Japanese settlers on Saipan and other islands

[David Wilma]

I was listening to an author describe some of the movement
of populations in Europe after 1945 and I recalled that the
Japanese had settled many islands in the Pacific in the
decades before the war. Wiki says that most of the
surviving settlers were "repatriated" to Japan. Do we
have another case of ethnic cleansing? Saipan became
a U.S. trust territory. Was this repatriation compulsory?
Was it instigated by the U.S. or local authorities? Any
reparations for lost property?

David Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com

[w***@aol.com]

...I recalled that the Japanese had
settled many islands in the Pacific in
the decades before the war. Wiki says
that most of the surviving settlers were >"repatriated" to Japan. Do we have another
case of ethnic cleansing?

No. After the U.S. had succeeded in taking
these islands from the Japanese the
surviving Japanese became either POWs, or,
if civilian, enemy aliens. After the
Japanese surrender, they were repatriated
to their homeland. It was not a matter of ethnicity. It was a matter
of nationality.
Similar repatriations were accorded to
other POWs and civilian enemy aliens
elsewhere regardless of homelands or
ethnicity.

Saipan became a U.S. trust territory. Was
this repatriation compulsory?

Compulsary for those so ordered by U.S. authorities, but under
international law
there could be some circumstances where
certain individuals might not be repatriated because of being held for
war crimes
prosecution, or other appropriate reasons.

Was it instigated by the U.S. or local
authorities?

By U.S. authorities as outlined above.

Any reparations for lost property?

No. Under both U.S. and international law,
enemy aliens are subject to internment and confiscation of property at
the discretion
of the interning authority.

WJH

[David H Thornley]

Post by w***@aol.com
No. Under both U.S. and international law,
enemy aliens are subject to internment and confiscation of property at
the discretion
of the interning authority.

Except that Japanese people who settled on Japanese-controlled territory
before the war were not enemy aliens. Unless there were provisions in
the rules about mandates, which I don't know about, they'd be ordinary
civilians that belonged there.

I'd think that they would then come under Hague(IV), Section III, which
basically says that the occupying power respects the people and their
private property. It is permissible to seize property needed for the
army of occupation, but that must be paid for. Government property,
with some exceptions, may be seized and used, but land and buildings
may not be abused.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by David H Thornley
Except that Japanese people who settled on Japanese-controlled territory
before the war were not enemy aliens. Unless there were provisions in
the rules about mandates, which I don't know about, they'd be ordinary
civilians that belonged there.

It's not quite that simple.

Territory "mandated" by the League of Nations
did not become sovereign territory of the
mandatory power.

In practice the mandatory power could usually do
what it pleased in the mandated territory, including
settle its citizens there.

But legally, I don't know that those settlers
counted as permanent, legal inhabitants of the
territory.

Certainly there was enormous controversy over
immigrants coming to settle in the Mandatory
Territory of Palestine.

As to the Marianas - it should be noted that
as capture of Saipan by U.S. forces became
inevitable, the Japanese garrison induced the
civilians to commit mass suicide rather than
submit to U.S. occupation. Thousands of these
people jumped off "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai
Cliff" at the northern end of the island.

When U.S. forces saw what was happening, they
posted ships off-shore with Japanese speakers
on loudspeakers, trying to dissuade the jumpers.

Finally ships and boats went into the waters
below the cliffs, to retrieve people from the
water who had survived the jump, especially
children. (This was only passible at one cliff,
which overhung water; the other had rocks at
its base.)

AFAIK, the only surviving civilians from Saipan
were those pulled from the water. There was
nothing left for them on the island; the
settlements had been destroyed in the fighting.

[Don Kirkman]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:02:07 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<***@rcn.com> wrote:


[. . .]

Post by Rich Rostrom
AFAIK, the only surviving civilians from Saipan
were those pulled from the water. There was
nothing left for them on the island; the
settlements had been destroyed in the fighting.

An acquaintance of mine in Japan had been a civilian engineer in
Saipan, working for the Japanese military. We never discussed details
of his work or experiences there, but he was taken prisoner and held
in a Texas POW camp until he was repatriated. He often mentioned how
grateful he was that he ended up in that camp and for the way he was
treated by the Americans. I wish now that I had known more so I could
have asked pertinent questions before I left Japan.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom
But legally, I don't know that those settlers
counted as permanent, legal inhabitants of the
territory.

It was a class C mandate, and were considered "best administered under the
laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory"

In other words, it was an integral part of the extended Japanese territory.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com
No. After the U.S. had succeeded in taking
these islands from the Japanese the
surviving Japanese became either POWs, or,
if civilian, enemy aliens.

Un, no. They would have been merely civilians.

Post by w***@aol.com

Any reparations for lost property?

No. Under both U.S. and international law,
enemy aliens are subject to internment and confiscation of property at
the discretion of the interning authority.

Again, not enemy aliens. Japan had a League of Nations mandate to govern
the area. By international law, they were the legal occupants of the islands.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com
No. After the U.S. had
succeeded in taking these
islands from the Japanese
the surviving Japanese
became either POWs, or,
if civilian, enemy aliens.

Un, no. They would have been
merely civilians.

"Merely civilians?" Inasmuch as
we were still at war with Japan
after we took the Marianas from
Japan and there were surviving
Japanese remaining on those
islands, did those surviving
Japanese suddenly lose their
nationality? Of course not.
They remained Japanese and as
such ere enemy civilians and
now had become enemy civilians
subject to "internment" and
repatriation at the discretion
of their captors, should war
conditions permit.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Again, not enemy aliens. Japan
had a League of Nations mandate
to govern the area. By
international law, they were the
legal occupants of the islands.

That argument pretends that the war
didn't exist. Japan's pre-war legal
right to occupancy is not in dispute.
But to claim that they still had a
legal right to continue to occupy the
islands after the islands had been
occupied by the U.S. in a military
action is to ignore reality. One might
as well say that if only he had stayed
in Rabaul that day, Yamamoto might
never have been shot down by U.S.
fighters.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com
No. After the U.S. had
succeeded in taking these
islands from the Japanese
the surviving Japanese
became either POWs, or,
if civilian, enemy aliens.

Un, no. They would have been
merely civilians.

"Merely civilians?" Inasmuch as

Yes, "merely civilians", Mr Hopwood.

Post by w***@aol.com
we were still at war with Japan

And we were at war with Japan when we took Okinawa. The civilians there were
civilians, not enemy aliens.

Post by w***@aol.com
Japanese remaining on those
islands, did those surviving
Japanese suddenly lose their
nationality? Of course not.

And since they were on internationally recognized Japanese territory, this
is not surprising.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Again, not enemy aliens. Japan
had a League of Nations mandate
to govern the area. By
international law, they were the
legal occupants of the islands.

