Originally Posted by bulldogg

And as another member pointed out there were some Germans and Italians interned as well.

(1) How many German-Americans could be interned? The Americans had a severe problem on their hands. Americans of ethnic German descent represented the largest ethnic minority in the United States and between 20-40 percent of the population (these were the days prior to the immigration of Chavez and his Mexican friends). Sorta hard running a war when whole states like North Dakota have to be interned...along with men like Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt. What about the millions of outright Germany supporters like Lindbergh or the Kennedys?

(2) German passport holders and the more visibly German Americans were interned. Vhat? Ja, zat is right. Old Hans waz put in za internment camp viz his Axis buddies. Germans like Marlene Dietrich had to jump up and down screaming how much they hate "Squareheads" to avoid a concentration camp. the "Japs" did not have that luxury.

(3) Racial differences/characteristics? Not even the SS Racial Purity Department could have helped legislators here. How are you going to separate German-Americans from the non-German-American population? Arrest everyone who is white? Sounds like a policy for Farrakhan. What could they do? Arrest everyone with a German-sounding last name. Take a look at a Chicago phonebook or any phonebook for that matter. More Muellers, Meyers and Schulzes than here in Germany. In any case, all of these people were magically transformed into Dutch or Swiss. This problem makes it clear why the "Japs" were targeted so comprehensively. I am sure that Himmler was pleased and nodding in agreement. Hey, did IBM help catalogue the Japanese-Americans?

http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/itintern.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American

It was deemed as a right decision in its time

All countries interned people from the countries that they went to war with, it was not just America.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

All countries interned people from the countries that they went to war with, it was not just America.

Sure, but the question is: do you intern ethnic minorities that do not have enemy citizenship? That is, is a second or third generation German-American or Japanese-American with an American passport the "enemy"? Interning foreign aliens (when they are reclassified as enemy belligerents) is normal and understandable.

Hey, at least the Americans interned them and did not kill them like the Czechs, Poles and Soviets.

Times were uncertain, and with out the levels of information and communications that we have today, then they took the safest option open to them. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but they did not have that option open to them.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Times were uncertain, and with out the levels of information and communications that we have today, then they took the safest option open to them. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but they did not have that option open to them.

Sure...but with this type of logic (ie. convicting a group collectively on the basis of race) you get into some really controversial territory. I also do not understand the hindsight argument. What in hindsight? That Japanese-Americans were not in league with Hirohito and planning on blowing up factories? That should have been obvious.

As far as "safest options" is concerned, the best way to protect the US against another terror attack would therefore be the following: rounding up all Muslims and Arab-looking Americans and putting them in camps. The "safest option" is not necessarily a morally good nor acceptable option.

How was it supposed to be obvious in 1942 when hostilities had just begun? How? Hindsight makes one omniscient but in 1942 things were not obvious no matter what you choose to believe. I am not haunted nor feel shame for actions prior to my birth. They did what they thought was right at the time and were very humane when you take into consideration what others did at this time.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

How was it supposed to be obvious in 1942 when hostilities had just begun? How? Hindsight makes one omniscient but in 1942 things were not obvious no matter what you choose to believe. I am not haunted nor feel shame for actions prior to my birth. They did what they thought was right at the time and were very humane when you take into consideration what others did at this time.

(1) Legal problems: How do you change the American legal system to make some citizens guilty before proven innocent? How do you change the American legal system to target a group of citizens on racial grounds using physical facial differences or a last name? Remember we are talking about American citizens and not those living in occupied territories. They were American citizens and legally entitled to the rights guaranteed by the constitution: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". It is no wonder that Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 was later considered by many to be unconstitutional. [Was it ever repealed?]

(2) Civilians & War - A Lesson from the Geneva Convention: [Nuremberg established that the Geneva Convention could be instituted ex post facto]. Article 79 states: The Parties to the conflict shall not intern protected persons, except in accordance with the provisions of Articles. A list of reasons and controls are offered. In the US case, I am not even sure how the Japanese or German Americans were classified...they did not fall under the status of enemy belligerent or enemy non-combatant. They were citizens and protected by the constitution.

