Screenwriter Needs Information on WWII - Invasion of Japan
djcham...@gmail.com
I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general information about
the US invasion of Japanese soil prior to dropping the atomic bomb.
Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
staging troops.
I assume all this would have been prior to the A-bomb. Since at the
time they would have have a back up plan should the A-bomb not be as
effective as it was. Which Japanese island would have been used for
front line intelligence?
Finally, does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies? (For example,
someone who was Japanese by birth but might have been born in the US)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
David
Hal Hanig
> Hello All,
>
> I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general information about
> the US invasion of Japanese soil prior to dropping the atomic bomb.
>
> Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
> fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
> would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
> staging troops.
I guess that your reference to islands to the south that had been taken
might have been to Taiwan (aka Formosa). AFAIK, it was never captured
during the war per se. Just as a WAG, I'd guess that either Okinawa or the
Philippines would have been used as a staging area. I suspect that the
latter might have been more likely if for no other reason than the presence
of a friendly indigenous population. The smaller islands like Iwo Jima and
Truk would have been too small to sustain a multi-million man invasion
force.
>
> I assume all this would have been prior to the A-bomb. Since at the
> time they would have have a back up plan should the A-bomb not be as
> effective as it was.
I believe that the Joint Chiefs had approved plans for an invasion of Japan
in November 1945 on the obvious assumption that the A-bomb either wouldn't
have been available for prior use or, if used, that they failed to elicit a
surrender by the Japanese. As we all know, the two A-bombs were dropped in
August followed fairly quickly by a surrender.
> ........ Which Japanese island would have been used for front line
> intelligence?
I have no idea and can't help you there. Your reference to frontline
intelligence presupposes that the invasion would have been concentrated in
one locale, which may or may not have been part of the plan. If it were
centered in the Tokyo area of Honshu Island, I'd guess that some of the
smaller islands near the mouth of Yokohama Bay might have been taken and
used for that purpose....but that's another WAG.
>
> Finally, does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
> Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies? (For example,
> someone who was Japanese by birth but might have been born in the US).
No help for you there, either, I'm afraid.
Don Phillipson
news:0a05ffde-fcf9-464d...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general information about
> the US invasion of Japanese soil prior to dropping the atomic bomb.
>
> Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
> fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
> would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
> staging troops.
>
> I assume all this would have been prior to the A-bomb. Since at the
> time they would have have a back up plan should the A-bomb not be as
> effective as it was. Which Japanese island would have been used for
> front line intelligence?
The OP needs to read more (than just one book about) Japan
in 1945 to avoid misapprehensions about:
1. Orthodox military history, i.e. preparations for the invasion
of Japan planned for late 1945 (and Japanese fortification etc.)
2. Unorthodox military history i.e. the shock of the two atomic
bombs (and perhaps Russia's declaration of war) which induced
the government to surrender (despite seaborne blockade, colossal
damage by B-29 air raids, and plans to arm the civil population with
spears and die fighting, cf. #1.)
3. Diplomatic history e.g. Potsdam Declaration (ultimatum by the
Big Three allied countries) and Japanese cabinet responses.
The point here is that the invasion was the main US/Allied plan.
The atomic bomb was launched by the USAAF but was
independent of its 1945 bombing campaign (when incendiary
raids on Tokyo killed more than did the atomic bombs.) The
atomic bombs were deployed and employed as soon as they
were ready, but were not assumed or expected (by the generals)
to be a decisive weapon. There was in 1945 no "backup plan"
in case the invasion failed. You could say atomic bombs were
a backup plan but they were kept secret from most planners.
US bombers were first based in China, Bombing became
effective only when bombers were redeployed to Pacific
Islands (easier to supply by ship) and in 1945 placed under
a new commander (Gen. LeMay, experienced in Europe)
who ordered new tactics and weapons (March 1945.) By
August 1945 most Japanese cities had been heavily
damaged, some totally burned out.
"Intelligence" meant in 1945:
1. Radio interception and deciphering, e.g. to warn of
kamikaze raids on USN ships before they were detectable
by radar. This was usually adequate (but less important
than accurate gunnnery.)
2. Target information for US bombing, mainly by
photo-reconnaissance, generally OK.
3. Radio interception and deciphering to discover
Japanese plans for defence against invasion. This
intelligence task was not well done (US planners
learned only months or years later.)
The USA had no "front line" spies in Japan in 1945
(only in Japanese-occupied China.) There was no
need for "front-line intelligence" when there was no
front line i.e. before invasion forces landed.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> djcham...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
> > fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
> > would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
> > staging troops.
> I guess that your reference to islands to the south that had been taken
> might have been to Taiwan (aka Formosa). AFAIK, it was never captured
> during the war per se. Just as a WAG, I'd guess that either Okinawa or the
He likely means Okinawa.
> Philippines would have been used as a staging area. I suspect that the
> latter might have been more likely if for no other reason than the presence
> of a friendly indigenous population. The smaller islands like Iwo Jima and
There really wasn't much in the way of guerilla activity in Okinawa. The
islands could have been quite useful.
> > ........ Which Japanese island would have been used for front line
> > intelligence?
> I have no idea and can't help you there. Your reference to frontline
> intelligence presupposes that the invasion would have been concentrated in
> one locale, which may or may not have been part of the plan. If it were
> centered in the Tokyo area of Honshu Island, I'd guess that some of the
I think the plan was to invade Kyushu.
> smaller islands near the mouth of Yokohama Bay might have been taken and
> used for that purpose....but that's another WAG.
Nothing really suitable.
> > Finally, does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
> > Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies? (For example,
> > someone who was Japanese by birth but might have been born in the US).
> No help for you there, either, I'm afraid.
Once captured, the Japanese were pretty forth-coming with inffo.
No real spies I am aware of.
Mike
Dennis
in short, invade southermost island of japan and hold it, bomb main
island for a year and invade, expect 1 million allied casulties.
A bomb made this plan uneccesary
Dennis
On Dec 28, 4:28 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> Hal Hanig <halha...@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
David H Thornley
>
> I think the plan was to invade Kyushu.
>
Of course, the plans were subject to change. The Japanese had
anticipated a landing on Kyushu, and were busy fortifying the
island. The US was following some of this (don't know how much
offhand) with crypto intelligence.
In the meantime, IIRC, Nimitz had turned against the idea of an
invasion. It's conceivable that the Kyushu invasion might have
been dropped, in favor of an initial invasion of Honshu. It
would have been out of range of land-based air support, but
having a couple thousand or more carrier aircraft on hand could
have allowed that.
Pretty much everything about the invasion is speculative.
There was real planning going on (although none of it had any
provision for nuclear weapons), but what would have been done is
anybody's guess.
I'd suggest Skates' book "The Invasion of Japan" for details,
with Richard Frank's "Downfall" providing invaluable background
material.
Anything about human intelligence and daring penetration raids
would be completely unhistorical, fabricated of whole cloth, and
almost certain to involve at least one good-looking woman, preferably
not always modestly dressed. (Yes, I'm feeling cynical tonight.)
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Anything about human intelligence and daring penetration raids
> would be completely unhistorical, fabricated of whole cloth, and
> almost certain to involve at least one good-looking woman, preferably
> not always modestly dressed. (Yes, I'm feeling cynical tonight.)
David Westheimer wrote an alternative history novel entitled "Lighter
than a Feather" which premised upon Olympic actually going forward.
It is similar in form to the Harry Turtledove "Days of Infamy"
alternative history novels but, in my opinion, much better done and much
more reality based.
With Turtledove, you keep finding yourself saying, "wait a minute - that
wouldn't work". With Westheimer, that never occurs once you accept the
premise that the a-bomb didn't work and Olympic actually occurred.
YMC
> Anything about human intelligence and daring penetration raids
> would be completely unhistorical, fabricated of whole cloth, and
> almost certain to involve at least one good-looking woman, preferably
> not always modestly dressed. (Yes, I'm feeling cynical tonight.)
>
Don't settle for one... Japan has too many good looking actresses to settle
for just one.
Don't forget to mention the plight of the slaves of Japan - including the
sex slaves captured from Japan's overseas' colonies.
Don't also forget to mention the plight of the millions of Asians and
prisoners of war held captive by Japan's military overseas. That's usually
glossed over for some reason.
I don't think there were any counter spies in Japan. The US was pretty weak
in intelligence - the military budget in the interwar years was very poor.
One US President even shut down the US code breaking service - claiming that
gentlemen don't pry into his neighbors' mails.
Anyway by 1945, the US Intelligence had broken the Japanese codes and using
Computers and trained specialists were reading Japanese radio transcripts
quite effectively.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> wrote in message
> > Anything about human intelligence and daring penetration raids
> > would be completely unhistorical, fabricated of whole cloth, and
> > almost certain to involve at least one good-looking woman, preferably
> > not always modestly dressed. (Yes, I'm feeling cynical tonight.)
> >
> Don't settle for one... Japan has too many good looking actresses to settle
> for just one.
> Don't forget to mention the plight of the slaves of Japan - including the
> sex slaves captured from Japan's overseas' colonies.
Not much to do with a planned invasion.
> One US President even shut down the US code breaking service - claiming that
WAY before WWII.
> Anyway by 1945, the US Intelligence had broken the Japanese codes and using
> Computers and trained specialists were reading Japanese radio transcripts
> quite effectively.
By 1941, actually.
Mike
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general information about
> the US invasion of Japanese soil prior to dropping the atomic bomb.
To best answer your question it would be helpful if you provided more
specific details about what you are trying to learn or trying to
accomplish. It sounds like you're developing a fictional work, a kind
of "what if" the bombs didn't work and an invasion was mounted. A
work such as that becomes very fluid, in that sources are undependable
since they're speaking of the future. Military leaders say they will
do this or that, but whether they'll be able to accomplish that or
even attempt that is unclear. Often times military and civilian
officials are quoted in histories when they were speaking more in
bravado rather than actuality.
In any event, as others have mentioned, there were many variables in
play. While there were plans and preparations for an invasion
underway, things will still in flux and the ultimate actions, be they
invasion, blockade, continued bombing, etc., could've taken any number
of forms based on circumstances at the time. Thus, any such work on
an actual invasion would be rather speculative.
> Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
> fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
> would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
> staging troops.
I presume that was planned out by it could've changed per conditions.
> I assume all this would have been prior to the A-bomb. Since at the
> time they would have have a back up plan should the A-bomb not be as
> effective as it was. Which Japanese island would have been used for
> front line intelligence?
As others mentioned while there were some plans in place in August,
other plans were still developing. For instance, I'm not sure how
much coordination was worked out with the Soviets, if any, about
Soviet attacks on the Japanese homeland.
As others mentioned, the use of spies in your context did not appear
to be a source of military intelligence; though it's a lot more
glamorous than a bunch of analysis pouring over enormous loads of
messages trying to sift out the significant from the routine. I
believe General LeMay said in his memoirs that he lost more deskside
analysts to nervous fatigue than bomber crews.
Hal Hanig
> YMC <smooth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "David H Thornley" <da...@thornley.net> wrote in message
>>> Anything about human intelligence and daring penetration raids
>>> would be completely unhistorical, fabricated of whole cloth, and
>>> almost certain to involve at least one good-looking woman, preferably
>>> not always modestly dressed. (Yes, I'm feeling cynical tonight.)
>>>
>
>> Don't settle for one... Japan has too many good looking actresses to
>> settle
>> for just one.
>
>> Don't forget to mention the plight of the slaves of Japan - including the
>> sex slaves captured from Japan's overseas' colonies.
>
> Not much to do with a planned invasion.
>
>> One US President even shut down the US code breaking service - claiming
>> that
>
> WAY before WWII.
Who would that have been? I always thought that the comment about gentlemen
not reading other gentlemen's mail was attributed to Sec'y of War, Henry L.
Stimson.
Hal
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Yes, but it was 1929.
Mike
Bill Shatzer
> Who would that have been? I always thought that the comment about gentlemen
> not reading other gentlemen's mail was attributed to Sec'y of War, Henry L.
> Stimson.
Stimson was Hoover's Secretary of State when he uttered those sentiments
in 1929.
He was apparently of a different opinion when he became War Secretary in
1940.
wjho...@aol.com
Have you Googled "Wikepedia" yet? If not, I suggest you do so and
look up the subject under "Operation Downfall" or "Operation Olymia"
or "Operation Coronet."
Also try Amazon.com under "Books" and look up "Operation Downfall"
which brings up two inexpensive books on the subject.
> .... does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
> Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies? (For example,
> someone who was Japanese by birth but might have been born in the US)
Never heard of any. It was mostly the other way around. There were
over 7,000 Japanese-Americans by birth who served in the Imperial
armed forces or worked in a civilian capacity for the Japanese
government against the U.S. In addition, over 5,000 renounced their
U.S. citizenship while still in the U.S. in order to request
expatriation to Japan to fight against the U.S.
WJH
David H Thornley
>
> Don't also forget to mention the plight of the millions of Asians and
> prisoners of war held captive by Japan's military overseas. That's usually
> glossed over for some reason.
>
how many Japanese were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - about one or
two months' worth of deaths in China alone.