That argument pretends that the war didn't exist.

No Mr Hopwood, it states the obvious fact that the US was taking Japanese
territory (as we would take German territory on the other theater.) That
did not suddenly make them "enemy civilians"; they were civilian under
Allied occupation.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Un, no. They would have been
merely civilians.

Inasmuch as those we are speaking of
were Japanese, and they were interned
before Japan surrendered, and Japan
was still an enemy country, they were
more than "merely civilians." They were
"enemy civilians." Or are you saying
they suddenly became civilians without
a country?

...the US was taking Japanese territory
...That did not suddenly make them "enemy
civilians"...

Oh? Are you now saying they were "Friendly civilians?"

... they were civilian under Allied
occupation.

Just change that to "enemy civilians" under
Allied occupation and you'll have it right.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Un, no. They would have been
merely civilians.

Inasmuch as those we are speaking of
were Japanese,

And on Japanese territory.

Post by w***@aol.com

...the US was taking Japanese territory
...That did not suddenly make them "enemy
civilians"...

Oh? Are you now saying they were "Friendly civilians?"

Nope; just pointing out they were really no different from German civilians
under US control.

Post by w***@aol.com

... they were civilian under Allied
occupation.

Just change that to "enemy civilians" under
Allied occupation and you'll have it right.

So, they weren't civilians?

And, of course, you still haven't addressed Mr Wilma's original question about
being removed without compensation...

Mik

[David Wilma]

Post by w***@aol.com
No. After the U.S. had succeeded in taking
these islands from the Japanese the
surviving Japanese became either POWs, or,
if civilian, enemy aliens. After the
Japanese surrender, they were repatriated
to their homeland. It was not a matter of ethnicity. It was a matter
of nationality.
Similar repatriations were accorded to
other POWs and civilian enemy aliens
elsewhere regardless of homelands or
ethnicity.

Do you have a source for this legal determination?
I'm interested more on this issue. It does sound
like ethnic cleansing.

DW

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by David Wilma

Post by w***@aol.com
No. After the U.S. had succeeded in taking
these islands from the Japanese the
surviving Japanese became either POWs, or,
if civilian, enemy aliens. After the
Japanese surrender, they were repatriated
to their homeland. It was not a matter of ethnicity. It was a matter
of nationality.

Do you have a source for this legal determination?
I'm interested more on this issue. It does sound
like ethnic cleansing.

While Mr Hopwood is incorrect in calling the Japanese there "enemy civilians",
this doesn't really seem like an issue of "ethnic cleansing". There was no
real effort to remove a long-standing native population to make room for the
conquoring populace. I don't know if the Japanese civilians were even given
a chance to remain on the island if they wished, after the war, but I suspect
they would have chosen to go back to Japan under those circumstances.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma

...After the U.S. had succeeded
in taking these islands from
the Japanese the surviving
Japanese became either POWs,
or, if civilian, enemy aliens.
After the Japanese surrender,
they were repatriated
to their homeland. It was not
a matter of ethnicity. It was
a matter of nationality.

Do you have a source for this
legal determination? > I'm
interested more on this issue.
It does sound like ethnic
cleansing.

It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing," a
term commonly applied in more
recent years to atrocities in
connection with the
disintegration of Yugoslavia,
into anything related to the
internment of enemy citizens by
the U.S. in World War II.
In a prior post you
mentioned that the U.S. had
interned and later repatriated
to Japan the Japanese who had
survived the fighting involved
in the seizure of Saipan and
environs by U.S. forces. A
legal definition of "interned"
(of which there are many
ramifications all of which come
to the same basic conclusion) is
the act of confining someone,
in wartime particularly being
applied to enemy citizens.
Geneva Conventions
prior to WWII were primarily
concerned with the treatment of
combatants and spoke little as
to the treatment of civilians in
enemy territory or in occupied
areas. After seizure of the
northern Marianas in 1944 the
U.S. had de facto control of
those islands and under
then-existing Geneva Conventions
U.S. internment of enemy citizens
thereon was legal as it would
still be today.
The fact that Japan had a pre-war
mandate under the defunct League
of Nations was irrelevant under
the rules of international law
with regard to what the U.S. could
do after military occupation of
the islands.
In 1947, before a
treaty had been concluded with
defeated Japan, the United Nations
granted U.S. administrative control
of the territories in question as
part of the UN Trust Territories of
the Pacific Islands.


WJH

[David H Thornley]

Post by w***@aol.com
On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma
It does sound like ethnic
cleansing.

It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing,"

Because everybody of a certain nationality was involuntarily removed
from where they were living? Makes sense to me.

We usually hear the term when it's done much less humanely, of course,
but it that's not part of the obvious meaning.

Post by w***@aol.com
environs by U.S. forces. A
legal definition of "interned"
(of which there are many
ramifications all of which come
to the same basic conclusion) is
the act of confining someone,
in wartime particularly being
applied to enemy citizens.

Which applies to enemy citizens in friendly territory, like German and
Italian citizens in the US.

A place you conquer is not "friendly territory" in that sense, and
the civilians there are not "enemy citizens" in the same way.
There are rules about how you deal with civilian residents of
occupied territories, and kicking them out and taking their stuff
is against them.

Post by w***@aol.com
Geneva Conventions
prior to WWII were primarily
concerned with the treatment of
combatants and spoke little as
to the treatment of civilians in
enemy territory or in occupied
areas.

At the time of WWII, most of the codified laws of war were in Hague
Conventions, not Geneva Conventions, although there was a Geneva
Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (and thus not really
applicable to civilians).

What we need to consider is Hague IV, Section III of the Annex
(which has all the actual laws and rules):

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

(This is the 1907 Hague IV, not the 1899 one that deals
with different things. It seems to be basically a repeat of
Hague II from 1899. There is an appropriate Geneva Convention
from 1947 that doesn't apply for WWII.)

What it says, basically, is that the conquering army is
bound to run the occupied territory with as little disturbance
to civilians as possible. State property may be seized and
used as desired, with some exceptions (the usual - religion,
charity, education, arts, sciences).

After seizure of the

Post by w***@aol.com
northern Marianas in 1944 the
U.S. had de facto control of
those islands and under
then-existing Geneva Conventions
U.S. internment of enemy citizens
thereon was legal as it would
still be today.

I have been deliberately avoiding learning about post-WWII international
law, when feasible, so I don't know whether it would be legal today.
It sure wasn't legal under Hague IV.

Your first clause above establishes that Hague IV, Section III is
in effect, which applies when an occupying power has de facto
control. Therefore, the US had no legal right to violate any of
the strictures of Hague IV.

I don't find anything in that convention where it authorizes interning
natives (and the Japanese do count as natives here). On the other
hand, family honor and rights and private property must be respected,
and no general penalty can be inflicted. It might be possible to
intern civilians while respecting the Convention, but it looks awfully
tricky to me.

