,
so provide the evidence.
Go on, actually do it instead of providing more evidence of a flat
refusal to stop the rhetoric and ignore errors.
>> Also, on the Japanese Americans, the claim was,
>> "and to marching them hundreds (or more) miles from home?"
>
> It's a figure of speech, clear from the context.
No, it was a claim, now back it up.
> Surely and "educated"
Good, so you do know my education record, so why not tell
people instead of alluding to it.
You know, provide evidence.
> man such as yourself doens't need EVERYTHING
> spelled out?
Translation, the wild claims will be ducked. That is spelled out
quite clearly.
deleted text,
"You were asked last time how many were marched hundreds of miles,
hopefully you can tell us now. Then of course marching numbers of
people hundreds of miles should mean some died on the way. Deaths
on marches, death marches, like the Nazis and IJA, simple really."
>> Come on you can do it, death marches to the US concentration
>> camps, really make it clear how bad you think they were.
>
> I'm a bit confused here, Mr Sinclair; where did I say the US instigated
> "death marches" in the case of the "Japanese" interned in WWII?
I did not say you did it, I simply used the logic, claims of being marched
hundreds of miles, people would die, join the words. Why should you have
a problem with someone pointing out there were probably death marches to
(or even from) the US concentration camps? After claiming so many were
marched there? And how bad the treatment was?
I mean who could misunderstand the meaning of a death march in the
USA, surely everyone is aware of the different types. I mean it cannot
be that anyone is that "simple-minded" or "delicate" and anyway
" this is more-or-less a discussion of the history of WWII, and the
readers are generally expected to be able discern that there were a range
nuances, meanings"
and there is no need for
"close caption for the educationally deficient"
or
"EVERYTHING spelled out"
after all
"A name is a name"
Next comes the third remark on my education, it would be quicker
to simply give the information, instead of the comments.
Alternatively an admission Mike does not know would be quicker
still.
> Or, perhaps, your education gives you the ability to see words the rest of
> us cannot see.
No, I can see someone so passionate about an issue they are blind
to the way they are sending their cause backwards.
deleted text,
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> wrote in message
> news:dMKdnWc1wpAs1nPX...@posted.visi...
> >I must confess myself at a loss, here. I don't understand why there
> > is such an objection to the use here of a term that was used during
> > WWII.
> I am not objecting to calling them concentration camps, that is
> what they were called, changing the name to something else is
> not history
So, we shouldn't use the word "socialists" in describing certain current
political groupings because the Nazis also used the word in the name of
their party?
> > This was reminiscent of the concentration
> > camps used by the British in the Boer War, and the term did not have
> > positive connotations even then.
> Definitely in the UK, probably in the US, but I would be interested
> in an idea of how much Boer war knowledge the US actually had.
You can be pretty certain that the decision makers had a pretty good
handle on them; they didn't come up with the term out of the clear blue
sky.
> The UK camps were very bad to start with and appear to have
> ended up as "modern" standards when they were cleaned up.
Losing more than half the people you're taking care of can do that.
> So they have a bad reputation at the start and a good one, as
> prisons go, at the end,
Only if the detainees were white.
> > I don't think the term is really useful in general discussion nowadays,
> > because of the additional baggage it acquired during the last months of
> > WWII.
> Which is my point. That baggage is attached for a modern audience,
And we're discussing WWII.
> As noted in the previous discussion, how much chance do you have
> of wearing a swastika in the US and have people comment how nice
> to wear a Hindu good luck symbol?
As noted in the previous discussion, this is in use now in the US, and
you can see it on Buddist temples here.
> > That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate in a more informed
> > discussions, like the ones we have here.
> Should it not
> be incumbent on those posting to be aware of the dual meanings
> and make appropriate allowances?
Or, perhaps, to frame the debate in the terms of the time.
Or do you prefer talking down to this vast, unnamed audience?
> > The authorities did call these concentration
> > camps, and did so knowing that it wasn't a positive thing to call them.
> Some did, how many is another matter. Concentration comes from
> concentrating the population, in South Africa, to prevent them from
> helping the other side., makes it a "logical" working title.
Since the white camps were cleaned up due to publicity generated IN
BRITAIN, it is very difficult to see how you can imply that perhaps
the decision makers didn't realize that a large number of people died
as a result of being dropped into concentration camps.
> > By using more neutral terms, we run the risk of obscuring what went
> > on and how the authorities of the time thought about them.
> Did the US authorities at the time plan to neglect sanitation, to
No, they didn't; but then, they didn't sanitize their language lest they
offend the ignorant.
> > At that time, the Japanese could be spoken of as a separate
> > race, and treated as such. Currently, we would consider them as the
> > same race as the Chinese, Indochinese, Koreans, and others.
> I do not think the average Japanese would agree with you.
Then you really need to learn the language, watch their TV, read their
books. Sorry, but you're WAYYYYYYY off on this one.
Mike