YMC
news:gjasj8$e4c$6...@news.stanford.edu...
>> Don't forget to mention the plight of the slaves of Japan - including the
>> sex slaves captured from Japan's overseas' colonies.
>
> Not much to do with a planned invasion.
Yes it is related. If the Japanese had not embarked upon their war of
aggression - they wouldn't have ended up facing an invasion from the US.
As for the US lack of spies in Japan - these sort of episonage activity has
to be planned years in advance - and since the US wasn't interested even in
code breaking during the interwar period - what more spy activity?
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:gjasj8$e4c$6...@news.stanford.edu...
> >> Don't forget to mention the plight of the slaves of Japan - including the
> >> sex slaves captured from Japan's overseas' colonies.
> >
> > Not much to do with a planned invasion.
> Yes it is related. If the Japanese had not embarked upon their war of
> aggression - they wouldn't have ended up facing an invasion from the US.
No, again, the plight of the Asians had not much to do with the planned invasion.
We were fighting them because they attacked us, not because they mistreated
other Asians.
Mike
Shawn Wilson
> Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
> fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
> would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
> staging troops.
The troop numbers were rather huge, such land based staging would
probably have been in the Phillippines. Other elements of the
invasion would have staged where convenient.
First strike of the invasion would have been Kyushu (one of the four
main islands of Japan). The US would have cleared about 2/3 of the
island to use for a staging area for the invasion of Honshu. Rather
than clearing the island completely, as had been done previously,
Japanese forces would have been pushed into a corner and neutralized.
This was to reduce US casualties, which had been noted to be high in
the mopping up stages of previous invasions.
> I assume all this would have been prior to the A-bomb. Since at the
> time they would have have a back up plan should the A-bomb not be as
> effective as it was.
The planners of Olympic(Kyushu)-Coronet (Honshu) didn't know about the
bomb. They certainly would NOT have assumed that it would force the
Japanese to meekly surrender. It merely was a means of destroying a
city cheaper than a 1000 bomber raid, and thus reducing Japan's war
making resources, nothing more.
Success changed their plans, failure would not have.
> Which Japanese island would have been used for
> front line intelligence?
None, we didn't have any spies in Japan. Japanese soldiers were not
trained to resist interrogation, and simply told everything they knew
on capture. Spies as such were not necessary.
> Finally, does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
> Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies?
None.
Don Kirkman
article
<768bf008-c0fd-45e3...@q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>:
>On 28 Dec, 15:01, djchamberl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> .... does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
>> Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies? (For example,
>> someone who was Japanese by birth but might have been born in the US)
>Never heard of any. It was mostly the other way around.
> In addition, over 5,000 renounced their U.S. citizenship
But, as Mr. Hopwood well knows, during a series of trials, court
hearings, and government agreements, at least 5948 had their
renunciations set aside and their citizenship restored because the
renunciations were file under duress, given the conditions within the
relocation camps. There probably were others not listed in the final
count of cases handled through the government process because as we
know from the sources there were a few private attorneys handling
cases of individual claimants; I'm unaware of any source or any method
of determining these numbers. The last officially recorded case in
the government process ended in 1968, but at least one individual
attorney handled some cases later. By the end of the process, 1327
renunciants had already been sent to Japan; they are included in the
final numbers of those with renunciations set aside and citizenship
restored.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that wjho...@aol.com wrote in
> article
> <768bf008-c0fd-45e3...@q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>:
> >On 28 Dec, 15:01, djchamberl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> .... does anyone know of any counter spies who lived/worked in
> >> Japan but sent information back to aid the Allies? (For example,
> >> someone who was Japanese by birth but might have been born in the US)
> >Never heard of any. It was mostly the other way around.
> > In addition, over 5,000 renounced their U.S. citizenship
> But, as Mr. Hopwood well knows, during a series of trials, court
> hearings, and government agreements, at least 5948 had their
> renunciations set aside and their citizenship restored because the
> renunciations were file under duress,
I was going to let this slide, but...
The question was WRT spies living and working in Japan, sending info back to
the US. The statement "It was mostly the other way around." would
indicate the presence of spies living and working in the US, sending info
back to Japan.
I have yet to see documentation about these.
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
> ...wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
>> ...over 5,000 renounced their U.S. citizenship
>
> ....during a series of trials, court hearings, and government
> agreements, at least 5948 had their renunciations set aside
> and their citizenship restored because the renunciations were
So? Even Japanese-Americans convicted of treason such as Iva Togura
d'Aqino (a.k.a Tokyo Rose) and Tomoya Kawakita were later pardoned or
released and deported in the spirit of "let bygones be bygone" after
the war. Also, tensions with the Soviet Union were warming up and it
was official U.S. policy not to do anything to rock the boat vis-a-vis
good relations with occupied Japan as part of our cold war diplomacy.
The allegation that the more than 5,000 Japanese-Americans who
renounced their U.S. citizenship all did so under "duress" in the
relocation camps defies common sense.
> ....1327 renunciants had already been sent to Japan; they
> are included in the final numbers of those with renunciations
> set aside and citizenship restored.
The war was then over. No renunciant was ever "sent to Japan" against
his or her will during or after the war. It was official U.S.policy
that renunciants (and all other internees) were not to be repatriated
or expatriated except with their own consent. The 1327 renunciants
mentioned above went to Japan because they wanted to. That they
later claimed that their renunciation of U.S. citizenship was "under
duress" is an unlikely story. More to the point is probably the
reality that after they got to Japan and saw how devastated and
chaotic the place was, they couldn't wait to get back to the good old
U.S.A.
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On 31 Dec, 17:54, Don Kirkman <dons...@charter.net> wrote:
> > ...wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> >> ...over 5,000 renounced their U.S. citizenship
> >
> > ....during a series of trials, court hearings, and government
> > agreements, at least 5948 had their renunciations set aside
> > and their citizenship restored because the renunciations were
> > file under duress...
> So? Even Japanese-Americans convicted of treason such as Iva Togura
> d'Aqino (a.k.a Tokyo Rose) and Tomoya Kawakita were later pardoned or
> released and deported in the spirit of "let bygones be bygone" after
> the war.
As the person who trained Togura was not tried for treason, this seems
reasonable.
> Also, tensions with the Soviet Union were warming up and it
This is incorrect; Togura was pardoned in 1977, which was a period of
detente, not "tensions warming up".
> was official U.S. policy not to do anything to rock the boat vis-a-vis
> good relations with occupied Japan as part of our cold war diplomacy.
Kawakita was deported; this is not "let bygones be bygone". The
Japanese cared something other than less about Togura.
In any event, as was pointed out, the initial question was about people
sending information from Japan to the US. Your claim was that it went the
other way.
Other than a handful of caucasion agents, this was not the case and your
attempt to smear Americans of Japanese background is off-mark.
Mike
Bay Man
>
> I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general information about
>
> Basically, I know that the US was planning on invading japan and in
> fact had taken several islands to the south. What I'm curious about is
> would anyone know which islands would have been most critical in
> staging troops.
Look up Operation Downfall consisting of two serial operations, Olympic (the
southern main island section in 1945), and Coronet (the main island section
in 1946). The geography of Japan meant the landing places were obvious to
both sides. It was an Allied not a US operation, although the US supplied
most of the forces. British and Commonwealth forces, with US assistance,
were to take the main island which Tokyo is on. The US were to take the main
southern Island to naturally mesh with troops from Okinawa. The Royal Navy
had moved around to the Pacific with the British Pacific Fleet consisting of
effective against Kamikazes, armoured fleet carriers, so would have been
very effective operating near to shore in troop invasions.
It was thought that the main Island that British Commonwealth forces were
attacking would be the most heavily defended. However the plans were never
fully finalised, especially Coronet, which was for 1946, as the A bombs
ended the war.
The Allies expected one million casualties.
Duwop
wrote:
>
> So? Even Japanese-Americans convicted of treason such as Iva Togura
> d'Aqino (a.k.a Tokyo Rose) and Tomoya Kawakita were later pardoned or
> released and deported in the spirit of "let bygones be bygone" after
> the war.
So, they were pardoned, regardless of any reasons *you* might
ascribe.
It appears that you are much more vindictive than the US Gov't as
*you* aren't going to let them be excused for any reason and seemingly
have personally judged each and every one guilty of treason.
.
> The allegation that the more than 5,000 Japanese-Americans who
> renounced their U.S. citizenship all did so under "duress" in the
> relocation camps defies common sense.
Being singled out because of race, being forced from your home,
friends and neighbors and stripped of your livelyhood isn't duress? I
don't blame anyone who's patriotism wanes or turns on itself when the
country in question repudiates them. It's simple human nature.
wjho...@aol.com
> On Dec 31 2008, 9:23 pm, "wjhopw...@aol.com" <wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> in the relocation camps defies common sense.
>
> Being singled out because of race, being forced from your home,
Sorry, you've got the wrong alleged "duress." The alleged duress they
were claiming about was the pressure from other pro-Japan Japanese-
American zealots who were holding Banzai military drills and engaging
in other subversive activities in support of the Emperor and trying to
recruit more Japanese-Americans to their cause. The number of citizen
renunciants recruited is evidence that they were obviously successful
in doing so.
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On 1 Jan, 13:44, Duwop <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2008, 9:23 pm, "wjhopw...@aol.com" <wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > ....The allegation that the more than 5,000 Japanese-Americans >> who renounced their U.S. citizenship all did so under "duress"
> >> in the relocation camps defies common sense.
> >
> > Being singled out because of race, being forced from your home,
> > friends and neighbors,stripped of your livelyhood isn't duress?....
> Sorry, you've got the wrong alleged "duress."
Actually, no, he doesn't.
> The alleged duress they
> were claiming about was the pressure from other pro-Japan Japanese-
> American zealots
Including those who had already fought for the US in WWI, had already
forsworn all foreign allegiances, and who were thrown in concentration camps
anyway.
You have stated that you were a WWII veteran; how odd that you do not
seem to care about the fate of veterans of the previous WWI, if they
are of the wrong race.
> who were holding Banzai military drills and engaging
> in other subversive activities in support of the Emperor and trying to
Oh, please detail the "subversive activities" they instigated in these
camps. Were they saying unkind things about our president? Perhaps they
claiming that they were being singled out due to their race?
Please, regale us with the details of these dastardly "subversive
activities", and then let us all know how they negatively impacted the
war effort.
> recruit more Japanese-Americans to their cause.
Interesting; now they're "Japanese-Americans", not Japanese nationals.
So, you DO support throwing Americans in concentration camps, based on
race?
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
> > were claiming about was the pressure from > >other pro-Japan Japanese-American zealots
>
> Including those who had already fought for
> the US in WWI, had already forsworn all
> foreign allegiances, and who were thrown
> in concentration camps anyway.
How many of those do you think there were? Relatively few at best. Of
course Japan was allied with the U.S. in WW1. Doesn't that tell you
something? The only WW1 veteran I've ever seen mentioned in connection
with the evacuation/relocation from the West Coast was one Joe
Kurihara, who was a leader of the pro-Japananese nationalists in the
camps and who applied for repatriation to Japan.
> You have stated that you were a WWII
> veteran; how odd that you do not
> seem to care about the fate of veterans of
> the previous WWI, if they are of the wrong
> race.
Please try to avoid the baseless ad hominems, if you can. They do
nothing to advance your argument, such as it is.
> Oh, please detail the "subversive
> activities" they instigated in these
> camps....
As if the "Banzai" bugle-blowing military drills in support of Japan
were not enough, there were strikes, riots, beatings of others by pro-
Japan militants, inflammatory speeches, and as historian *Page Smith
noted, a "wild outpouring of Japanese spirit, an invoking of old gods
and sacred spirits...Many of the evacuees, especially those with
attachment to the Emperor, did not wish to work or cooperate in any
way with the (relocation) center administration." That enough for
you?
> Interesting; now they're "Japanese-
> Americans", not Japanese nationals.
That's because I've been referring to renunciants of U.S.
citizenship. But, since you raise the issue, the majority (almost
two/thirds) of the adults who were in the relocation camps were
actually Japanese nationals, enemy aliens subject to detention by both
domestic and international law. As for the Japanese-Americans, the
vast majority were dual citizens--Japanese as well as American-by-
birth. Shouldn't there be an obvious concern about the loyalty of
Americans who are also citizens of an enemy nation in wartime?
Happy New Year!
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On 1 Jan, 18:08, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com <wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, you've got the wrong alleged
> > >"duress."...The alleged duress they
> > > were claiming about was the pressure from > >other pro-Japan Japanese-American zealots
> >
> > Including those who had already fought for
> > the US in WWI, had already forsworn all
> > foreign allegiances, and who were thrown
> > in concentration camps anyway.
> How many of those do you think there were?
Sorry, is it relevant?
Your argument has been that the US government could not seperate the
loyal from the disloyal among those that were of Japanese descent. You
have further stated that since some of those interned refused to sign
loyalty oaths, that provides prima facie evidence of their disloyalty.