Post by w***@aol.com
The fact that Japan had a pre-war
mandate under the defunct League
of Nations was irrelevant under
the rules of international law
with regard to what the U.S. could
do after military occupation of
the islands.

Actually, I agree completely. The US was legally bound to Hague IV,
Section III, regardless of whether the territory was part of Japan
or otherwise. The exception, I suppose, would be reconquest of
territory, which might apply to Guam but not Saipan.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by David H Thornley

Post by w***@aol.com
On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma
It does sound like ethnic
cleansing.

It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing,"

Because everybody of a certain
nationality was involuntarily
removed from where they were
living? Makes sense to me.

And the fact that "everybody of a
certain nationality including POWs"
happened to be of enemy nationality
made no difference to you? Did
the result of the battle mean
nothing to you also?

Post by David H Thornley
We usually hear the term when
it's done much less humanely, of
course, but it that's not part of
the obvious meaning.

Well to some (IMHO most) "less
humanely" is exactly what is
implied in its use here.
.

Post by David H Thornley

Post by w***@aol.com
environs by U.S. forces. A
legal definition of "interned"
....is the act of confining
someone,in wartime particularly
being applied to enemy citizens.

Which applies to enemy citizens in
friendly territory, like German and
Italian citizens in the US.

That doesn't coincide with the facts.
It rules out, for instance the
internment of U.S. and allied
civilians by the Japanese in the
Phillipines, the East Indies, China,
and wherever else Japanese occupiers
happened to find allied citizens.

Post by David H Thornley
There are rules about how you deal
with civilian residents of occupied
territories, and kicking them out and
taking their stuff is against them.

What rules and how come the Axis
forces didn't hear about them?

Post by David H Thornley
...What we need to consider is Hague
IV, Section III of the Annex (which
has all the actual laws and rules)...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Which says nothing about the internment
of enemy civilians and became effective
in 1910 as an Annex to the Hague
convention of 1907 about which the
International Committee of the Red Cross
at Geneva had this to say after WWII:
"...Some provisions concerning the
protection of populations against the
consequences of war and their protection
in occupied territories are contained....
in the regulations...annexed to the Hague
provisions...(which) during WWI proved...
to be insufficient in view of...the
problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and
in
occupied territories..."
The ICRC goes on to say that in
international meetings almost up to the
beginning of WWII the matter was talked
about but no changes were agreed upon
until after WWII. In 1949 the Geneva
Convention of that year contained
"a rather short part concerning the
general protection of populations
against certain consequences of war
(Part II)...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380

Post by David H Thornley
I have been deliberately avoiding
learning about post-WWII
international law, when
feasible, so I don't know whether
it would be legal today.

Perhaps you might stop deliberately
avoiding it.

Post by David H Thornley
It sure wasn't legal under
Hague IV.

I don't see where you can point to any
provision of Hague IV which says it
wasn't legal during WWII or can show
where, in Geneva 1949 which says it
law for enemy citizens to be "interned"
in some or all circumstances at the
discretion of occupation authorities. Suppose there was
evidence
that certain enemy citizens or groups of
citizens were organized and engaged in
guerilla activities or sabotage against
occupation forces? Would the occupation
authorities be required to do nothing
under Hague IV or Geneva 1949? I don't think so.

Post by David H Thornley
Your first clause... Hague IV, Section
III is in effect, which applies when an
occupying power has de facto control.
Therefore, the US had no legal right to
violate any of the strictures of Hague
IV.

I can't find any strictures in Hague IV
which applied to internment and repatriation, which
is all that was done to the Marianas
Japanese survivors, other than the U.S. trying to save the lives of
the cliff-jumpers. Maybe you can find something
about cliff-jumping in Hague IV too?

Post by David H Thornley
I don't find anything in that
convention where it authorizes
interning natives (and the
Japanese do count as natives here).

Come on. That's a stretch. First, the Japanese were not indigenous to
the Marianas, and second, there was nothing against interning them in
Hague IV.

Post by David H Thornley
....It might be possible to intern
civilians while respecting the
Convention, but it looks awfully
tricky to me.

Good. You seem to be beginning to
come around to the facts in the matter.

Post by David H Thornley

Post by w***@aol.com
....that Japan had a pre-war
mandate under the defunct League
of Nations was irrelevant under
the rules of international law
with regard to what the U.S. could
do after military occupation of
the islands.

Actually, I agree completely. The
US was legally bound to Hague IV,
Section III, regardless of whether
the territory was part of Japan or
otherwise....

Great. You are really beginning to come
around. Particularly inasmuch as Hague
IV Section III did not restrict what the U.S. did in the Marianas
anyway.

WJH

[David H Thornley]

Post by w***@aol.com
And the fact that "everybody of a
certain nationality including POWs"
happened to be of enemy nationality
made no difference to you?

Of course not. Does anybody perform ethnic cleansing on people
of friendly nationality? In every case I know of, it meant
getting rid of people the ruling power didn't like.

Germans against Jews, gypsies, etc. Eastern Europeans against
Germans post-war. A host of examples from WWII to the present
day. Got any counterexamples?

Did

Post by w***@aol.com
the result of the battle mean
nothing to you also?

Sure.

It meant that Saipan was conquered territory, and that the
inhabitants thereof were protected by Hague IV, Section III.
What was it supposed to mean?

Post by w***@aol.com
It rules out, for instance the
internment of U.S. and allied
civilians by the Japanese in the
Phillipines, the East Indies, China,
and wherever else Japanese occupiers
happened to find allied citizens.

Yes. Does it surprise you that the Japanese often ignored
the customary laws of war?

The Japanese were not, in fact, good about following these
laws. If you are unaware of this, I can provide lots and
lots of examples. Were you of the opinion that the Rape
of Nanking was in strict accordance with Hague IV?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
There are rules about how you deal

What rules and how come the Axis
forces didn't hear about them?

Many were reminded during their war crimes trials.

Look, we charged and tried a whole lot of people for
violations of Hague IV, among other parts of international
law. It makes no sense for you to claim that behavior
that we convicted other people of is a reason to think that
it would be legal if we did it.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Which says nothing about the internment
of enemy civilians

It doesn't allow it specifically, true. Would you care
to describe how to intern civilians while respecting all
the Section III provisions? You need to respect private
property, which includes homes, for example. You need to
avoid doing it as any sort of punishment.

Post by w***@aol.com
International Committee of the Red Cross

[Summary]
that the provisions of Hague IV, Section III
proved to be inadequate for the protection of
civilians in enemy and occupied territories.

That is one reason why there was a Geneva convention
regarding the treatment of people in occupied territories
post-war.

