Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (645890)	10/15/2004 11:52:34 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If I'm not mistaken, Italian seamen who were in US ports when the war started were interned. When I was a kid, some of the watch towers and fences were still in place at Ft. Missoula, which was just a half mile away from where I lived. I think some of those guys are still in Missoula, having become citizens after the war. serve.com My father-in-law (a "German-American" if you use the criteria for African-Americans, Native-Americans, and Japanese-Americans) whose surname is as common "Smith" or "Jones" in Germany, was too busy dropping bombs out of a B-17 to be considered for internment in the US. However, the Germans did not see it that way and put him in Stalag 3 for two years.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (645890)	10/16/2004 12:29:32 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Why were not all German-Americans and Italian-Americans also interned? That's a good point. I googled "German American Bund" Japanese and internment and found this, on that subject: Despite an active German American Bund that promoted Hitler throughout the Midwest and boasted thousands of members, German U-boats shelling the Atlantic coast, and German agents actually being captured on U.S. soil before they could carry out their missions (leading to the case on military tribunals, In re Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)), German Americans and Italian Americans were deemed to be dangerous only in extreme individual instances... And here's more detail on the Hawaii situation, mentioning that logically, it should have been the first place to toss their Japanese-American citizens into camps! It was in the theater of operations! The inconsistencies of the internment become apparent if the territory of Hawaii is considered. If the internment was warranted, it should have been instituted in Hawaii with greatest priority because Pearl Harbor had occurred there and it sat within the theater of operations.... Locking up Japanese Americans in Hawaii would have meant that a third of the population, and the bulk of the workforce on the plantations that were the mainstay of the islands’ economy, would be removed. The need for workers and the profits they produced trumped racial hatred. The military, as well, was not interested in the task of rounding up and shipping out thousands of civilians. Preview and spellcheck are back. Weird-looking, but back.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (645890)	10/16/2004 12:52:25 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Why were not all German-Americans and Italian-Americans also interned? I think racism played a role here - an obvious role considering American policy toward non-whites at the time. But we must be reasonable and fair. Prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were not held in camps. After Pearl Harbor about 700 were arrested. They were clearly arrested in response to Pearl Harbor. Germans and Italians didn't bomb us. The Japanese did. So it was natural to focus upon them and few others.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (645890)	10/16/2004 10:28:25 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

There were significant numbers of German-Americans and Italian Americans who were interned. In 1942 we were much more concerned about security on the West coast than the East. Our Pacific fleet had been crippled, many expected an invasion of Hawaii, and the Japanese had demonstrated the capability for carrier-based, long-range attacks (Germany had no such capability). Invasion of the West coast was deemed a realistic possibility. The West coast was a critical site of naval bases and war-materiel factories. These were the views of the time, notwithstanding how me may view it now with the benefit of hindsight. FDR would have been derelict in duty to have ignored the potential threat posed by 100,000 citizens of Japanese ancestry moving freely about the West coast. Whether he made the right choices, or implemented them in the best manner, can always be debated in good faith. Thanks for the article you posted. I view it as a strong endorsement for the extreme measures that were taken.