One of the things I've wondered about is did the Japanese Internment prevent an American Kristalinacht? The internment was very strange. It only applied to three states (WA, OR, CA) and the four western most counties in AZ. It was actually a relocation or internment order. If a Japanese family moved 150 miles plus eastward, no internment. Didn't apply to Hawaii. Canada had a similar program which I believe applied to the entire country and also applied to Eskimos and Inuits, which the US didn't.
Very little is written about the Italians (first to be interred) or the Germans.
I suspect most Americans couldn't tell the difference between someone who was Chinese, Filipino, Japanese or Korean. After 9/11 two morons in AZ killed a Sheik because he wore a turban and they thought he was an Arab.
Yes - a very valid thought, for all that wasn't the actual reason behind it. We probably don't have data to give a good answer to that, but it's very possible.
I've read that the internment order was originally supposed to apply to Hawaii as well, which does make sense since the security concerns were even more acute there. But, someone on the ground in Hawaii - I forget who - pointed out that there were so many Japanese people there that interning them would completely ruin the Hawaiian economy. So, Hawaii got an exemption.
It would be very interesting to compare the Japanese, Italian, and German internment camps, though I haven't found any such comparison.
My understanding was that the three groups more or less stuck to themselves in separate areas of the camp. The one In Montana was called Camp Valentine. From what I've read the people there enjoyed it when they first arrived and then winter came. Supposedly one of the firs Italians interred stayed after the war and opened up a liquor store. Might still be there.
A couple of things. First, Elleman isn't a professor at the US Naval Institute. USNI doesn't have professors. He's a professor at the Naval War College, and has written something for USNI. (This is less impressive than it sounds.) Second, I think it's worth pointing to the Niihau incident for how people were evaluating the probability of sabotage. Yes, it turns out that we didn't see the sort of problems out of the Japanese that we saw with, say, the Germans in WWI, but given what happened at the start of the war, that wasn't the way to bet. If Elleman didn't bring that up, then he did a terrible job of making the argument.
Thanks for letting me know Elleman's credentials are less impressive than they sound! I assume the Naval War College focuses on military strategy more than other aspects of war?
I think Elleman may have mentioned the Niihau Incident, but he doesn't emphasize it; his main argument is quite aside from the possibility of sabotage.
Sabotage is the argument that was actually more made at the time, but it didn't carry the day in Hawaii itself - the military commanders there refused to intern Japanese-Americans, not on civil rights grounds but because they said it'd disrupt Hawaii's economy! It'd be interesting to look into the security measures they actually took, and consider whether the same things could've been done on the American West Coast.
Were Hawaii and the states that did practice internment similar enough that you can try to use it as evidence for the counterfactual (you obviously can't run the experiment given no time machines, and your data is clearly contaminated - all else aside the fact that California was interning people was known to the people who were not being interned in Hawaii, though I don't know which way it would have cut - but it seems like at least a weak natural experiment), or were there really major differences that make the comparison not make sense?
Because from a completely ignorant perspective, it really does look a lot like a natural experiment. And "did internment actually prevent sabotage, or was it, as well as everything else, unnecessary" seems like an important question, given the extent to which AIUI that was the explicit justification.
Good point, but there were some differences. The three that leap to my mind most readily are how Hawaii had a much bigger military presence, a much smaller population, and a much larger proportion of Japanese-American population. (From what I've heard, the commanders were absolutely right to say interning all the Japanese would ruin Hawaii's economy.)
But still, it's a better experiment than nothing even if it's confounded to some extent - so now I'm wondering even more what security measures Pearl Harbor did take.
Thanks again for this. And the link from yesterday on DSL for the May 23 post.!
One of the things I've wondered about is did the Japanese Internment prevent an American Kristalinacht? The internment was very strange. It only applied to three states (WA, OR, CA) and the four western most counties in AZ. It was actually a relocation or internment order. If a Japanese family moved 150 miles plus eastward, no internment. Didn't apply to Hawaii. Canada had a similar program which I believe applied to the entire country and also applied to Eskimos and Inuits, which the US didn't.
Very little is written about the Italians (first to be interred) or the Germans.
I suspect most Americans couldn't tell the difference between someone who was Chinese, Filipino, Japanese or Korean. After 9/11 two morons in AZ killed a Sheik because he wore a turban and they thought he was an Arab.
Yes - a very valid thought, for all that wasn't the actual reason behind it. We probably don't have data to give a good answer to that, but it's very possible.
I've read that the internment order was originally supposed to apply to Hawaii as well, which does make sense since the security concerns were even more acute there. But, someone on the ground in Hawaii - I forget who - pointed out that there were so many Japanese people there that interning them would completely ruin the Hawaiian economy. So, Hawaii got an exemption.
It would be very interesting to compare the Japanese, Italian, and German internment camps, though I haven't found any such comparison.
https://www.amazon.com/Train-Crystal-City-Prisoner-Internment/dp/1451693672
https://www.amazon.com/cart/smart-wagon?newItems=b507f816-3caa-44b5-bc9f-33b7568f087c,1&ref_=sw_refresh
Look up " Infamy" by Richard Reeves also.
My understanding was that the three groups more or less stuck to themselves in separate areas of the camp. The one In Montana was called Camp Valentine. From what I've read the people there enjoyed it when they first arrived and then winter came. Supposedly one of the firs Italians interred stayed after the war and opened up a liquor store. Might still be there.
A couple of things. First, Elleman isn't a professor at the US Naval Institute. USNI doesn't have professors. He's a professor at the Naval War College, and has written something for USNI. (This is less impressive than it sounds.) Second, I think it's worth pointing to the Niihau incident for how people were evaluating the probability of sabotage. Yes, it turns out that we didn't see the sort of problems out of the Japanese that we saw with, say, the Germans in WWI, but given what happened at the start of the war, that wasn't the way to bet. If Elleman didn't bring that up, then he did a terrible job of making the argument.
Thanks for letting me know Elleman's credentials are less impressive than they sound! I assume the Naval War College focuses on military strategy more than other aspects of war?
I think Elleman may have mentioned the Niihau Incident, but he doesn't emphasize it; his main argument is quite aside from the possibility of sabotage.
Sabotage is the argument that was actually more made at the time, but it didn't carry the day in Hawaii itself - the military commanders there refused to intern Japanese-Americans, not on civil rights grounds but because they said it'd disrupt Hawaii's economy! It'd be interesting to look into the security measures they actually took, and consider whether the same things could've been done on the American West Coast.
Were Hawaii and the states that did practice internment similar enough that you can try to use it as evidence for the counterfactual (you obviously can't run the experiment given no time machines, and your data is clearly contaminated - all else aside the fact that California was interning people was known to the people who were not being interned in Hawaii, though I don't know which way it would have cut - but it seems like at least a weak natural experiment), or were there really major differences that make the comparison not make sense?
Because from a completely ignorant perspective, it really does look a lot like a natural experiment. And "did internment actually prevent sabotage, or was it, as well as everything else, unnecessary" seems like an important question, given the extent to which AIUI that was the explicit justification.
Good point, but there were some differences. The three that leap to my mind most readily are how Hawaii had a much bigger military presence, a much smaller population, and a much larger proportion of Japanese-American population. (From what I've heard, the commanders were absolutely right to say interning all the Japanese would ruin Hawaii's economy.)
But still, it's a better experiment than nothing even if it's confounded to some extent - so now I'm wondering even more what security measures Pearl Harbor did take.