Did you know that lots of people drove in the US without
seat belts until they became legally mandatory? Is it
your opinion that they should be ticketed?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
I have been deliberately avoiding
learning about post-WWII
international law, when
feasible, so I don't know whether
it would be legal today.

Perhaps you might stop deliberately
avoiding it.

Why? My interest in international law primarily relates
to WWII. Therefore, knowing the postwar Geneva Conventions
is not only far less useful to me, it has the potential
to confuse me.

You yourself seem confused by what period's international
law applies here, so I'm sure you can understand my
avoidance.

Post by w***@aol.com
that certain enemy citizens or groups of
citizens were organized and engaged in
guerilla activities or sabotage against
occupation forces? Would the occupation
authorities be required to do nothing
under Hague IV or Geneva 1949? I don't think so.

Hague IV, article 43, says that the occupying
power is to maintain order and safety. I would
say that that is consistent with actions to
stop guerrilla warfare or sabotage.

This can usually be done while respecting the local
laws, so we don't even need the escape clause here.

Of course, collective punishment is forbidden.

In Geneva 1949, I believe it specifically says that
civilians lose protection if they engage in hostile
action.

Post by w***@aol.com
Come on. That's a stretch. First, the Japanese were not indigenous to
the Marianas, and second, there was nothing against interning them in
Hague IV.

The Japanese were as indigenous as they needed to be to be covered
by Hague IV, Section III. They weren't illegal settlers in a territory
recently conquered by Japan. They were legally living in territory
that Japan legally controlled before the war.

As far as interning them, it might just possibly be legal, but the
details of any individual plan would be likely to violate something.
I don't think any deportation would pass muster, as it would almost
certainly involve depriving inhabitants of their private property.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by David H Thornley
The Japanese were as indigenous as they needed to be to be covered
by Hague IV, Section III. They weren't illegal settlers in a territory
recently conquered by Japan. They were legally living in territory
that Japan legally controlled before the war.

As I understand matters, _all_ of the civilians on Saipan and Tinian
were interned, including the Chamorros and whatever other foreign
nationals might have still been present.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham
As I understand matters, _all_ of the
civilians on Saipan and Tinian were
interned, including the Chamorros and
whatever other foreign nationals might
have still been present.

Very likely. And if not all interned,
those who were not were at least kept
under close surveillance in view of
their prior close association with the
Japanese and their potential for
espionage and sabotage.
Not being Japanese they would not
have been "repatriated" to Japan and I
wonder how long they were held in custody
and what happened to them when they could
safely be either relocated or released?

WJH

[w***@aol.com]

Post by David H Thornley

Did the result of the battle mean
nothing to you also?

It meant that Saipan was conquered
territory, and that the inhabitants
thereof
were protected by Hague IV, Section III.
What was it supposed to mean?

Well, simply put the result meant that the
U.S. had won a victory over extremely
important territory from a strategic
standpoint in the move toward Japan's
home islands and the end of the war and
that it was very important to rid the area
of any potential saboteurs who might
have survived. It certainly didn't mean that
the most important thing on the minds of
the military was the convenience and
general well-being of those who, just hours
before had tried to kill them before trying.to
kill themselves.

Post by David H Thornley
Look, we charged and tried a whole lot of
for violations of Hague IV, among other parts
of international law.

But nobody tried us because we didn't violate
Hague IV or any other parts of international
law as you claim we did but can't prove it.

Post by David H Thornley

Post by David H Thornley
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Nice link but doesn't come close to proving <UTF16-2028>your point. You might as
well have linked to
Disneyworld.

Post by David H Thornley
It doesn't allow it specifically, true. Would
you
care to describe how to intern civilians while
respecting all the Section III provisions?

Easy. Because the internment of enemy civilians
falls outside of the forbidden acts mentioned in
Section III.

Post by David H Thornley
You need to respect private which includes homes,
for example. You need to avoid doing it as any
sort of punishment.

So? Whose homes did we destroy unless by the
unintended consequences of battle, and who was
punished? Internment is not punishment. It is the
unfortunate consequence of being an enemy civilian
who is in the wrong place at the wrong ttme.

Post by David H Thornley
Did you know that lots of people drove in the US
without seat belts until they became legally
mandatory?

Why no. I'm shocked. You could knock me over with
a feather.

Post by David H Thornley
...My interest in international law primarily
relates to WWII....knowing the postwar Geneva
Conventions ...has the potential to confuse me.

Yes. I can see how it could.

Post by David H Thornley
You yourself seem confused by what period's
international law applies here, so I'm sure you > can understand my avoidance.

There's no confusion on what period of international
law applies to this issue because the internment of
enemy aliens under the circumstances in which we
have done so is not prohibited in either the pre-war
or the post-war conventions.

Post by David H Thornley
Hague IV, article 43, says that the occupying
power is to maintain order and safety. I would
say that that is consistent with actions to
stop guerrilla warfare or sabotage.

Well then, there is no better way to do so than
to intern resident enemy civilians in your midst,
so why do you object to doing so?

Post by David H Thornley
In Geneva 1949, I believe it specifically says
that civilians lose protection if they engage in > hostile action.

Then it seems to be your belief that we should
wait for the saboteurs to blow us up before we
exercise reasonably prudent precautions to
keep them from doing so.

Post by David H Thornley
The Japanese were as indigenous as they
needed to be to be covered by Hague IV, Section
III.
They weren't illegal settlers in a territory
recently
conquered by Japan. They were legally living in
territory that Japan legally controlled before
the war.

But then they were removed from their control
as a consequence of losing the battle for the
northern Marianas. By winning the battle we then
had control of the land and the right by
virtue thereof to take precautionary measures for
security reasons which included internment of
enemy civilians.

Post by David H Thornley
As far as interning them, it might just possibly > be legal,

You're beginning to get the drift.

Post by David H Thornley
...but the details of any individual plan would be > likely
to violate something. I don't think any
deportation
would pass muster, as it would almost certainly
involve
depriving inhabitants of their private property.

Well, as you must know, the devil is always in the
details. All those are usually saved for the peace treaty fellows to
work out, years after the war ended. And it probably was.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley

Did the result of the battle mean
nothing to you also?

It meant that Saipan was conquered
territory, and that the inhabitants
thereof
were protected by Hague IV, Section III.
What was it supposed to mean?

Well, simply put the result meant that the
U.S. had won a victory over extremely
important territory from a strategic
standpoint in the move toward Japan's
home islands and the end of the war and
that it was very important to rid the area
of any potential saboteurs who might
have survived. It certainly didn't mean that

They didn't remove them until after the war, Mr Hopwood.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...was very important to rid the
area of any potential saboteurs
who might have survived....

They didn't remove them until after
the war, Mr Hopwood.