Yet, given examples where people HAVE foresworn all other loyalties
and in fact had never been to Japan, and were still interned, you
claim the government was so addle-pated that they apparently could not
trust their own loyalty oaths; if that was the case, why require another?
> course Japan was allied with the U.S. in WW1. Doesn't that tell you
> something?
It tells me you care very little about them, care to do little research
on them, and only even acknowledge their existence when others do this
for you.
> The only WW1 veteran I've ever seen mentioned in connection
> with the evacuation/relocation from the West Coast was one Joe
> Kurihara, who was a leader of the pro-Japananese nationalists in the
> camps and who applied for repatriation to Japan.
In his case, he could not apply for "repatriation", as he was never a
citizen.
In any event, he stated his reasons for renunciation;
"My American friends... no doubt must have wondered why I renounced my
citizenship. This decision was not that of today or yesterday. It dates
back the day when General DeWitt ordered evacuation. It was confirmed
when he flatly refused to listen even to the voices of the former World
War Veterans and it was doubly confirmed when I entered Manzanar. We
who already had proven our loyalty by serving in the last World War
should have been spared. The veterans asked for special consideration
but their requests were denied. They too had to evacuate like the rest
of the Japanese people, as if they were aliens.
I did not expect this of the Army. When the Western Defense Command
assumed the responsibilities of the West Coast, I expected that at least
the Nisei would be allowed to remain. But to General DeWitt, we were all
alike. "A Jap's a Jap. Once a Jap, always a Jap." ...I swore to become a
Jap 100 percent and never to do another day's work to help this country
fight this war. My decision to renounce my citizenship there and then
was absolute. "
> > You have stated that you were a WWII
> > veteran; how odd that you do not
> > seem to care about the fate of veterans of
> > the previous WWI, if they are of the wrong
> > race.
> Please try to avoid the baseless ad hominems,
You have identified yourself as a veteran; I did not. You either introduced
that as an utter irrelevance, or to indicate some special degree of perspective
on your part (a stance you have in fact taken previously.) That being
the case, it is perfectly acceptable to wonder why you have no sympathy for
those whose demonstrated loyalty to the US predated your own. You further
attempt to belittle all references to these people with "I've only heard
of one". An odd stance for one professing to be a veteran, and frankly
at odds with the stances of most other veterans I've talked with.
The only explanation I can come up with is the race of the interned. If you
have a better explanation, please supply it.
> > Oh, please detail the "subversive
> > activities" they instigated in these
> > camps....
> As if the "Banzai" bugle-blowing military drills in support of Japan
> were not enough, there were strikes, riots, beatings of others by pro-
> Japan militants, inflammatory speeches, and as historian *Page Smith
> noted, a "wild outpouring of Japanese spirit, an invoking of old gods
> and sacred spirits...Many of the evacuees, especially those with
> attachment to the Emperor,
Please detail, eg, Mr Kurihara's "attachment to the Emporer"
> did not wish to work or cooperate in any
> way with the (relocation) center administration." That enough for
> you?
You claim they were engaging in "subversive activities". This means
they were attempting to overthrow the US government, at least as
the government defines such activities. They were in a
concentration camp. Please explain how they were going to overthrow
the US government in those circumstances?
> > Interesting; now they're "Japanese-
> > Americans", not Japanese nationals.
> That's because I've been referring to renunciants of U.S. citizenship.
So, why should US citizens be thrown into concentration camps based
on race? Surely you would have opposed throwing all Americans of
German descent into camps, yes?
> But, since you raise the issue, the majority (almost
> two/thirds) of the adults who were in the relocation camps were
> actually Japanese nationals,
Actually, as I brought up the issue, putting aside that none of those
born outside the US could have naturalized, those who were in
fact born in the US and renounced any and all other citizenships were
treated precisely the same as those who were members of anti-American
societies.
Do you see no difference between the two groups? If not, then it appears
to be a racially-based judgement.
enemy aliens subject to detention by both
> domestic and international law. As for the Japanese-Americans, the
> vast majority were dual citizens--Japanese as well as American-by-
Please provide a reference for this; all you previous references mysteriously
fail to mention those renouncing Japanese citizenship, if it in fact
existed.
> birth. Shouldn't there be an obvious concern about the loyalty of
> Americans who are also citizens of an enemy nation in wartime?
So, please explain why not all German citizens were thrown into camps, not
all Italian citizens were thrown into concentration camps, much less those
who were dual citizens, or of Italian or German descent, but solely US
citizens.
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
>>government could not seperate the
>>loyal from the disloyal among those
>>that were of Japanese descent.
No it hasn't. My argument has been that
the loyalty of such individuals couldn't
be determined without excessive delay.
>You have further stated that since
>some of those interned refused to sign
>loyalty oaths, that provides prima
>facie evidence of their disloyalty.
You have a talent for misrepresentation.
Show me where I said that. What I have
contended all along is that refusal to
sign the oath was a reason to consider the
loyalty of such people "questionable."
That's a quite different matter. The
matter of "questionable" can be resolved,
one way or the other but it takes time.
>Yet, given examples where people HAVE
>foresworn all other loyalties
>and in fact had never been to Japan,
>and were still interned, you
>claim the government...apparently could not
>trust their own loyalty oaths; if that was
>the case, why require another?
You'll have to clarify that thought.
I never made such a claim and the
remark doesn't make sense.
>It tells me you care very little about them,
>care to do little research on them, and only
>even acknowledge their existence when others
>do this for you.
Come, come, you're drifting away again.
(Re WWI vet Joe Kurihara)
>In his case, he could not apply for
>"repatriation", as he was never a
>citizen...
Not a citizen? You then quote Joe
Kurihara as saying: " ...I swore to
become a Jap 100 percent and never to
do another day's work to help this
country fight this war. My decision
to renounce my citizenship there and
then was absolute."
How could Joe renounce a ciizenship
he didn't have?
>You have identified yourself as a veteran...
Not in this thread, I haven't. So why
do you bring it up. It's irrelevant to
the discussion here.
>You either introduced that as an utter
>irrelevance, or to indicate some special
>degree of perspective on your part...
Considering the source, the above ad
hominem will be ignored.
(Again re Joe Kurihara)
>You further attempt to belittle all
>references to these people with "I've only
>heard of one"....
Well, As I've asked you before, how
many others were there? You apparently
don't know or you wouldn't keep ducking
the answer.
>The only explanation I can come up
>with is the race of the interned. If you
>have a better explanation, please supply
>it.
Sure. National origin. You confuse race
with national origin. We were at war
with the nation of Japan, not the race
of the Japanese people.
>Please detail, eg, Mr Kurihara's "attachment
>to the Emporer"
Let me repeat what you quoted him as
saying above: "" ...I swore to
become a Jap 100 percent and never to
do another day's work to help this
country fight this war. My decision
to renounce my citizenship there and
then was absolute."
>You claim they were engaging in "subversive
>activities". This means they were attempting
>to overthrow the US government, at least as
>the government defines such activities...
>Please explain how they were going to
>overthrow the US government...
You can't be serious. The meaning of
"subversive" isn't restricted to an attempt to
"overthrow the government." It also means any
action to undermine the efforts or policies
of an institution or government. Look
it up. There was plenty of subversion
by pro-Japan elements in the relocation
camps.
(Re dual citizens)
>...all you previous references mysteriously
>fail to mention those renouncing Japanese
>citizenship...
That's because the number of JA dual-
citizens who renounced their Japanese
citizenship was insignificant. Figures
I've seen were around 8%. Do you have
a source for any higher number? If so,
let's see it.
>So, please explain why not all German
>citizens were thrown into camps, not
>all Italian citizens were thrown into
>concentration camps, much less those
>who were dual citizens, or of Italian or
>German descent, but solely US
>citizens.
Three practical reasons: (1) People of Axis
European-American heritage were considerably
more assimilated into mainstream America, (2)
they were not as concentrated in a single
militarily sensitive area, and (3) their
numbers alone precluded any such relocation
for logistical reasons.
WJH
David H Thornley
>
> Three practical reasons: (1) People of Axis
> European-American heritage were considerably
> more assimilated into mainstream America, (2)
> they were not as concentrated in a single
> militarily sensitive area, and (3) their
> numbers alone precluded any such relocation
> for logistical reasons.
>
Gulf coasts, and Hawaii. There was no evacuation of
Japanese from Hawaii. There was no evacuation of people
of enemy descent from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and
I've read of enemy nationals being allowed to remain there.
While it is reasonable for the authorities to have been
overly concerned about the Pacific coast immediately
after Pearl Harbor, the evacuation was done months
later, when (a) they should have been able to get a
good grasp on Japanese capabilities, and (b) they
really should have noticed the German attacks on the
Atlantic coast.
In short, the evacuees were not from a militarily
sensitive area, and people in militarily sensitive
areas were generally allowed to stay (there being some
exceptions in the form of enemy nationals).
Michele
news:gjg68c$sdd$2...@news.stanford.edu...
The USA fought Japan because Japan had attacked the USA, and Japan had
attacked the USA because the USA had tried every tactics short of war to
have Japan give up its war in China. Some of the reasons for the USA to try
that were economic, but certainly the news of what had happened in Nanking
had not improved the Japanese image in the USA.
Don Phillipson
news:f86ac85b-b693-41f2...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > ....1327 renunciants had already been sent to Japan; they
> > are included in the final numbers of those with renunciations
> > set aside and citizenship restored.
>
> The war was then over. No renunciant was ever "sent to Japan" against
> his or her will during or after the war. It was official U.S.policy
> that renunciants (and all other internees) were not to be repatriated
> or expatriated except with their own consent. The 1327 renunciants
> mentioned above went to Japan because they wanted to.
If this is exact, it indicates a difference between Americans and
Canadians of Japanese birth or ancestry. Many more Japanese
Canadians sailed to Japan after the war, under heavy duress
(cf. expropriation in 1942 of their boats, shops, houses, farms etc.)
A similarity in both countries appears to be that most internees
had earlier been notified to move and had not done so. The Canadian
order was that from a date X days ahead (X=90?) no Japanese was
permitted to reside within Y miles (Y = 100 mi?) of the coastline.
Only a minority of Japanese families moved voluntarily, and those
who did not were later arrested and moved to camps in the Rocky
Mountains. Japanese families. that moved east voluntarily encountered
racial prejudice but were never interned or after the war pressured to
migrate to Japan (said my employer in 1960, who moved in 1942 with
her Japan-born parents from BC to Ontario, where they lived
unmolested.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> The USA fought Japan because Japan had attacked the USA, and Japan had
> attacked the USA because the USA had tried every tactics short of war to
> have Japan give up its war in China. Some of the reasons for the USA to try
> that were economic, but certainly the news of what had happened in Nanking
> had not improved the Japanese image in the USA.
Granted, but that was in 1937, and the escalating embargoes didn't even
begin until 1940.
Mike
Andrew Clark
> The USA fought Japan because Japan had attacked the USA, and Japan had
> attacked the USA because the USA had tried every tactics short of war to
> have Japan give up its war in China. Some of the reasons for the USA to
> try that were economic, but certainly the news of what had happened in
> Nanking had not improved the Japanese image in the USA.
The pre-war US attitude to Japanese expansionism had very little to do with
humanitarian or ethical concerns for the people of China and rather more to
do with the 50-year old policy of US imperialism in the Pacific. The
Japanese could not be brooked as rivals to US influence in the region.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > On 1 Jan, 18:08, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net >wrote:
> >>Your argument has been that the US
> >>government could not seperate the
> >>loyal from the disloyal among those
> >>that were of Japanese descent.
> No it hasn't.
Yes it has.
> My argument has been that the loyalty of such individuals couldn't
> be determined without excessive delay.
Then your argument is flat out wrong.
The loyalty of those who had already signed loyalty oaths was demonstrated
prior to the war.
The mass internments did not until months after the Pearl Harbor attack,
which was a very excessive delay, if there was, indeed, reason to believe
in their disloyalty. Yet they did nothing about this supposed "problem"
beyond rounding up those who had reason to be suspected, and DeWitt's
paranoic rants in the newspapers.
> >You have further stated that since
> >some of those interned refused to sign
> >loyalty oaths, that provides prima
> >facie evidence of their disloyalty.
> You have a talent for misrepresentation.
No, this is simply quoting you.
> Show me where I said that. What I have
> contended all along is that refusal to
> sign the oath was a reason to consider the
> loyalty of such people "questionable."
Sorry, are you unfamiliar with the meanings of words you use? You claim
that refusal to sign an oath makes them disloyal, yet signing an oath
does not show they were loyal.
> >Yet, given examples where people HAVE
> >foresworn all other loyalties
> >and in fact had never been to Japan,
> >and were still interned, you
> >claim the government...apparently could not
> >trust their own loyalty oaths; if that was
> >the case, why require another?
> You'll have to clarify that thought.
It's quite clear, and small words were used.
> I never made such a claim
See above; you repeated yourself. "refusal to sign the oath was a reason to
consider the loyalty of such people "questionable."
Yet, again, in small words, those who HAD already signed loyalty oaths
were not trustworthy, according to you.
Dodge all you like, but that is your claim.
So, again, why require a loyalty oath at all?