(3) Hindsight? Assuming internment was temporarily legal or understandable, which it was not, what factors could possibly have warranted the actions in the first place? What evidence at the time revealed that a "5th Column" existed? None. Internment was based on spurious racist arguments. It was odd that Roosevelt supported policies at home that he blasted as immoral on the international stage. The more I think about Roosevelt, the more disgusted I become. For me, just more wartime hysteria and hypocrisy. [See below for more on the "5th Column"]

(4) At least Japanese internment was not as bad as in other countries? Sure. But is this really an argument? Why would Americans want to compare any of their actions with Stalin's Gulags, Hitler's Camps, or Polish, Czech or Serbian ethnic cleansing operations? The fact that this type of argumentation even exists is an admission of how immoral some American actions actually were. Do Americans really want to judge themselves according to the worst examples of inhumanity in history?

Here are some interesting facts:

(1) Some internment prior to war: "Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Presidential Proclamations 2525 (Japanese), 2526 (German) and 2527 (Italian) were signed. Many homes were raided using information from the CDI, and hundreds of aliens were in custody by the end of the day, including Germans and Italians (although war was not declared on Germany or Italy until December 11)".

(2) Japanese "guilt" on race grounds: Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that "A Jap's a Jap" and testified to Congress, "I don't want any of them (persons of Japanese ancestry) here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty ... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty. ... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map."

(3) Strange simularities to the Holocaust: "Most internees suffered significant property losses. Upon evacuation, the Japanese American internees were told that they could bring only as many articles of clothing, toiletries, and other personal effects as they could carry....Some Japanese American farmers had to sell their property in a matter of days, for pennies on the dollar. In these cases, the land speculators who bought the land made huge profits."

The German 5th Column as an Explanation: I am not going to write a great deal on this issue...suffice to say that it is yet another historical hoax. Germans in Czechoslovakia or Poland, for example, formed political organizations during the 1920s and 1930s and had contacts with Nazi-Germany. So what. This type of behavoiur was true of much of Europe. Ukranians and Russians even formed anti-Communist groups that were sponsored by the western democracies and operated in Stalin's prison state. Getting back to the Germans, the 1920s and 1930s witnessed two decades of Czech and Polish persecution...programs that left thousands of Germans dead, raped and property-free. Any even slightly objective account of German or Ukranian political activities has to recognize (a) the inalienable human right to pursue political activities and (b) that these groups only did so because they were persecuted in the first place and (c) that these groups did not represent a threat to the perpetrators...other than by natural demographic weight.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...can_internment

Ollie I am going to be straight with you. I am having a very difficult time being lectured about how my country treated Japanese from a German. So I am going to stop talking to you on this thread because my temper is getting the better of my tongue. Goodluck tilting at windmills.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Ollie I am going to be straight with you. I am having a very difficult time being lectured about how my country treated Japanese from a German. So I am going to stop talking to you on this thread because my temper is getting the better of my tongue. Goodluck tilting at windmills.

Bulldogg...why all the emotion? Why did I strike a nerve?

(1) This is just history and history as an academic discipline is basically the study of power in society. I am only presenting an argument based on certain things that happened or were said or according to accepted standards. None of this has any bearing on you or the American people as an entity.

(2) Why should I not analyse American history? Events happen. These events exhibit certain comprehensible elements. These elements can be analysed and explanations constructed. These explanations can then be judged according to their logic consistency. This is science...human science...nothing more.

(3) One thing, Bulldogg. Why should Germans not think about American history? Why should Americans not think about German history? Should the study of history be nationally-driven? Do we really only want national history? The study of history would be dull and pointless.

[By the way, and I do not want to step on anyone, Americans write more about German history than the other way around. I can live with that. I even like it. The more the better. And even the totally anti-German stuff that turns my parents and grandparents (or me) into monsters. Those arguments are the best. They help in determining a more complete truth or a better understanding of what really happened.]

One more thing: The wiki source shows that my post was in all probability the opinion of many Americans.