Until after the surrender, you mean.
By "rid the area" I think it obvious
that I meant to get them in custody
where they couldn't do harm to any
U.S.forces or equipment while the
war was still on.

WJH

[Roman W]

Post by David H Thornley

Post by w***@aol.com
And the fact that "everybody of a
certain nationality including POWs"
happened to be of enemy nationality
made no difference to you?

Of course not. Does anybody perform ethnic cleansing on people
of friendly nationality? In every case I know of, it meant
getting rid of people the ruling power didn't like.
Germans against Jews, gypsies, etc. Eastern Europeans against
Germans post-war. A host of examples from WWII to the present
day. Got any counterexamples?

The forced evacuation of some Jewish settlements in the West Bank by
the government of Israel might be one.

RW

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:22:50 -0500, Roman W

Post by Roman W

Post by David H Thornley
Of course not. Does anybody perform ethnic cleansing on people
of friendly nationality? In every case I know of, it meant
getting rid of people the ruling power didn't like.
Germans against Jews, gypsies, etc. Eastern Europeans against
Germans post-war. A host of examples from WWII to the present
day. Got any counterexamples?

The forced evacuation of some Jewish settlements in the West Bank by
the government of Israel might be one.

Not to mention the removal of naturalized citizens of Hungarian and
Ukrainian descent in WW1 and Japanese descent in WW2 in both the
United States and Canada. Some of these people had immigrated up to 20
years before the war and there were a couple of cases in WW2 of
"Japanese" who had served in uniform in WW2 in the Canadian and US
armies.

One could mention some WW2 veterans of aboriginal heritage in Canada
who were forced to give up their Indian treaty rights to obtain
post-WW2 land grants given to other veterans.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley

Post by w***@aol.com
On Nov 22, 1:28 pm, David Wilma

Post by David Wilma
It does sound like ethnic
cleansing.

It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing,"

Because everybody of a certain
nationality was involuntarily
removed from where they were
living? Makes sense to me.

And the fact that "everybody of a
certain nationality including POWs"
happened to be of enemy nationality
made no difference to you? Did

Sorry, did the US forcibly remove all civilians from German territory, post-
war? Or did they remove civilians from, say, Okinawa post-war? (Or during the
war, for that matter.)

They didn't, and your arguments are specious.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

...did the US forcibly remove all
civilians from German territory,
post-war?

Why would they remove Germans who
were already in Germany? However,
those Germans who were elsewhere
when the war ended were gradually
repatriated to Germany as post war
conditions in that country were able
to accommodate them. Some who were
interned in the U.S were not
repatriated until as late as 1948.
Your point is irrelevant to
the situation on the Marianas. Each
theater had its own combat, post
combat, and post-war circumstances
to contend with.

WJH

[Rich Rostrom]

...did the US forcibly remove all civilians from
German territory, post-war?

Why would they remove Germans who were already in Germany...

Why would they remove Japanese who
were already in Japan? As you've
carefully managed to not notice, the
Marianas islands were under Japanese
authority before the war, and Japan
was authorized to govern them "as
integral portions of its territory".
(As Mr. Fester pointed out.)

Japanese civilians in the Marianas
were legally the same as Japanese
civilians in Okinawa or Tokyo, and
the same as German civilians in
Bavaria or Berlin.

So, legally, they were already in "Japan".

The practical difference was that none
of them had been there for more than 25
years or so, and the Marianas were not
historically part of Japan nor formally
annexed to Japan's sovereign territory.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Why would they remove Japanese who
were already in Japan?...the
Marianas islands were under Japanese
authority before the war...

They were not "already in Japan." Japan
had only League of Nations authority to
occupy and administer the islands under
the South Pacific Mandate of the League
which did not make them "part of Japan."
Hence, they were not part of Japan, as
you so eloquently point out yourself
in your remarks furher down below.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Japanese civilians in the Marianas
were legally the same as Japanese
civilians in Okinawa or Tokyo

Only insofar as citizenship,and
nationality, not by virtue of
residency in the Marianas. Japan
did not own, they only occupied
and adminstered, the islands under
pre-war League of Nations mandate.

Post by Rich Rostrom
So, legally, they were already in
"Japan".

Nope. They were only Japanese living
on the equivalent of leased property
400 miles distant from Japan in a
group of islands administered under
the South Pacific Mandate of the League
of Nations established after WWI.

Post by Rich Rostrom
the Marianas were not historically
part of Japan nor formally
annexed to Japan's sovereign territory.

Congratulations. By just contradicting
your opening comments above, you managed
by mistake to get the pre-war international
status of the Marianas right.


WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom
Why would they remove Japanese who
were already in Japan?...the
Marianas islands were under Japanese
authority before the war...

They were not "already in Japan." Japan

They were in Japanese territory, by mandate of the League of Nations, which
sanctioned such things "at the time".

Post by w***@aol.com
the South Pacific Mandate of the League
which did not make them "part of Japan."

As pointed out to you, it was a class C mandate, and in the words of the
mandate
"best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of
its territory"

What part of "as integral ports of its territory" is unclear?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Rich Rostrom
Japanese civilians in the Marianas
were legally the same as Japanese
civilians in Okinawa or Tokyo

Only insofar as citizenship,and
nationality, not by virtue of
residency in the Marianas. Japan

Well, that seems to incorrect.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Why would they remove Japanese who
were already in Japan?...the
Marianas islands were under Japanese
authority before the war...

They were not "already in Japan." ....

They were in Japanese territory, by mandate
of the League of Nations, which sanctioned
such things "at the time.

You are talking about the wrong
"at the time."

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
As pointed out to you, it was a class C
mandate,

Too late for that:
When the interned Japanese were repatriated
to Japan, it was 1946 and Japan had alreedy
lost its old Class C mandate:
"After the United Nations was founded
in 1945 and the League of Nations was
disbanded, all but one of the mandated
territories that remained under the control
of the mandatory power became United Nations
trust territories, a roughly equivalent status.
In each case, the colonial power that held the mandate on each
territory became the
administering power of the trusteeship, EXCEPT
THAT JAPAN, which had been defeated in World
War II, lost its mandate over the South Pacific islands, which became
a "strategic
trust territory" known as the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands under United States administration." [Wiki-
Leauge of Nation Mandate]

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Why would they remove Japanese who
were already in Japan?...the
Marianas islands were under Japanese
authority before the war...

They were not "already in Japan." ....

They were in Japanese territory, by mandate
of the League of Nations, which sanctioned
such things "at the time.

You are talking about the wrong "at the time."

Oh, we're not talking about WWII? Or are you confused about when the United
Nations came into being?

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
As pointed out to you, it was a class C
mandate,

Uh, no, it was in fact a Class C mandate "at the time", and was
"best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of
its territory"

Again, pretty clear. The territory was Japanese, by international law, the
people there were living on Japanese soil.