> (Re WWI vet Joe Kurihara)
> >In his case, he could not apply for
> >"repatriation", as he was never a
> >citizen...
> Not a citizen? You then quote Joe
> Kurihara as saying: " ...I swore to
> become a Jap 100 percent and never to
> do another day's work to help this
> country fight this war. My decision
> to renounce my citizenship there and
> then was absolute."
> How could Joe renounce a ciizenship
> he didn't have?
Sorry, you are confused with small words; "repatriation" implies going
back to a land. In his case, a land he'd never been to. Hence, he could
not be "returned" to a land he'd never been to.
Or is this a more "politically correct" term?
> >You have identified yourself as a veteran...
> Not in this thread, I haven't.
Which is irrelevant, unless you wish to discard all your previous
statements.
> >You either introduced that as an utter
> >irrelevance, or to indicate some special
> >degree of perspective on your part...
> Considering the source,
You are the source of the claim.
> (Again re Joe Kurihara)
> >You further attempt to belittle all
> >references to these people with "I've only
> >heard of one"....
> Well, As I've asked you before, how
> many others were there?
Perhaps you could read his statements, but there were at least a
few hundred.
But since you don't care, why do you even ask?
> don't know or you wouldn't keep ducking the answer.
I could point out that you do not know, nor care. However, there were
several hundred such.
> >The only explanation I can come up
> >with is the race of the interned. If you
> >have a better explanation, please supply
> >it.
> Sure. National origin.
This is clearly wrong on your part. You do not care if the people interned
originated in the US or in Japan. You care only about their race. Again,
as above, those born in the US originated in the US, yet you claim that
because of their race, they were de facto not to be considered loyal.
> You confuse race with national origin.
Not at all; please tell me how people born in the US or in US territories
originated in Japan? If you cannot, then you are left with race as
the sole criterian.
> We were at war
> with the nation of Japan, not the race of the Japanese people.
And yet you claim that US citizens, not Japanese citizens, cannot be
trusted if they had anscestors from Japan.
This is racial, not national, categorizing.
> >Please detail, eg, Mr Kurihara's "attachment
> >to the Emporer"
> Let me repeat what you quoted him as
I know what I wrote; wrote it myself.
Now, please detail his attachments. Did he bow to a picture of Hirohito
daily? What exactly was his attachment?
> >You claim they were engaging in "subversive
> >activities". This means they were attempting
> >to overthrow the US government, at least as
> >the government defines such activities...
> >Please explain how they were going to
> >overthrow the US government...
> You can't be serious.
That is the way the US government defines it. Perhaps you don't agree with the
US' definitions...
> "overthrow the government." It also means any
> action to undermine the efforts or policies
> of an institution or government.
So, again, how were these people undermining policies from within the
concentration camps?
> (Re dual citizens)
> >...all you previous references mysteriously
> >fail to mention those renouncing Japanese
> >citizenship...
> That's because the number of JA dual-
is immaterial. Whether they renounced any supposed Japanese citizenship,
did not renounce it, or never had it, you see no difference. You
see only race.
I deleted the part where you claimed it was "only about 8%" of the total;
surely that inidcates 8% (or roughly 10000 people) who should NOT have
been interned, yes?
Or do you disagree?
> >So, please explain why not all German
> >citizens were thrown into camps, not
> >all Italian citizens were thrown into
> >concentration camps, much less those
> >who were dual citizens, or of Italian or
> >German descent, but solely US
> >citizens.
> Three practical reasons: (1) People of Axis
> European-American heritage were considerably
> more assimilated into mainstream America,
Ah, so the fact that they could blend in better with the population
makes them less likely to be successful as spies, sabateurs, subversives,
etc?
You need to do a bit more research on this.
> (2) they were not as concentrated in a single
> militarily sensitive area, and
Ah, this is flat wrong; in fact, there were large concentrations of
Italians in the SF peninnsula area, which was a VERY sensitive area
and yet they were not rounded up to the last man, woman, and orphan.
> (3) their
> numbers alone precluded any such relocation
> for logistical reasons.
Ah, so the Issei/Nisei/Sanssei were picked on, NOT because of
their potential disloyatly but because it was easy?
Odd, DeWitt claimed it was race...
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "Michele" <nospam...@tin.it> wrote
> > The USA fought Japan because Japan had attacked the USA, and Japan had
> > attacked the USA because the USA had tried every tactics short of war to
> > have Japan give up its war in China. Some of the reasons for the USA to
> > try that were economic, but certainly the news of what had happened in
> > Nanking had not improved the Japanese image in the USA.
> The pre-war US attitude to Japanese expansionism had very little to do with
> humanitarian or ethical concerns for the people of China and rather more to
> do with the 50-year old policy of US imperialism in the Pacific.
Right; they basically ignored it.
> The Japanese could not be brooked as rivals to US influence in the region.
Right; the US mostly allied itself with Japanese actions in the area.
Not as long as the UK, of course.
Or does Beasley have it all wrong?
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
>wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>...It was official U.S.policy that
>>renunciants (and all other internees)
>>were not to be repatriated or expatriated
>>except with their own consent...
>If this is exact,
>>it was
>... indicates a difference between Americans
>and Canadians of Japanese birth or ancestry.
>Many more Japanese Canadians sailed to Japan
>after the war, under heavy duress...
Those from the U.S. who sailed to Japan did
so by choice but after arriving there some of
them couldn't wait to get back and then whined
about having renounced their U.S. citizenships
under duress and wanted it back. However,
quite a few of those who went to Japan stayed
stayed there. Decades later under political
pressure our Congress had the jutzpah to
apologize to these Japanese citizens living
in Japan and send each of them a $20,000 check
in reparations for "human suffering." Some
suffering, considering what the rest of the
country endured during the war. Interestingly,
among those who did NOT vote for this government
give-away were some of the most liberal
stalwarts in our government including Al Gore,
Joe Biden (current VP-elect) and Teddy Kennedy.
> A similarity in both countries appears to
>be that most internees had earlier been
>notified to move and had not done so.
Canadian restrictions were apparently harsher
than U.S. For instance, at first the U.S. ethnic
Japanese had been asked to voluntarily leave
the West Coast restricted areas and some 8,000
managed to do so under their own power. But
the voluntary period was a failure because the
vast majority of the Japanese population had no
place to go and no means to get there if they
did. Hence within a short time it was necessary
that the government provide accommodations for
them outside of the military areas. That was
the genesis of the relocation centers which a few
latter-day ideological critics of the wartime
government disingenuously call "concentration
camps" in an outrageous effort to compare them
with the Nazi death camps.
One point largely suppressed by those who
should know better is that those ethnic Japanese
living elsewhere in the U.S., i.e., not in the
military zones of the West Coast, were not
disturbed by the evacuation orders at all.
Of course this blows away the emotional charge
of "racism." A simple litmus test: If the
evacuation decision had been race-based as some
of the current racially-obsessed like to claim,
wouldn't the wartime government have put the whole
bunch in camps?
WJH
Don Kirkman
>On 31 Dec, 17:54, Don Kirkman <dons...@charter.net> wrote:
>> ...wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
>>> ...over 5,000 renounced their U.S. citizenship
>The allegation that the more than 5,000 Japanese-Americans who
>renounced their U.S. citizenship all did so under "duress" in the
>relocation camps defies common sense.
Yet that seems to be the way the courts and the DOJ saw the matter.
>> ....1327 renunciants had already been sent to Japan; they
>> are included in the final numbers of those with renunciations
>> set aside and citizenship restored.
>No renunciant was ever "sent to Japan" against
>his or her will during or after the war. It was official U.S.policy
>that renunciants (and all other internees) were not to be repatriated
>or expatriated except with their own consent.
Do you have a cite for that policy as of 1945-1948?
Remembering that one rationale was that the renunciants, considered to
have dual citizenship, lost their US citizenship and thereby became
citizens of Japan, thus enemy aliens . . .
"July 14, 1945 - President Truman issued Proclamation Number 2655
authorizing removal from the United States of enemy aliens deemed to
be dangerous "to the public peace and safety of the United States . .
. ." [Collins, p. 110]
" . . . [a]fter hearing approximately 6000 applicants the team ended
its work on March 17, 1945; 5589 applications were accepted, 5461 from
Tule Lake and 128 from other camps. By this time only 84
renunciations had been approved, but an additional 5049 were approved
between March 22 and May 5. Official letters announcing approval of
renunciation were followed by Department of Justice . . . orders to
continue to hold the renunciants. [[Donald] Collins, p. 96, 109]
Nevertheless, "August 25, 1945 - Congressman Samuel Dickstein (NY)
stated informally that removal of renunciants to Japan would happen
within two months or as soon as practicable thereafter. [Collins, p.
111]"
"October 10, 1945 - Control of Tule Lake was transferred from WRA to
DOJ; Tule Lake thus became an internment camp. DOJ announced that
repatriation to Japan would begin November 15. [Collins, pp.
116-117]"
"December 10, 1945 - DOJ announced that from January there would be
hearings for renunciants who wished to stay in the US. The court
hearing the Abo habeas corpus cases authorized removal of 449
renunciants to Santa Fe, NM, Crystal City, TX,and Bridgton, NJ. Tule
Lake and Santa Fe were closed soon after. [Collins, p. 126]
> That they
>later claimed that their renunciation of U.S. citizenship was "under
>duress" is an unlikely story.
Unlikely stories sometimes turn out to be true.
By April, 1948, the presiding judge in the Abo cases "accepted [Wayne]
Collins' claim of governmental duress affecting the renunciants,
citing specific factors Collins had raised, and proposed to declare
the plaintiffs to be US citizens, following a delay of 90 days granted
to allow DOJ to file a list of plaintiffs to whom they objected."
So the pro-Japan agitators were not the only cause of the duress, and
the government was found at fault before the camp residents were.
August, 1956 "DOJ liberalized its review procedures, granting that
many it had opposed had "renounced because of the 'coercive
influences' of fanatic pro-Japanese in Tule Lake."
Donald E. Collins
_Native American Aliens: Disloyalty and Renunciation of Citizenship
by Japanese Americans during World War II_
Greenwood Press, 1985 ISBN: 0-313-24711-0
So in this case the DOJ did recognize that the pro-Japanese activity,
particularly in Tule Lake as is shown above by the small number of
renunciants from other camps, was at least part of the "duress" that
led to the renunciations.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Not sure what much of this rant has to do with WWII...
> On 2 Jan, 13:42, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
> >wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>...It was official U.S.policy that
> >>renunciants (and all other internees)
> >>were not to be repatriated or expatriated
> >>except with their own consent...
> >Many more Japanese Canadians sailed to Japan
> >after the war, under heavy duress...
> quite a few of those who went to Japan stayed
> stayed there. Decades later under political
> pressure our Congress had the jutzpah to
> apologize to these Japanese citizens living
> in Japan and send each of them a $20,000 check
> in reparations for "human suffering." Some
So, you oppose the actions of the US government?
> suffering, considering what the rest of the
> country endured during the war. Interestingly,
Interestingly they were forced to surrender their homes and properties
and live in a foreign country, as their own had already decided they
enemies.
> among those who did NOT vote for this government
> give-away were some of the most liberal
Not clear what relevance "liberal" has in this...
> stalwarts in our government including Al Gore,
> Joe Biden (current VP-elect) and Teddy Kennedy.
So, you oppose both Reagan and Ford, and side with "some of the most liberal
stalwarts in our government".
Again, not certain what the political affinities have to do with this,
but it is interesting to note that someone who actually fought the
Japanese also supported reparations to Americans and American residents
of Japanese descent.
> One point largely suppressed by those who
> should know better is that those ethnic Japanese
> living elsewhere in the U.S., i.e., not in the
> military zones of the West Coast, were not
> disturbed by the evacuation orders at all.
This has not been "suppressed". It has in fact been noted, by myself,
Mr Graham, and others.
However, since about 95% of those of Japanese ancestry lived in the
"military zone" of the West Coast (btw, when did Arizona become
a "the West Coast"), the effort seems to be to deflect attention
from the actions, not address them.
> Of course this blows away the emotional charge
> of "racism." A simple litmus test: If the
> evacuation decision had been race-based as some
> of the current racially-obsessed like to claim,
> wouldn't the wartime government have put the whole
German-descended and Italian-descended population in these "military
zones" in camps?
Well, no they didn't, so you have an answer to your own question.
Tell me, Mr Hopwood, other than race, how did these two groups
differ from those of Japanese descent?
Mike
David H Thornley
> As if the "Banzai" bugle-blowing military drills in support of Japan
> were not enough, there were strikes, riots, beatings of others by pro-
> Japan militants, inflammatory speeches, and as historian *Page Smith
> noted, a "wild outpouring of Japanese spirit, an invoking of old gods
> and sacred spirits...
OK, so once the US rounded the Japanese up, they didn't protect
them from pro-Japanese militants.
This lends credence to people who claim they turned against the
US under duress, and makes it very clear that they had no
particular reason to support their captors.
You might want to try to put together a consistent story. So far,
you've managed to show that the Japanese had very good reasons
to not support the US, and shown that your scoffing at claiming
duress was ridiculous.
