I was reading a post on a new blog, about the efforts by PBS to compare our internment camps to the Nazi extermination, or even concentration, camps, and I was struck by how utterly ignorant of history are those who exaggerate our guilt in setting up internment camps for Japanese citizens. (Somehow they ignore restrictions placed on Italians at the same time.)

Let us think about the war we were facing, and our enemies. Not only the Germans, but the Japanese as well, were ardent nationalists, believing that race and nationality were defining characteristics for each individual. The Germans had used expatriate nationals in Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Memel, and Poland as a fifth column. And both nations had engaged in extermination of other nationalities in conquered territories, as well as experimenting on "nonhuman" members of "lesser" races*.

Nor were our enemies the only nations to embrace nationalism. The French had a strong nationalist movement, and not just among a lunatic fringe. Mainstream French parties had a tendency to see the French people as superior. Nationalism was a widespread phenomenon. Even in the US there were strongly nationalist groups. It was a much less influential philosophy in the US than elsewhere, mainly due tot he lack of a single dominant nationality, but there was some nationalist sentiment here as well.

Given the prevalence of nationalist beliefs it is hardly a stretch to think that some Japanese might harbor pro-Japanese sentiments, even enough to serve as saboteurs or spies. Likewise with the Italians. As they formed distinct ethnic minorities who did not integrate into American society, it is easy to see that many might have believed these distinct ethnic enclaves could harbor spies. It is worth noting that the Germans, who had largely integrated into society, were not treated the same way as the Italians and Japanese.

Now I am sure someone will argue that the Japanese and Italians did not integrate because American society did not allow them to do so. But that doesn't matter. Why they did not integrate is not important. What matters is that during wartime, while fighting groups who believed strongly in national identity, there were insular ethnic groups within the the US, some members of which could harbor sympathy for our enemies.

Was it the best response? Probably not, we may have been able to stop infiltrators with less drastic measures. But that is not the point. Sometimes war results in overreaction. Nor was it completely unjustified, as there were actually some spies inside the US. My point here is not that internment was the best solution. My point is that it is hardly the racist excess that it is portrayed. Modern eyes see the white government imprisoning Japanese (forgetting the Italians) and creates some myth of racism. What they forget is that we were fighting enemies to whom race was paramount, so of course we had to think in terms of race.

They also need to recall that even if it was not the ideal solution, if it was an overreaction, failure to act perfectly is not a crime. We may have been able to prevent spying with less intrusive measures, but at the time we did not know the extent of infiltration. We had seen fifth columns in Danzig and Czechoslovakia very effectively  oppose legitimate governments, so it was not so far fetched to imagine that the Japanese community may have harbored many more spies and saboteurs than it actually did.

But that seems to be the way the left argues recently. If in hindsight we can say we overreacted, or if we failed to act perfectly, then we are seen as being equivalent to the worst of the worst. Somehow they believe the internment of civilians by the US is equivalent to the genocide of the Nazis.

It is just an absurd overreaction. But as it allows them to blame the US, to some groups it is appealing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I always wonder why the Germans are rightly blamed for the human experimentation in their extermination camps, while the Japanese experimentation on prisoners in Manchuria is almost completely ignored.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM

Let us assume the US had not done anything to the Japanese and Italians as many suggest is the "correct" course. We assume that nothing bad would have befallen the nation. However, we do not know that. The assumption is that all those in internment camps were unjustly detained, but is it not possible that some DID harbor pro-Japanese sentiment, but were now unable to act due to internment. In other words, isn't it possible that in some cases internment worked?

It is against the orthodoxy of the day to say so, the only allowable argument is to point to all the patriotic Japanese citizens and deplore internment, but is it not possible that, in at least some cases, there may have been spying or sabotage that was prevented through internment?

Now, I am hardly arguing that internment was the ideal solution, but, given the time and the limited manpower available, less drastic solutions may not have been possible, and internment may have been the only option available. And I am hardly arguing that in a similar situation internment would be the best approach. All I am saying is that our information today comes from a past where internment did occur. So to say that there was little spying or sabotage and arguing from that fact that internment was unneeded is disingenuous, as internment may be the reason, or part of the reason, spying and sabotage were so uncommon.