To remove them according to the laws at the time would have required at least
some compensation, legally.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Oh, we're not talking about WWII?
Or are you confused about when the
United Nations came into being?
....it was in fact a Class C mandate
"at the time",....

You are in a state of denial. Let me
try to set you straight. The United
Nations officially came into being in
October of 1945 at which time the
League of Nations no longer existed.
All colonial mandates under the old
League were extended EXCEPT IN
THE CASE OF JAPAN. The Class C
mandate granted to Japan under
the League of Nations was void "at
that time" and the Marianas became
part of the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands under United States
administration.
Japan no longer had connection
with the Marianas. The Japanese
were not repatriated by the U.S until
1946 under the new U.S. mandate.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Again, pretty clear. The territory was
Japanese, by international law, the
people there were living on Japanese
soil. To remove them according to the
laws at the time would have required
at least some compensation, legally.

Nope. You are just totally wrong and
apparently determinsed to remain so..

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Oh, we're not talking about WWII?
Or are you confused about when the
United Nations came into being?
....it was in fact a Class C mandate
"at the time",....

You are in a state of denial. Let me

Nope. The civilians on Saipan were Japanese on Japanese territory. They
were entitled to all protections due them under all international laws
at the time.

Post by w***@aol.com
try to set you straight. The United
Nations officially came into being in
October of 1945 at which time the

war was over.

And they were due compensation if they were removed from lands they had been
living on legally before.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by w***@aol.com
You are in a state of denial. Let me
try to set you straight. The United
Nations officially came into being in
October of 1945 at which time the
League of Nations no longer existed.

De facto that was true. De jure the League of Nations was wound up 12
April 1946 with the final meeting being in Geneva with the sole item
on the agenda being disbandment with the League's remaining assets
being transferred to the United Nations Organization.

There were not to my knowledge any meetings of the League after 1939.

[Chris Morton]

In article
<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@news.eternal-september.org>, Rich
Rostrom says...

Post by Rich Rostrom
Japanese civilians in the Marianas
were legally the same as Japanese
civilians in Okinawa or Tokyo, and
the same as German civilians in
Bavaria or Berlin.

Actually, they would seem more like Americans on Guam or Wake Island.

Similar, but not EXACTLY the same.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

...did the US forcibly remove all
civilians from German territory,
post-war?

Why would they remove Germans who
were already in Germany? However,

Why remove Japanese already on Japanese territory?

Post by w***@aol.com
Your point is irrelevant to
the situation on the Marianas. Each

Uh, no. It's pretty simple, and you're the only one who doesn't get it.
The Japanese had every right to be there, and when removed, were entitled
to compensation.

Mike

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
The Japanese had every right to be there, and when removed, were
entitled to compensation.

As has already been pointed out this was Mandated territory as a result
the Japanese right to be there was dependent on the League of Nations or
it's successor the United Nations. After this Mandate was cancelled the
Japanese had no more rights than other foreigners. British occupation of
a lot of the Middle East was legalised postwar by the United Nations
extending League of Nations Mandates. Egypt was in a different position
as British involvement there went back to the 19th Century.

Ken Young

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
The Japanese had every right to be there, and when removed, were
entitled to compensation.

As has already been pointed out this was Mandated territory as a result
the Japanese right to be there was dependent on the League of Nations or
it's successor the United Nations. After this Mandate was cancelled the
Japanese had no more rights than other foreigners. British occupation of

If that's what was pointed out, it's incorrect.

The Japanese mandate was cancelled by the terms of surrender, regardless of
whether or not the new League of Nations' mandates would have otherwise been
honored.

And none of that addresses the issue of indemnities, whether or not the
captive civilian populace was "enemy alien", or whether repatriation was
forced or voluntary.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

The fact that Japan had a pre-war mandate under the defunct League
of Nations was irrelevant under the rules of international law
with regard to what the U.S. could do after military occupation of
the islands.

However, it was completely relevant to whether the Japanese civilians on the
islands were legal civilians or "enemy aliens", Mr Hopwood.

Mike

[Michele]

Post by w***@aol.com
It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing," a
term commonly applied in more
recent years to atrocities in
connection with the
disintegration of Yugoslavia,
into anything related to the
internment of enemy citizens by
the U.S. in World War II.

Hey, the very issue is whether it is appropriate to call these people "enemy
citizens" and to define their resettlement as "internment". It really does
you no good at all to talk as if that was the reality and not under
discussion.

Post by w***@aol.com
Geneva Conventions
prior to WWII were primarily
concerned with the treatment of
combatants and spoke little as
to the treatment of civilians in
enemy territory or in occupied
areas.

The Geneva Conventions spoke nearly not at all about civilians. OTOH, as you
will certainly remember, the Hague Convention IV did speak a lot about the
rules for the military administration of occupied enemy territories. The
whole Section III of that Convention is dedicated to that.

After seizure of the

Post by w***@aol.com
northern Marianas in 1944 the
U.S. had de facto control of
those islands and under
then-existing Geneva Conventions
U.S. internment of enemy citizens
thereon was legal as it would
still be today.

It's not a good idea to drag into the conversation what would be legal
today, you know. Because after WWII, another Convention was added to the
first 3 Geneva ones, the IV, which specifically dealt with the protection of
civilians. Under that Convention, internment of civilians is legal _if it is
absolutely necessary for the security of the detaining Power_. So the
question would arise as to whether the Japanese nationals, all of them to
the last child, were a threat to the security of the USA, and this in turn
would require digging up official documents of the time stating that it
really was the case.
But internment isn't the end of it, the people were sent back to Japan. If
it happened today, the issue would be whether the move was voluntary or not.
Because forcible deportation, today, is 100% illegal, Art. 49. Even when
such a move would be totally unavoidable out of security concerns, after the
hostilities the guys have to moved back in.
Bottom line, read that Convention before talking about what is legal today.

As to what was legal then, Hague IV specifies that private property must be
respected, or indemnification/compensation paid if it's not so. Individual
rights must be respected. There are no exceptions. The laws in force must
not be changed, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Generally speaking, when one talks about "enemy civilians" in the context of
WWII, one is talking about foreigners, who are citizens of an enemy country,
and who aren't military personnel, who happen to be in a foreign country at
was with their own. Internment was an accepted practice - in _this_ case.
People like the Japanese we are talking about here were called "inhabitants
of occupied territory", not "enemy civilians".

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Michele

Post by w***@aol.com
It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing,"....
into anything related to the
internment of enemy citizens by
the U.S. in World War II.

Hey, the very issue is whether it
is > appropriate to call these
people "enemy citizens"

Well, hey! They were the enemy and
they were citizens of enemy
nationality so what's wrong with
calling them what they were, i.e.,
"enemy citizens"?