YMC
message news:tr-dnYhE2db6->
> The pre-war US attitude to Japanese expansionism had very little to do
> with humanitarian or ethical concerns for the people of China and rather
> more to do with the 50-year old policy of US imperialism in the Pacific.
> The Japanese could not be brooked as rivals to US influence in the region.
LOL. And that is why the US had promised the Philipines in the 1920s that it
could be free from US control in 1945?
You are so amusing and predictable, Andrew.
wjho...@aol.com
>wjhopw...@aol.com wrote
>>...It was official U.S.policy that
>>renunciants (and all other internees) were
>>not to be repatriated or expatriated except
>>with their own consent.
>Do you have a cite for that policy as of 1945-1948?
Yss.
[From "Personal Justice Denied" p.309]
"By August 1942..slow communications, problems
in obtaining assurances that repatriates could
be pass safely through the war zone, shipping
shortages, and JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REFUSAL TO
REPATRIATE AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST HIS WILL
delayed deportations for over a year.."(Emphasis
added)
[From same source p.311]
"In the spring of 1944 the State Department
realized that no more Axis nationals could be
deported until the war was over...AND ALSO
DECIDED NOT TO REPATRIATE AXIS
NATIONALS AGAINST THEIR WILL...."
(Emphasis added)
[and again from the same source-p.250]
"In the late spring of 1945, thousands of
renunciants began to regret their decisions.
....Japan was on the verge of defeat...The
justice department...announced on October 8
(after Japan's surrender) that it would begin to
send renunciants to Japan. To fight deportation
a group of renunciants...filed in Federal Court
to release the renunciants and void the
renunciations...On June 30,1947 the court ruled
that none could be held and remaining renunciants
went free."
In 1948 the same court made a decision that the
all the renunciations were invalid. However, that
decision was overturned by the 9th Court of Appeals
which ruled that each case had to be considered
separately.
The cases dragged on for another 20 years. Not until
1968 was the last renuniciant case processed.
Over that period, witnesses evaporated, documents
disappeared, memories became faulty. And so it
was that "justice was served." Or was it?
The renunciants not only got their citizenship
back but a government apology and $20,000
each to boot. Meanwhile our POWs who were
lucky enough to survive the Japanese torture
and death camps got one dollar and fifty cents
for each of their days of captivity. Grand total
for the few who lived, about $1500. You figure!!
WJH
YMC
news:gjloe0$ur9$5...@news.stanford.edu...
> Granted, but that was in 1937, and the escalating embargoes didn't even
> begin until 1940.
>
> Mike
It takes time for things to happen in a democracy as diverse as 1930s
America. They were still in the midst of the Great Depression.
But wouldn't you agree that events like the Nanking massacre would play a
part in molding America's foreign policy against Japan?
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:gjloe0$ur9$5...@news.stanford.edu...
> > Granted, but that was in 1937, and the escalating embargoes didn't even
> > begin until 1940.
> It takes time for things to happen in a democracy as diverse as 1930s
> America. They were still in the midst of the Great Depression.
> But wouldn't you agree that events like the Nanking massacre would play a
> part in molding America's foreign policy against Japan?
Not so much.
Remember, at the time the US was still very isolationist. Almost all of
our foreign policies were somewhat nebulous, and until the full scope
of Japanese expansionism came into focus, there was really no set of
policies, nor driving force to come up with them.
After the scope of aggression became clear, of course, incidents like
Nanking could be used to galvanize opinion, though the photograph of
the child in the Shanghai bombings likely was more emotionally evocative.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Professor Picky sez:
1946.
Mike
David H Thornley
>
> But wouldn't you agree that events like the Nanking massacre would play a
> part in molding America's foreign policy against Japan?
>
the US public was still isolationist. It did slowly cause a desire
for economic sanctions, eventually even at the risk of war.
Michael Emrys
> But wouldn't you agree that events like the Nanking massacre would play a
> part in molding America's foreign policy against Japan?
It was surely a black mark against Japan in the mind of that part of
the American public that cared at all.
Michael
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> The renunciants not only got their citizenship
> back but a government apology and $20,000
> each to boot.
Right; the conservatives in the US decided that government confiscation of
rights and property without due-process was antithetical to the precepts
of our very being. Others, it seems, care nothing about such nonsense.
> Meanwhile our POWs who were
> lucky enough to survive the Japanese torture
> and death camps got one dollar and fifty cents
> for each of their days of captivity.
Sorry, it almost appears you cannot make the distinction between actions
of the Japanese and actions of the US governments.
> Grand total for the few who lived, about $1500.
> You figure!!
Are you now confusing the US government with the Japanese government?
Mike
Andrew Clark
> LOL. And that is why the US had promised the Philipines in the 1920s that
> it could be free from US control in 1945?
Irrelevant. The Philippines was a long-standing US colony which had been
granted limited self-government in 1934 with a promise of 'independence'
(meaning a permanent orientation toward and dependence on the US) within ten
years. As such, the Philippines were no sort of rival to the US and the
treatment given to the Philippines is irrelevant to the issue of US-Japanese
rivalry.
> You are so amusing and predictable, Andrew.
I see that the enforcement of the ad hominem rule hasn't changed.
YMC
news:gjoc6a$umc$1...@news.stanford.edu...
Not so much.
>
> Remember, at the time the US was still very isolationist. Almost all of
> our foreign policies were somewhat nebulous, and until the full scope
> of Japanese expansionism came into focus, there was really no set of
> policies, nor driving force to come up with them.
>
> After the scope of aggression became clear, of course, incidents like
> Nanking could be used to galvanize opinion, though the photograph of
> the child in the Shanghai bombings likely was more emotionally evocative.
>
Well, to me, if the Japanese military did not wage a war of aggression in
China - the horrendous massacre at Nanking and other places - wouldn't have
occured - and neither would the Japanese have felt compelled to move into
French Indochina. And ergo - no US embargo/ no US/Japan war/ no Operation
Olympic or the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
Don Kirkman
>On 2 Jan, 19:27, Don Kirkman wrote:
>>wjhopw...@aol.com wrote
>>>...It was official U.S.policy that . . . internees were
>>>not to be repatriated . . . except
>>>with their own consent.
>>Do you have a cite for that policy as of 1945-1948?
>Yss.
>[From "Personal Justice Denied" p.309]
>"By August 1942
>
>[From same source p.311]
>"In the spring of 1944
So far, irrelevant to 1945 - 1948, which was the period I asked
about, when things were actually happening relevant to the
renunciations and possible transport to Japan of some camp inhabitants
(and remembering that some were not being "returned" because they were
not from Japan and had never been there.
>justice department...announced on October 8
>, , , that it would . . . send renunciants to Japan
Nothing here about "not to be repatriated or expatriated except with
their own consent." What is clear is that it was a government plan.
>.On June 30,1947 the court ruled
>that none could be held and remaining renunciants
>went free."
Nothing about "not to be repatriated or expatriated except with their
own consent."
>In 1948 [an appellate court]made a decision . . . overturned. . . each case had to be considered
>separately.
However, the courts and DOJ rather soon did agree to consolidated
proceedings in some of the cases.
Nothing here touches on what happened, and the only possibly valid bit
of evidence you have cited of such a policy is:
"[From "Personal Justice Denied" p.309]
"By August 1942 . . . slow communications, problems
in obtaining assurances that repatriates could
be pass safely through the war zone, shipping
shortages, and JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REFUSAL TO
REPATRIATE AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST HIS WILL
delayed deportations for over a year."
Considering the other obstructions that delayed deportations, I don't
think it's entirely clear that the DOJ's stance was a "policy" and not
the result of a temporary or logistical situation instead.
But five and more years later, it was precisely the DOJ that was in
charge of the renunciation trials and hearings, and it was obvious
from the flood of cases, requests, and declarations that expatriation
to Japan would be against the will of over 5000 renunciants. It would
also have been another government action contrary to the fundamental
principles of American justice (though not the first in the history of
the Relocation Camp program).
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
wjho...@aol.com
>> pressure our Congress had the jutzpah to
>> apologize to these Japanese citizens living
>> in Japan and send each of them a $20,000 check
>> in reparations for "human suffering."
>
Past tense, please. "Opposed" (with a "d").
Yes, in that instance I did.
>So, you oppose both Reagan and Ford, and side
>with "some of the most liberal stalwarts in our government".
Again,past tense, please, "opposed" and "sided"
(both with a "d"). Yes, in that instance I did.
>...not certain what the political affinities have
>to do with this, but it is interesting to note
>that someone who actually fought the Japanese also
>supported reparations to Americans and American
>residents of Japanese descent.
The vote was far from unanimous. Forty percent
of the House and thirty percent of the Senate voted
"Nay." Since you seem to know which members among
them who "actually fought the Japanese" supported
the reparations, I wonder if you'd mind telling us who
they were, and also in that same "actually fought the
Japanese" category, who voted *against* the reparations.
It would be interesting to check these names against my
record of the vote on PL 100-383.
Oh, and BTW you forgot to point out that those
who voted for reparations for "Americans and American
residents of Japanese descent" were also voting to
include in those reparations the following:
1. enemy alien Japanese legally interned
under long-standing domestic and
international law, and
2. Japanese-Americans who renounced their
U.S. citizenship in wartime to support
the enemy.
(An interesting aside re #2 above is that the legal definition
of "Treason" reads: "The crime of adhering to the enemy
and rendering him aid and comfort---325 U.S.1,3."
[Law Dictionary, 3rd edition, by Steven H. Gifis,
Associate Prof of Law, Rutgers University]
>>....ethnic Japanese living elsewhere in the
>>U.S....were not disturbed by the evacuation
>>orders at all.
>
> This has not been "suppressed". It has in fact
> been noted, by myself, Mr Graham, and others.
Goodness. I must have missed that. Congratulations.
It's a pleasant surprise when you get it right.
> ...about 95% of those of Japanese ancestry
>lived in the "military zone" of the West Coast
Right. "located in close proximity to installations
of vital importance to the war effort." ["Guarding
the United States and Its Outposts, Chapter V--
Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast," Conn, et
al, Center of Military History, U.S.Army].
> German-descended and Italian-descended population in
>these "military zones"...,other than race, how did these
>two groups differ from those of Japanese descent?
There were numerous reasons for the difference in
handling of the Japanese vis-a-vis Germans and
Italians, some of which I've recently covered
in another post. To say that "race" was the only or
principal reason is a latter-day ideological invention.
which does not jibe with the realities of WWII.
Here is some additional information on the
matter, also from Conn:
"It was General DeWitt's intention not
only to complete the evacuation of Japanese from
Military Area No.1..(but) also to carry out an
evacuation of German and Italian aliens from all
prohibited zones within the Western Defense
Command...But his plan for collective evacuationf
German and Italian aliens faced strong opposition."
Behind such opposition to the evacuation
of Germans and Italians was the report of a
Congressional committee which had been focused
on studying the evacuation, including its influence
on war production. The committee's report concluded
among other observations that any mass evacuation
of German and Italian aliens was "out of the question
if we intend to win this war."
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> "YMC" <smooth...@gmail.com> wrote
> > LOL. And that is why the US had promised the Philipines in the 1920s that
> > it could be free from US control in 1945?
> Irrelevant.
Quite relevant, actually.
> The Philippines was a long-standing US colony which had been
The debate on the Senate floor regarding whether or not to take on
the Philippines as a colony centered in part around whether or not to
make this a permanent colony. It was decided it would become a territory in
1909, to be awarded independence "no later than" 50 years after the
initial takeover. Note that the entire period of US control lasted about
45 years. By 1901, the British had been in Burma for almost 3/4 of a century,
and in Malaysia for more than a century. Those, Mr Clark were "long-standing"
colonies, and the relinquished control before the British.
And we haven't even gotten to Singapore or Australia.
No, the PI were a very RECENT colony, acquired after the Japanese, a late-
comer to the game, acquired most of their Asian possessions.
> granted limited self-government in 1934 with a promise of 'independence'
Which is also wrong. In fact, by 1919, the only non-Philippino in the
government of the islands was the US-appointed governor himself.
> (meaning a permanent orientation toward and dependence on the US) within ten
> years. As such, the Philippines were no sort of rival to the US and the
> treatment given to the Philippines is irrelevant to the issue of US-Japanese
> rivalry.
Sorry, this makes no sense in any way whatsoever.
If not for the PI, the US had no possessions in the SE Asian Pacific region,
and thus it is the only possible point of contention between Japan and the
US (a fact recognized by T Roosevelt.) Other US Pacific possessions were
removed from the projected Japanese sphere of influence.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On 2 Jan, 19:31, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com <wjhopw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>...Decades later under political
> >> pressure our Congress had the jutzpah to
> >> apologize to these Japanese citizens living
> >> in Japan and send each of them a $20,000 check
> >> in reparations for "human suffering."
> >
> > So, you oppose the actions of the US government?
> Yes, in that instance I did.
So, you oppose the US making restitution for those it has wronged.
> >So, you oppose both Reagan and Ford, and side
> >with "some of the most liberal stalwarts in our government".