Post by Michele
...and to define their resettlement
as "internment".

Hey again! Nobody called their
resettlement "internment." That was
called "repatriation," which was what
it was.

Post by Michele
It really does you no good at all
to talk as if that was the reality
and not under discussion.

Well, it was the reality and we are
now discussing that reality. so why
would you think it wasn't under
discussion?

Post by Michele
... the Hague Convention IV did
speak a lot about the rules for the
military administration of occupied
enemy territories. The whole Section
III of that Convention is dedicated
to that.

So? Nowhere was the subject of the
"internment" and/or the "repatriation"
of enemy civilians prohibited so why
all the hoopla about the alleged
provisions of a 1910 Annex to a
1898-1907 document which no one seems
able to specify?
The crux of this thread is about
whether or not the U.S. WWII action to
intern and repatriate Japanese POWs
and civilians of enemy nationality in
the Marianas was in violation of some
alleged provisions of the Hague
Conventions of 1898/1907/1910 which
nobody has produced.

Post by Michele
....after WWII, another Convention
was added to the first 3 Geneva ones,
the IV, which specifically dealt with
the protection of civilians. Under
that Convention, internment of
civilians is legal _if it is
absolutely necessary for the
security of the detaining Power...

It was legal under the pre-war Hague
rules also and for the same reasons.

Post by Michele
So the question would arise as to
whether the Japanese nationals, all
of them to the last child, were a
threat to the security of the USA....

Stop. You're breaking my heart. When
it came to children it was obvious
that they were no threat but for both
logistic and humanitarian reasons, if
the parents wanted their children
to accompany them into internment,
they could so request and a special
provision titled "voluntary internment"
was created by which a parent or
guardian could "volunteer" the child to
accompany the parent(s) or guardian(s)
into internment. The same provision was
made in the case of persons of Japanese
ancestry who were interned or were
relocated for security reasons from
military areas on the West Coast of the
U.S. in WWII. In the former case, all
non-voluntary internees were Japanese
nationals In the latter case a substantial
majority of the adults were Japanese
nationals. The "Japanese-Americans" we
hear so much about were predominatly minor
children "volunteered" by their parents
to accompany the parents into internment.

Post by Michele
....But internment isn't the end of it, the
people were sent back to Japan. If
it happened today forcible deportation,
today, is 100% illegal Art. 49. Even when
such a move would be totally unavoidable
out of security concerns

Nobody was sent back to Japan from the
U.S. who did not want to go at war's end.
But in the Marianas, there was plenty of
of logistical reason to repatriate them,
voluntarily or not. As it turned out,
however, (as already noted on this thread), requests from the
internees to stay in the
Marianas were noteworthy by their absence.
In the U.S. several thousand
Japanese internees did want to return to
Japan, but most of those wanted to come
back to the U.S. later when they found
post-war Japan to be a basket case.
There is now an 83 page
instruction prepared by the Army on just
how internment situations should be
handled.
(Army Reg. 190-8 dtd 1 Nov. 1997 Military
Police) So in the U.S., internments and repatriations are contemplated
and prepared
for in cases of war or other extenuating circumstances.

Post by Michele
As to what was legal then, Hague IV
specifies that private property must be
respected, or indemnification/compensation
paid if it's not so.

But there are numerous exceptions and only
if the rules as to what can be confiscated
are broken can the possibility of
compensation exist and the red tape involved
in proving such a claim is voluminous.

Post by Michele
Generally speaking, when one talks about
"enemy civilians" in the context of WWII,
one is talking about foreigners, who are
citizens of an enemy country,

Of course. Who else would they be?

Post by Michele
and who aren't military personnel, who
happen to be in a foreign country at
was (war?) with their own. Internment
was an accepted practice - in _this_
case.

Sure. And "enemy civilians" can also be
living in their own country which could
be under occupation by an enemy country
and as enemies of the occupying power
they can be interned at the discretion of
the occupying power in their own country
as a precautionary measure for security
reasons. Indeed, rules governing
internment in wartime are quite broad.
Even citizens of belligerent nations, as
well as military equipment belonging
thereto, may become subject to internment
by a neutral nation in which they may
happen to find themselves.

Post by Michele
People like the Japanese we are talking
about here were called "inhabitants of
occupied territory", not "enemy civilians".

No. to define exactly who they were they
would need to be called "enemy civilians"
which is because that is exactly what they
were.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele

Post by w***@aol.com
It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing,"....
into anything related to the
internment of enemy citizens by
the U.S. in World War II.

Hey, the very issue is whether it
is > appropriate to call these
people "enemy citizens"

Well, hey! They were the enemy and
they were citizens of enemy
nationality so what's wrong with
calling them what they were, i.e.,
"enemy citizens"?

They were the civilians under US occupation. The US had the obligation
under international law to protect them under the circumstances.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
...and to define their resettlement
as "internment".

Hey again! Nobody called their
resettlement "internment." That was
called "repatriation," which was what
it was.

Which he is calling "ethnic cleansing".

When you remove all people of a certain targetted group from a given area,
that term can apply.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...they were citizens of
enemy nationality so what's
wrong with calling them...
"enemy citizens"?

They were the civilians under
US occupation. The US had the
obligation under international
law to protect them under the
circumstances.

So? The U.S.protected them. Why
would you think otherwise. The
U.S.military commander or his
designate also had the authority
under Hague IV to exclude (read
repatriate) and the right to
restrict(intern) them under U.S.
Presidential Executive Order 9066.
F.Y.I similar authority still
exists today for wartime military
commanders in similar circumstances.
See joint armed forces publication
AR 190-8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI
31-304/MCO 3461.1 "Enemy Prisoners
of War, Retained Personnel,Other
Detainees."

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
...."ethnic cleansing". When you
remove all people of a certain
targetted group from a given area,
that term can apply.

I'm sure you realize that in view
of today's common usage of that term,
to use it in this case is to imply
that the Japanese enemy civilians
in the Marianas received much worse
treatment while in U.S. hands than
they really did. But if one wants to
be disingenuous that's a good way to
go.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...they were citizens of
enemy nationality so what's
wrong with calling them...
"enemy citizens"?

They were the civilians under
US occupation. The US had the
obligation under international
law to protect them under the
circumstances.

So? The U.S.protected them. Why

And compensated them for their losses, yes?

Post by w***@aol.com
See joint armed forces publication
AR 190-8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI
31-304/MCO 3461.1 "Enemy Prisoners
of War, Retained Personnel,Other
Detainees."

I believe Mr Thornley already covered this much better than you did.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
...."ethnic cleansing". When you
remove all people of a certain
targetted group from a given area,
that term can apply.