> Again,past tense, please, "opposed" and "sided"
Sorry, no, the tense is correct, as you still oppose them.
> (both with a "d"). Yes, in that instance I did.
Or did you mean that you no longer oppose this? If that is the case,
you have an odd way of showing this.
> >...not certain what the political affinities have
> >to do with this, but it is interesting to note
> >that someone who actually fought the Japanese also
> >supported reparations to Americans and American
> >residents of Japanese descent.
> The vote was far from unanimous.
Which is, as usual, utterly irrelevant to the statement above, to whit:
"it is interesting to note that someone who actually fought the Japanese also
supported reparations to Americans and American residents of Japanese descent."
Forty percent
> them who "actually fought the Japanese" supported
> the reparations, I wonder if you'd mind telling us who
> they were,
Really, Mr Hopwood, for a self-professed WWII veteran and "expert" on these
it cannot have escaped you that it was President Bush who signed this law
into effect.
> Oh, and BTW you forgot to point out that those
> who voted for reparations for "Americans and American
> residents of Japanese descent" were also voting to
> include in those reparations the following:
Actually, no, I did not forget it. Once again, slowly, the "Americans and
American residents of Japanese descent" were
> 1. enemy alien Japanese legally interned
from the above group and
> international law, and
(sorry, does international law state there should be no compensation for
property lost as a result of this action? Or is this another irrelevance
on your part?)
> 2. Japanese-Americans who renounced their
> U.S. citizenship in wartime to support
from this group.
It really is not complicated, they are not the seperate instances you
seem to feel they are.
> (An interesting aside re #2 above is that the legal definition
> of "Treason" reads: "The crime of adhering to the enemy
> and rendering him aid and comfort---325 U.S.1,3."
So, please show how the people in the concentration camps aided and comforted
the enemy.
You seem to mysteriously vanish when presented with these issues.
> >
> > This has not been "suppressed". It has in fact
> > been noted, by myself, Mr Graham, and others.
> Goodness. I must have missed that. Congratulations.
Yes, you miss most of these discussions.
> > ...about 95% of those of Japanese ancestry
> >lived in the "military zone" of the West Coast
> Right. "located in close proximity to installations
> of vital importance to the war effort." ["Guarding
Tell me, Mr Hopwood, what "installation vital to the war effort" existed in,
say, western Oregon? Please be very specific.
Which "installation vital to the war effort" existed in, say, Monterey which
required all those of Japanese descent to be incarcerated but not all those
of Italian descent (nor, indeed, Italian nationals.) San Francisco? LA?
> > German-descended and Italian-descended population in
> >these "military zones"...,other than race, how did these
> >two groups differ from those of Japanese descent?
> There were numerous reasons for the difference in
> handling of the Japanese vis-a-vis Germans and
Well, there's race, and the fact that the Germans and Italians, being white,
would have been more able to infiltrate any "sensitive" installations, yes?
> Italians, some of which I've recently covered
> in another post. To say that "race" was the only or
> principal reason is a latter-day ideological invention.
Actually, Mr Hopwood, a WWII veteran should have seen much of the discussion
of "race" during that time period. Perhaps you did not pay attention "at
the time"?
> which does not jibe with the realities of WWII.
You seem not to put much stock in General DeWitt's own words:
"In the war in which we are now engaged," he wrote Stimson on February 14,
"racial affinities are not severed by migration. The Japanese race is an
enemy race, and while many second- and third-generation Japanese born on
United States soil, possessed of United States citizenship, have become
`Americanized,' the racial strains are undiluted.... It therefore follows
that along the vital Pacific Coast over 112,000 potential enemies of
Japanese extraction are at large today." "A Jap's a Jap," he proclaimed
later, "and that's all there is to it."
(BTW, did you note Stimson's reference to the "Japanese race"? Again, if
you are adamant that we must evaluate and judge these things according to
the actions, words, and events "of the time", then we must discuss this
as it pertains to "racial" prejudices, yes?)
> matter, also from Conn:
> "It was General DeWitt's intention not
> only to complete the evacuation of Japanese from
> Military Area No.1..(but) also to carry out an
> evacuation of German and Italian aliens from all
> prohibited zones within the Western Defense
> Command...But his plan for collective evacuationf
> German and Italian aliens faced strong opposition."
And, of course, his plan for collective evacuation of all "Japanese" faced
strong opposition. Didn't happen, though.
But this is curious; you now claim that UNLIKE the "Japanese", not all
enemy aliens were removed from these "sensitive" areas.
> among other observations that any mass evacuation
> of German and Italian aliens was "out of the question
> if we intend to win this war."
Ah, so mass evacuations of enemy aliens were not necessary to win the war,
and in fact seemed to counterproductive?
Seriously, do you read your posts?
Mike
YMC
news:gjr6p4$7lf$1...@news.stanford.edu...
> And we haven't even gotten to Singapore or Australia.
Hey - you forgot to mention Hong Kong - the one that the British took from
China over the Opium War - now that war was a real horror wasn't it? Forcing
the Chinese to accept the selling of opium as a legitimate form of trade -
how odious. HK was returned back to China in 1997.
YMC
news:gjocem$umc$3...@news.stanford.edu...
Pardon me Prof Picky.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~vmitchel/fw5.html
The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 established the Commonwealth of the
Philippines which at the end of a ten year transition period would become
the fully independent Republic of the Philippines. A plebiscite on the
constitution for the new Republic was approved in 1935 and the date for
national independence was set for July 4, 1946.
Cheers and Happy New Year.
wjho...@aol.com
> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
>>...Decades later under political
>>pressure our Congress had the jutzpah to
>>apologize to these Japanese citizens living
>>in Japan and send each of them a $20,000
>So, you oppose the US making restitution for
>those it has wronged.
I object to the payment of alleged
"restitution" to those who have suffered
no wrong, particularly at the expense of
those who have done them no harm.
> "it is interesting to note that someone who
>actually fought the Japanese also
>supported reparations to Americans and
>American residents of Japanese descent."
"Someone" indicates only one person. I
asked you for the name or names or the
total number of those in Congress who
"actually fought the Japanese" who
supported the reparations and all you can
come up with is the following:
> Forty percent
Forty percent? Let's have a cite for that if you
have one which I doubt. But if you are given the
benefit of the doubt, and 40 percent of the
congressional members who "actually fought the
Japanese" did support reparations, that means
60 percent of the members who "actually fought
the Japanese" opposed the reparations.
You argument hangs itself on its own petard.
>Really, Mr Hopwood, for a self-professed
>WWII veteran and "expert" on these
>it cannot have escaped you that it was
>President Bush who signed this law
>into effect.
It escaped me because what
you say isn't true. Please pardon
this "self-professed" veteran
(with everything to prove
it) for once again pointing out how
wrong you are about this episode
in WWII history (and apparently
determined to remain so).
It was neither Pres.Bush the first
nor Pres. Bush the second who signed
PL100-383. It was Pres. Reagan. And
the year was 1983. For your information,
both Bushes came along later. OK?
Class dismissed.
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On 4 Jan, 16:10, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> >So, you oppose the US making restitution for
> >those it has wronged.
> I object to the payment of alleged
> "restitution" to those who have suffered
> no wrong,
Being rounded up and thrown into a concentration camp without regard to
citizenship, without recourse to prepare for the safe care of property
is a wrong, in any civilaized nation, to any civilized person.
> > "it is interesting to note that someone who
> >actually fought the Japanese also
> >supported reparations to Americans and
> >American residents of Japanese descent."
> "Someone" indicates only one person. I
> asked you for the name or
And it was provided, in this and in other posts; George W Bush.
> >Really, Mr Hopwood, for a self-professed
> >WWII veteran and "expert" on these
> >it cannot have escaped you that it was
> >President Bush who signed this law
> >into effect.
> It escaped me because what you say isn't true.
"President George H.W. Bush signs H.R. 4551, wherein all eligible
Japanese Americans will receive their redress money with additional
groups added."
> Please pardon
> this "self-professed" veteran
> (with everything to prove it)
So you know that "at the time" Dewitt stated the Japanere were RACIALLY
incapable of loyalty?
Funny, you have claimed it wasn't racial motivation...
Mike
Bill Baker
> Hello All,
>
> I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general information about...
(Catching up from the holidays...)
As a regular reader of this newsgroup, who is rather frequently
impressed by the historical acumen of its core contributors, I'm fair
stonkered that some yutz out of nowhere could waltz in, claiming to be
a "screenwriter", and get you all to gush such detailed responses.
Firstly, as a "real" screenwriter (well, professionally-trained
dramaturg and playwright anyway) I would never post such vague
questions re. historical detail in a forum like this. "Oh hello, I'm
some novice jotter with a misty story idea for a WW2 mid-Pacific
military spy thriller, could you all research the juicy bits for me for
free?" You know, I spent something like twelve hours poring over tomes
at the main branch of the New York Public Library just to get the
historical details about a handful of obscure popes right for thirty
seconds of dialogue in one of my plays. That's how a professional
writer works.
--Bill
( Who spent one week snowed-in with almost nothing else to read except
"American Caesar" and "Downfall")
Alan Meyer
> On 2008-12-28 12:01:07 -0800, djcham...@gmail.com said:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I'm a screenwriter and I am looking for some general
>> information about...
>
> (Catching up from the holidays...)
>
> As a regular reader of this newsgroup, who is rather frequently
> impressed by the historical acumen of its core contributors,
> I'm fair stonkered that some yutz out of nowhere could waltz
> in, claiming to be a "screenwriter", and get you all to gush
> such detailed responses.
Of course, as in all of the long threads in this newsgroup, most
of the posters are really posting to each other rather than the
original poster. The original posting is mainly a conversation
starter. It's like someone tossing a ball up in the air and all
of the players jump for it and start running down the field.
> Firstly, as a "real" screenwriter (well, professionally-trained
> dramaturg and playwright anyway) I would never post such vague
> questions re. historical detail in a forum like this. "Oh
> hello, I'm some novice jotter with a misty story idea for a WW2
> mid-Pacific military spy thriller, could you all research the
> juicy bits for me for free?"
Yes, it is a concern that he was proposing to write a screenplay
about something which he didn't indicate that he know anything
about. He never asked for a list of key books or other sources
to read, or asked for opinions on sources that he already
consulted.
It's possible that he's spent a year doing research and reading
50 books. But he hasn't given us any indication of it and he
hasn't followed on any of the responses given to him in this
thread, at least not by posting again.
Is he a historian attempting to write a screenplay? It doesn't
seem so. Is he a hack attempting to churn out a screenplay with
as little research as he can get away with?
Hmmmmm.
Alan
Alan Meyer
...
> The pre-war US attitude to Japanese expansionism had very
> little to do with humanitarian or ethical concerns for the
> people of China and rather more to do with the 50-year old
> policy of US imperialism in the Pacific. The Japanese could not
> be brooked as rivals to US influence in the region.
I believe that foreign policy, in the U.S. at least, has
generally been based on competing interests and views. After the
opium wars and through the following years, American officials
watched British, French, Russian, Japanese, and even German
imperialism in the Far East with what must have been a
combination of alarm, envy, and some disgust but it's hard to say
which predominated among which governments at which times.
Were there imperialists in the U.S. government? Certainly. Did
they establish and control American Far East policy? Surely to
some extent. But there were also powerful anti-imperialists both
in and out of the government. Anti-imperialism had been an
important cornerstone of American political ideology from the
time of the Revolution through the Monroe doctrine, the French
adventure in Mexico, the Spanish atrocities in Cuba, the German
debt collection threats in South America and elsewhere. While
this policy served American commercial interest, it also struck
and strongly re-inforced an anti-imperialist chord in American
public opinion - one that was much stronger than it is today.
By 1900, American policy in Asia had crystallized around "the
Open Door". This policy worked for the United States on several
levels.
It recognized that the American public would not tolerate direct
imperial conquest in competition with Britain and France and put
a democratic, anti-imperialist face on American policy.
At the same time it satisfied the American commercial interests
that wanted to trade in the Far East and were stymied by the
existing imperialist systems. The American trading companies
believed that they could compete successfully with better and
cheaper goods, geographically located more advantageously than
those in Europe (Japan had, or was thought to have, a neglible
economy those days), if they just had a "level playing field" of
free trade.
Finally, the policy was politically popular in Chinese and
European public opinion as well as among Americans. It opposed
the existing imperialist domination. It demanded respect for the
sovereignty of China. It repudiated colonialism. It raised the
status the United States in the world.
The Open Door Policy clearly guided American policy through the
Washington Conference in 1921-2, and the U.S. was the principal
proponent of the Nine Power Treaty that endorsed it. I believe
that it still strongly influenced American policy throughout the
period of Japanese expansion in the 30's.
Was the open door really just imperialism with soft gloves? Was
it "neo-colonialism"?
I think that the answer to that is that, like so much of American
policy, it was a compromise that all American political factions
were able to agree to. Both the commercial interests and the
idealists could support it. We'd probably be making a mistake if
we characterized either as pure cynicism or pure idealism.
At any rate, I think it is a great mistake to equate American
policy in the Pacific with Japanese, British or French
imperialism. It was different from that.
Alan
pbrom...@aol.com
>There was plenty of subversion
> by pro-Japan elements in the relocation
> camps.
I believe you overstate your case here. The subversives did not last
long in the camps before they were sent to Tule Lake. Besides, what
were they going to subvert out in the middle of the desert?
My wife's uncle (interned as a natural-born American citizen, btw)
wonders why there was even barbed wire. "So you get out. You're
surrounded by 100 miles of sage brush. And you're still a Jap."
wjho...@aol.com
> On Jan 1, "wjhopw...@aol.com" wrote:
>
> >There was plenty of subversion
> > by pro-Japan elements in the relocation
> > camps.
>
>I believe you overstate your case here.
>The subversives did not last long in the
>camps before they were sent to Tule Lake.
They lasted long enough. It wasn't until
more than 18 months and after strikes,
riots, and other disturbances in the camps,
instigated by those described in a 1995
National Review article by distinguished
scholar, Dr. Ken Masugi (whose parents were
evacuees), as "pro-Japan gangs (and) Emperor
enthusiasts" that the War Relocation
Authority found it necessary to move such
elements to a single location in order to
exercise better administrative and security
control.
Accordingly, it wasn't until late in 1943,
that Tule Lake was converted from one of the
ten regular relocation centers to a special
"segregation" center in order to accommodate
such elements considered "disloyal."
In November of 1943, there were a series
of riots at the newly established Tule Lake
Segregation Center and the Army had to be
called in to reestablish order. This outbreak
resulted in a LIFE Magazine story in its March
20, 1944 issue about Tule Lake titled "At This
Segregation Center are 18,000 Japanese considered
disloyal to U.S." The article pictured a group
detained in the camp stockade and stated in part
that most of the 18,000 were "American citizens
by birth...all of the adults among them, however,
are considered disloyal...Either they have asked
to be repatriated to Japan, or they have refused
to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., or
they are suspected of being dangerous to national
security."
WJH
Stephen Graham
> They lasted long enough. It wasn't until
> more than 18 months and after strikes,
> riots, and other disturbances in the camps,
> instigated by those described in a 1995
> National Review article by distinguished
> scholar, Dr. Ken Masugi (whose parents were
> evacuees), as "pro-Japan gangs (and) Emperor
> enthusiasts" that the War Relocation
> Authority found it necessary to move such
> elements to a single location in order to
> exercise better administrative and security
> control.
I'm not sure why you're citing a book review of Page Smith's _Democracy
on Trial_ in support of your argument. Masugi was characterizing Smith's
argument.
The next two paragraphs of the review are notable:
While laudably shattering stereotypes, Smith's book is nonetheless
unsatisfactory in several ways. His reliance on first-hand accounts ties
him to the idiosyncrasies of his sources, such as the moving diary of
Charles Kikuchi, on which Smith places great reliance. Smith omits
footnotes, and so many of his sources are impossible to check. And
errors crop up: for example, he mischaracterizes the intriguing
strategist Homer Lea's work The Valor of Ignorance (1909), which
detailed how Japan might conquer the Pacific rim, as a novel. But
Smith's most significant shortcoming is his odd understanding of the
fierce loyalty many Japanese Americans displayed to America as a
Japanese trait of deference to authority, a transference of allegiance
from "one lord . . . to another." Why explain the patriotic in terms of
the alien?
Smith does not adequately answer the most profound questions the
relocation raises: What is patriotism, and thus what is an American?
American patriotism is peculiar in that it is a devotion to a set of
universal principles, or self-evident truths, concerning human nature,
happiness, and self-government. And hence men and women whose ancestors
were alien to the West can become American. As Abraham Lincoln taught
us, the nobility of the American political achievement is to turn
strangers who might have been enemies into friends. Yet friendship
requires justice, which must often be harsh and guided by necessity, a
grim truth that Lincoln knew better than any other American.
> In November of 1943, there were a series
> of riots at the newly established Tule Lake
> Segregation Center and the Army had to be
> called in to reestablish order. This outbreak
> resulted in a LIFE Magazine story in its March
> 20, 1944 issue about Tule Lake titled "At This
> Segregation Center are 18,000 Japanese considered
> disloyal to U.S." The article pictured a group
> detained in the camp stockade and stated in part
> that most of the 18,000 were "American citizens
> by birth...all of the adults among them, however,
> are considered disloyal...Either they have asked
> to be repatriated to Japan, or they have refused
> to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., or
> they are suspected of being dangerous to national
> security."
As we know, Life presented a simplified view of the inhabitants of Tule
Lake. A more nuanced view would include the disloyal but also note that
some individuals were family members who opted to stay with their
relatives rather than be separated, as well as several hundred of the
original Tule Lake occupants who elected not to be moved to another camp.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
I see Mr Graham has already addressed some issues; I'll re-address
this one.
> Segregation Center are 18,000 Japanese considered
> disloyal to U.S." The article pictured a group
> detained in the camp stockade and stated in part
> that most of the 18,000 were "American citizens
> by birth...all of the adults among them, however,
> are considered disloyal...Either they have asked
> to be repatriated to Japan, or they have refused
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fact, several hundred had already taken such an oath, as part
of the naturalization process offered to military veterans. Yet they
were unceremoniously tossed into concentration camps without regard
to loyalty, service record, or anything but race.
It appears that such an oath holds no weight with the US authorities,
so why would they require it?
Mike
wjho...@aol.com
> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
> >... after strikes, riots, and other
> >disturbances in the camps, instigated
> >by those described in a 1995 National
> >Review article by distinguished
> >scholar, Dr. Ken Masugi (whose parents
> >were evacuees), as "pro-Japan gangs (and)
> >Emperor enthusiasts" that the War
> >Relocation Authority found it necessary to
> >move such elements...
> I'm not sure why you're citing a book review
> of Page Smith's _Democracy on Trial_ in
>support of your argument. Masugi was
>characterizing Smith's >argument.
Masugi, for a refreshing change, was presenting a
fair review of Smith's book and in so-doing lauded
Smith for his "shattering" of stereotypes about the
relocation. Masugi made some pertinent points in
his own words which I consider to have been how
he (Masugi) viewed the subject, not just a regurgitation
of Smith.
Although you cite the critical portion of Masugi's
review, you fail to note that Masugi also says: "In
'Democracy on Trial' historian Page Smith demolishes
whatever preconceptions most readers may have held
about the relocation...(and) has produced a singularly
balanced account by simply reporting and summarizing
the previously recorded words of the evacuees
themselves."
> As we know, Life presented a simplified view
> of the inhabitants of Tule Lake. A more
> nuanced view would include the disloyal but
> also note that some individuals were family
> members who opted to stay with their
> relatives rather than be separated, as well
> as several hundred of the original Tule Lake
> occupants who elected not to be moved to
> another camp.
Well, the LIFE article in full was not so
simplified, contained numerous photos
and was fairly accurate in its observation
as to the loyalty issue as borne out later
by the WRA itself.
In a WRA publication, "The Impounded
People," it was pointed out that as for
the majority of the 18,000 Tule Lake population
"there is no question of their loyalty to Japan."
It noted that there were two major groups in the
camp but that approx 60 percent fell into the
group which requested repatriation or expatriation
to Japan..."at the earliest date."
WJH
Stephen Graham
> Masugi, for a refreshing change, was presenting a
> fair review of Smith's book and in so-doing lauded
> Smith for his "shattering" of stereotypes about the
> relocation. Masugi made some pertinent points in
> his own words which I consider to have been how
> he (Masugi) viewed the subject, not just a regurgitation
> of Smith.
Perhaps you should have labeled it as a review of Smith's book rather
than implying that it was an article by Masugi on the subject.
The specific phrase you quoted was clearly Masugi characterizing Smith's
argument.
> Well, the LIFE article in full was not so
> simplified, contained numerous photos
> and was fairly accurate in its observation
> as to the loyalty issue as borne out later
> by the WRA itself.
I understand that it suits your agenda to so present all the inhabitants
of the camp and imply that they were all of uniform opinion. Many were
disloyal; some weren't.
wjho...@aol.com
> >his own words which I consider to have
> >been how he (Masugi) viewed the subject,
>The specific phrase you quoted was clearly
>Masugi characterizing Smith's
>argument.
Given your own mindset on the
subject you would naturally draw
such a conclusion, but I disagree.
Given that Masugi used direct
quotes from Smith throughout the
piece and did not do so in the part
I referenced, indicated to me that
in the context used it was not meant
to be a characterization of Smith but
was a reflection of Masugi's own
interpretation of events.
Masugi is no stranger to the
subject and has included comments
reflecting his own views in writings
published elsewhere.
For instance, Masugi reviewed
two more recent books on the general
subject, one by Greg Robinson, the other
by Eric Muller and in an article titled
"Second Guessing FDR: The Internment
of Japanese Americans During World War
II." (published on the Claremont Institute
website) he wrote:
"These are scholarly contributions...
but they aim merely to confirm what has
become conventional wisdom...in fact the
case for relocation was a much closer call
than hindsight has allowed it to be...Both
Robinson's...and Muller's...(books) ignore
parts of the historical record..What if the
draft resisters and those who supported
them, including the pro-Japan rioters, who
beat and intimidated their pro-American
fellow evacuees, had become the face
of Japanese Americans? This identity
would have meant a far different place for
Japanese Americans following WWII."
> > ...the LIFE article in full was not so
> > simplified, contained numerous photos
> > and was fairly accurate in its observation
> > as to the loyalty issue as borne out later
> > by the WRA itself.
>
>I understand that it suits your agenda to so
>present all the inhabitants of the camp and
>imply that they were all of uniform opinion.
>Many were disloyal; some weren't.
Please don't misrepresent me. It would seem
to be more a reflection of your own agenda to
omit the fact I had noted that the WRA publication
I referenced stated that 60 percent (not all) at Tule
Lake were considered to be pro-Japan. Doesn't
that make it pretty clear that the other 40 percent
were pro-American or at least neutral?
WJH
Stephen Graham
> On 16 Jan, 01:31, Stephen Graham <grah...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> wjhopw...@aol.com wrote:
>>> ... Masugi made some pertinent points in
>>> his own words which I consider to have
>>> been how he (Masugi) viewed the subject,
>>> not just a regurgitation of Smith...
>
>> The specific phrase you quoted was clearly
>> Masugi characterizing Smith's
>> argument.
>
> Given your own mindset on the
> subject you would naturally draw
> such a conclusion, but I disagree.
> Given that Masugi used direct
> quotes from Smith throughout the
> piece and did not do so in the part
> I referenced, indicated to me that
> in the context used it was not meant
> to be a characterization of Smith but
> was a reflection of Masugi's own
> interpretation of events.
Those words are from a paragraph which starts: "While giving heed to
opponents of relocation, Smith presents rarely voiced arguments." If we
look at the entire paragraph, quoted below, Masugi's own voice is given
in a parenthetical comment. How is this anything other than Masugi
characterizing Smith's argument?
[From the review]
While giving heed to opponents of relocation, Smith presents rarely
voiced arguments. "Voluntary" relocation having failed, the leadership
of the Japanese American Citizens League actually endorsed the forced
resettlement policy. These younger Japanese Americans urged enthusiastic
cooperation as a mark of their patriotism. Ranging from Northern
California to Arkansas, the relocation centers themselves were "schools
of democracy," Smith contends. "At most of the centers, hundreds and
sometimes thousands of evacuees came and went freely, along with
visitors, purveyors of food, evacuees without outside jobs, teenagers on
shopping expeditions, . . . athletic teams going to play Caucasian teams
'outside,' . . . and so on." (My parents, for example, would take
agricultural jobs during the growing season outside "camp" and then move
back for the winter.) Evacuees could draw unemployment compensation.
Guards, "like the barbed wire," were "more symbolic than practical."
Students could attend college, and the University of California library
offered interlibrary loan service in one camp. Those who found jobs
could leave the centers, and thousands of government-sponsored job
offers went begging; the evacuees chose familiar barracks over a free
but strange world. Ominously, pro- Japan gangs terrorized the
pro-Americans, resulting in the segregation of the Emperor's enthusiasts
and their ceremonies to the Tule Lake center in northern California. If
the camps yielded patriots who fought in highly decorated units in
Europe, they had strong pro-Japan factions as well.
>>> ...the LIFE article in full was not so
>>> simplified, contained numerous photos
>>> and was fairly accurate in its observation
>>> as to the loyalty issue as borne out later
>>> by the WRA itself.
>> I understand that it suits your agenda to so
>> present all the inhabitants of the camp and
>> imply that they were all of uniform opinion.
>> Many were disloyal; some weren't.
>
> Please don't misrepresent me. It would seem
> to be more a reflection of your own agenda to
> omit the fact I had noted that the WRA publication
> I referenced stated that 60 percent (not all) at Tule
> Lake were considered to be pro-Japan. Doesn't
> that make it pretty clear that the other 40 percent
> were pro-American or at least neutral?
Then why did you object when I pointed out that the Life article
presented a simplified view? If we accept the WRA 60% figure for
argument's sake, wasn't Life wrong when it said "At This Segregation
Center are 18,000 Japanese considered disloyal to U.S." and "all of the
adults among them [the US citizens], however, are considered disloyal..."?
wjho...@aol.com
> > ....the part
> > I referenced, indicated to me that
> > in the context used it was not meant
> > to be a characterization of Smith but
> > was a reflection of Masugi's own
> > interpretation of events.
>
>...Masugi's own voice is given
> in a parenthetical comment. How is this
> anything other than Masugi
> characterizing Smith's argument?
OK, why not stop the nit-picking and cut
to the chase:
You contend that since the phrase
"pro-Japan gangs terrorized the pro-Americans,
resulting in the segregation of the Emperor
enthusiasts..." (which I had interpreted as
Masugi's view and attributed to him) was not
representative of Masugi's own opinion but
instead was a reflection only of Smith's. Thus
you imply that I deliberately misrepresented Dr.
Masugi's thoughts on this matter in order to
make a point.
So let's take a look at some of Dr.
Masugi's other writings on the subject. Perhaps
we may then get a better idea whether or not he
believes that pro-Japan groups actually existed at
Tule Lake and elsewhere and whether or not he
believes they terrorized others in the camps.
Since I've already provided some of
Dr. Masugi's related thoughts in my reference to
his review of the books by Robinson and Muller,
here are some more of his views excerpted from
a column he wrote titled "New Desert Storm,"
which appeared in the National Review West
issue of June 17,1996. Please note that this is
not a book review:
"Recent controversial exhibits at our national
museums reveal the power and insidiousness of
politicized history...Such self-hating history may
soon be revived by the National Park Service...at
the site of the Manzanar Relocation Center...But
this politically correct consensus runs afoul
of the historical record...The relocation centers
themselves encouraged evacuees to find work
on the outside. Thousands of job offers went
begging....Though the centers were essentially
barracks, with little privacy, they could certainly
not be called concentration camps...According to
Japanese American journalist and historian Bill
Hosokawa who was in a center, the barbed wire
surrounding them was removed, following protests.
The greatest dangers to the Japanese Americans
in the centers came from the fiercely pro-Japan
groups, who terrorized supporters of the American
war effort. Just as all Americans can take pride in
the fabled Japanese American units in World War II,
so one must recall these traitors--who shared in the
$20,000 redress payments."
>...why did you object when I pointed out that the Life
>article presented a simplified view? If we accept the WRA
>60% figure for argument's sake, wasn't Life wrong when it
>said "At This Segregation Center are 18,000 Japanese
>considered disloyal to U.S." and "all of the adults among
>them [the US citizens], however, are considered
>disloyal..."?
But neither the LIFE heading nor the part
of the text I quoted said all of the adults were U.S.
citizens as you show above. Although the heading
(title of the article) which you repeat first above was
a bit confusing, the immediate text which follows made
it clear that all of the adults were not U.S. citizens.
Included among the reference to adults were Issei adults
who comprised close to two-thirds of the adults in all of
the camps.
The age and nationality breakdown as
per Table 36 of the WRA publication "The Evacuated
People," indicates that although most of the 110,000
evacuees as of the peak in all of the camps were
American-born, it also shows that a high percentage
of the American-born were minor children. Of the
American-born there were only 27,900 *adults.* As for
the some 39,000 born in Japan, there were over 38,000
adults, or almost 60% of the adult total.
Interestingly, Table No. 71 of WRA publication "The
Evacuted People," shows that the number of requests
received in all of the camps for expatriation and
repatriation totalled 20,627. Of these, 13,727 requests
were for renunciation of U.S.citizenship and expatriation
to Japan submitted by or on behalf of American-born,
and 6900 for repatriation to Japan submitted by
foreign-born. Only 5589 of the over 13,000
American-born requests had been processed and
approved by April of 1946. Upon Japan's defeat there
appears to have been numerous cancellations of pending
requests.
WJH
Stephen Graham
> OK, why not stop the nit-picking and cut
> to the chase:
> You contend that since the phrase
> "pro-Japan gangs terrorized the pro-Americans,
> resulting in the segregation of the Emperor
> enthusiasts..." (which I had interpreted as
> Masugi's view and attributed to him) was not
> representative of Masugi's own opinion but
> instead was a reflection only of Smith's. Thus
> you imply that I deliberately misrepresented Dr.
> Masugi's thoughts on this matter in order to
> make a point.
If you wished to present Masugi's view, why did you quote from a book
review of Page Smith's work in the first place? Why not quote directly
from that 1996 article?
To clearly restate my objection, all that review provided was Masugi's
view of Smith's book. It provided almost no information on Masugi's own
view of the subject.
>> ...why did you object when I pointed out that the Life
>> article presented a simplified view? If we accept the WRA
>> 60% figure for argument's sake, wasn't Life wrong when it
>> said "At This Segregation Center are 18,000 Japanese
>> considered disloyal to U.S." and "all of the adults among
>> them [the US citizens], however, are considered
>> disloyal..."?
>
> But neither the LIFE heading nor the part
> of the text I quoted said all of the adults were U.S.
> citizens as you show above. Although the heading
> (title of the article) which you repeat first above was
> a bit confusing, the immediate text which follows made
> it clear that all of the adults were not U.S. citizens.
> Included among the reference to adults were Issei adults
> who comprised close to two-thirds of the adults in all of
> the camps.
You stitched together the following quote from the Life article:
"American citizens
by birth...all of the adults among them, however,
are considered disloyal...Either they have asked
to be repatriated to Japan, or they have refused
to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., or
they are suspected of being dangerous to national
security."
In so doing, you clearly implied that all the adult US citizens at Tule
Lake were disloyal. Note that you've eliminated any antecedent to "them"
except for "American citizens".
We both know that implication isn't true. I corrected that implication.
While doing so, I acknowledged that many were in fact disloyal.
Since I was stating facts, why did you object to this?
wjho...@aol.com
<grah...@speakeasy.net> wrote:> > ...you imply that I deliberately misrepresented Dr.
> > Masugi's thoughts on this matter in order to
> > make a point.
>
>If you wished to present Masugi's view,
>why did you quote >from a book review of
>Page Smith's work in the first place?
>Why not quote directly from that 1996 article?
I had recently read and had close at hand the
Masugi article I first referenced. It was not until
you made an inordinate issue about it and
implied that I had sinister motives, that I withdrew
from my files the other articles I had by the same
author which confirms my original point and exposes
the pettiness of your objection.
>you clearly implied that all the adult US
>citizens at Tule Lake were disloyal. Note
>that you've eliminated any antecedent to "them"
>except for "American citizens".
This is getting sillier. Here is what I wrote and
quoted from the article in LIFE Magazine in 1944: .
"At This Segregation Center are 18,000
Japanese considered disloyal to U.S." The article
pictured a group detained in the camp stockade and
stated in part that most of the 18,000 were "American
citizens by birth...all of the adults among them,
however, are considered disloyal...Either they have
asked to be repatriated to Japan, or they have refused
to take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., or
they are suspected of being dangerous to national
security."
I didn't "imply" anything. It was LIFE
magazine which said that both Nisei and Issei adults
at Tule Lake were "considered" disloyal. At the time
of the article that was probably a true reflection of
public and official opinion. It would seem that your
beef is with the LIFE Magazine of 65 years ago rather
than with me.
WJH
Stephen Graham
> On 19 Jan, 19:55, Stephen Graham
> <grah...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> If you wished to present Masugi's view,
>> why did you quote >from a book review of
>> Page Smith's work in the first place?
>> Why not quote directly from that 1996 article?
>
> I had recently read and had close at hand the
> Masugi article I first referenced. It was not until
> you made an inordinate issue about it and
> implied that I had sinister motives, that I withdrew
> from my files the other articles I had by the same
> author which confirms my original point and exposes
> the pettiness of your objection.
It would have been simpler had you simply acknowledged that you were
quoting a book review in the first place and that it wasn't the best
source for Masugi's own views, and then gone on to quote an article that
did present his views unambiguously. Or you could have just attributed
the argument to Smith in the first place.
> I didn't "imply" anything. It was LIFE
> magazine which said that both Nisei and Issei adults
> at Tule Lake were "considered" disloyal. At the time
> of the article that was probably a true reflection of
> public and official opinion. It would seem that your
> beef is with the LIFE Magazine of 65 years ago rather
> than with me.
My initial reply took issue with the Life article. That would be why I
wrote: "As we know, Life presented a simplified view of the inhabitants
of Tule Lake." You objected to that statement. You also edited the quote
from the article or so the multiple ellipses suggest. How you edited
that quote led to a particular cast to its statement.
Would you agree that there were one or more loyal adult Nisei at Tule Lake?
wjho...@aol.com
> It would have been simpler had you simply
>acknowledged that you were quoting a book
>review...
Yes, professor.
> ...I wrote: "As we know, Life presented a simplified view
> of the inhabitants of Tule Lake." You objected to that
>statement....
I wouldn't call it an objection. You were referring to a
few sentences in the article, I was referring to the whole
piece. I'd call mine an "amplification.:This is what I said:
"Well, the LIFE article in full was not so
simplified, contained numerous photos
and was fairly accurate in its observation
as to the loyalty issue as borne out later
by the WRA itself. In a WRA publication,
' The Impounded People,' it was pointed out
that as for the majority of the 18,000 Tule Lake
population 'there is no question of their loyalty to
Japan.'
It noted that there were two major groups in the
camp but that approx 60 percent fell into the
group which requested repatriation or expatriation
to Japan...'at the earliest date.'" .
>You also edited the quote from the article or so the
>multiple ellipses suggest. How you edited that quote
>led to a particular cast to its statement.
My editing was to shorten it, not to
put a "particular cast" on the piece.
But since you seem so suspicious here is
a copy of the whole introductory section
which appeared immediately before the
pictorial section of LIFE's article:
First was a photograph of stockade prisoners
which was captioned:
"These five Japs are among the trouble-makers
imprisoned in the stockade within the Tule Lake
Segregation Center. Here they are
answering roll call"
Under that photo appeared this heading in large
type: "AT THIS SEGREGATION CENTER ARE
18,000 JAPANESE CONSIDERED DISLOYAL TO
U.S."
Then the following in regular type:
"The Japanese above, photographed behind a stockade
within the Tule Lake Segregation Center at Newell,
California, are trouble- makers. Calling themselves '
'pressure boys,' they are fanatically loyal to Japan.
Along with some 150 other men in the stockade,
they were the ringleaders in the November riots which
the U.S.Army under the command of Lieutenant Colonel
Verne Austin finally had to quell. By their strong-arm
methods they are responsible for 'Tule Lake's reputation
as worst of all civilian detention camps in the U.S.
"Most of the other 18,000 men, women, and children
of Japanese ancestry, now segregated at Tule Lake,
are quiet undemonstrative people. Almost 70% if them
are American citizens by birth. All of the adults among
them, however, are considered disloyal to the U.S.
Either they have asked to be repatriated to Japan,
the U.S., or they are suspected of being dangerous
to the national security.
"In March 1942 some 110,000 people of Japanese
ancestry were moved out of their homes in strategic
areas of the West Coast. Eventually they were settled
in 10 relocation centers. There the loyal Japanese ere
separated from the disloyal. The loyal ones have the
choice of either remaining in a relocation camp or of
finding employment in some nonstrategic area. The
disloyal ones have been sent to the segregation center
at Tule Lake.
"The November riots, in which some Americans were
hurt, precipitated much heated discussion about the Tule
\Lake camp, and the center remains a political issue. LIFE
last month sent Staff photographer Carl Mydans to report
on conditions there. He had himself just been repatriated
from 16 months spent in Jap internment camps. At joint c
onsent of War Relocation Authority, which has charge of the
camp,and the Army, who guards it, he lived at Tule Lake
[End of lead-in to the pictorial section].
>Would you agree that there were one or more >loyal adult
Nisei at Tule Lake?
Yes, but probably not too many. That's why
Tule Lake was especially set up to accommodate the worst
elements from all of camps. As you pointed out, there were a
few loyals who remained at Tule Lake from the time Tule Lake
was an ordinary center. They remained there at their own
request after it became a segregation center for disloyals,
but there weren't very many of those. Maybe one or two hundred.
Of course the minor children shouldn't be counted one way or
he other and they constituted about two-thirds of the
American-born in all of the camps.
WJH
wjho...@aol.com
In copying a section of the LIFE article
on Tule Lake, several words were inadvertetly
omitted.
Please correct the sentence which reads
"Either they have asked to be repatriated
to Japan, the U.S., or they are suspected
of being dangerous to the national security"
to read: "Either they have asked to be
repatriated to Japan, or they have refused to
take an oath of allegiance to the U.S., or
they are suspected of being dangerous to
the national security."
The last sentence which reads:
" At joint consent of War Relocation Authority,
which has charge of the camp,and the Army,
who guards it, he lived at Tule Lake" should
read: "At joint consent of War Relocation Authority,
which has charge of the camp, and the Army,
who guards it, he lived at Tule Lake for a week.
His pictorial report, the first of its kind, follows."
WJH