I'm sure you realize that in view
of today's common usage of that term,

Again, you develop a sudden case of political correctness about terms when
such terms shine a negative light on your prejudices.

However, pick a term that doesn't violate your delicate sensibilities that
involves removing all people of a given group from an area. Then explain
why THAT term doesn't apply here.

Mike

[Michele]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele

Post by w***@aol.com
It baffles me how you can drag
the term "ethnic cleansing,"....
into anything related to the
internment of enemy citizens by
the U.S. in World War II.

Hey, the very issue is whether it
is > appropriate to call these
people "enemy citizens"

Well, hey! They were the enemy and
they were citizens of enemy
nationality so what's wrong with
calling them what they were, i.e.,
"enemy citizens"?

What's wrong is that by calling them "enemy citizens", a confusion arises -
certainly not deliberate on your part, but it arises nevertheless - between
the position of inhabitants of occupied territories, which these people in
Saipan were, and "enemy aliens", which were, for instance, German nationals
in the USA.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
...and to define their resettlement
as "internment".

Hey again! Nobody called their
resettlement "internment." That was
called "repatriation," which was what
it was.

Was it, now? A baby born in Saipan and having lived all his life in Saipan
is "repatriated" by being sent away from his home land? An adult being born
in Japan but having taken up domicile in Saipan, bought a house in Saipan,
having his livelihood in Saipan, is "repatriated" by being sent away from
his home?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
It really does you no good at all
to talk as if that was the reality
and not under discussion.

Well, it was the reality and we are
now discussing that reality. so why
would you think it wasn't under
discussion?

The attempt on your part to portray the matter of contention as if it were a
settled matter.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
... the Hague Convention IV did
speak a lot about the rules for the
military administration of occupied
enemy territories. The whole Section
III of that Convention is dedicated
to that.

So? Nowhere was the subject of the
"internment" and/or the "repatriation"
of enemy civilians prohibited so why
all the hoopla about the alleged
provisions of a 1910 Annex to a
1898-1907 document which no one seems
able to specify?

"alleged provisions"? "no one seems able to specify"? Look them up for
yourself.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument

Yes, they do not mention explicitly the subjects of internment and
repatriation.

Post by w***@aol.com
The crux of this thread is about
whether or not the U.S. WWII action to
intern and repatriate Japanese POWs
and civilians of enemy nationality in
the Marianas was in violation of some
alleged provisions of the Hague
Conventions of 1898/1907/1910 which
nobody has produced.

However they do mention what I already mentioned. Since you insist on having
the letter of the articles spelled out to you:

"SECTION III
MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into
the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his
power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the
country."

So it would be up to the US administration to show that they absolutely had
to change the laws of the place in order to dispossess the civilians and
herd them away. Unless, of course, evidence is provided that they did want
to go away of their own will, to a man - evidence that nobody has produced.


"Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private
property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 47. Pillage is formally forbidden."

So were the Japanese nationals at least indemnified for the loss of their
private property?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
....after WWII, another Convention
was added to the first 3 Geneva ones,
the IV, which specifically dealt with
the protection of civilians. Under
that Convention, internment of
civilians is legal _if it is
absolutely necessary for the
security of the detaining Power...

It was legal under the pre-war Hague
rules also and for the same reasons.

Post by Michele
So the question would arise as to
whether the Japanese nationals, all
of them to the last child, were a
threat to the security of the USA....

Stop. You're breaking my heart. When
it came to children it was obvious
that they were no threat but for both
logistic and humanitarian reasons,

Good, so were the adults a threat? In sapian in 1945, when they were booted
out, not in the Continental USA in 1942, when they might possibly be spies
or saboteurs.

Is there a document showing that the US military administraiton in Saipan
really thought the Japanese adults were a threat to the security of the USA?

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
....But internment isn't the end of it, the
people were sent back to Japan. If
it happened today forcible deportation,
today, is 100% illegal Art. 49. Even when
such a move would be totally unavoidable
out of security concerns

Nobody was sent back to Japan from the
U.S. who did not want to go at war's end.
But in the Marianas, there was plenty of
of logistical reason to repatriate them,
voluntarily or not. As it turned out,
however, (as already noted on this thread), requests from the
internees to stay in the
Marianas were noteworthy by their absence.

Likewise noteworthy for their absence is any document supporting the case,
legally or security-wise, for their "repatriation".

In short, we do not know that they went away voluntarily, just as we do not
know that they were forcibly deported.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
As to what was legal then, Hague IV
specifies that private property must be
respected, or indemnification/compensation
paid if it's not so.

But there are numerous exceptions and only
if the rules as to what can be confiscated
are broken can the possibility of
compensation exist and the red tape involved
in proving such a claim is voluminous.

Numerous exceptions in what? In the text of Hague IV 1907? So what's all the
hoopla about nobody providing the text, if you know its contents?
In any case, the numerous exceptions all boil down to the fact that if
private property is taken, it must be paid, preferably in cash (Art. 52),
and/or a valid receipt should be issued by the military authority (Art. 51
and 52).

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
Generally speaking, when one talks about
"enemy civilians" in the context of WWII,
one is talking about foreigners, who are
citizens of an enemy country,

Of course. Who else would they be?

Post by Michele
and who aren't military personnel, who
happen to be in a foreign country at
was (war?) with their own. Internment
was an accepted practice - in _this_
case.

Sure. And "enemy civilians" can also be
living in their own country which could
be under occupation by an enemy country
and as enemies of the occupying power
they can be interned at the discretion of
the occupying power in their own country
as a precautionary measure for security
reasons.

So do you know about security issues in the Marianas? Were they reported,
documented? Do you know about any act of guerrilla or sabotage? Were these
at least _feared_ by the occupying military administration? Did they put
that in writing?


Indeed, rules governing

Post by w***@aol.com
internment in wartime are quite broad.
Even citizens of belligerent nations, as
well as military equipment belonging
thereto, may become subject to internment
by a neutral nation in which they may
happen to find themselves.

The huge chasm into which you are, certainly inadvertently, falling, is the
difference in jurisdiction and applicability of the Hague Conventions.

An Italian citizen in Britain after June 1940 is only subject to British
laws and to customary international law. The British authorities may enact
the laws they want about this man's position, and, if they don't break some
very old and general custom concerning the international relations among
belligerents, thus something that's enshrined in the customs of the nations,
they're fine.
But once the British land in Sicily, the British will find Italian citizens
there - and they will have to comply with additional provisions, in dealing
with them. The provisions of Section III, Hague Convention IV 1907. Guess
what, this gives the Italian citizen in Sicily more rights than the Italian
citizen in Liverpool.
Why? Because these Italians aren't "enemy civilians" abroad. They are
"inhabitants of occupied territory".

Even without resorting to the international laws, it only stands to very
simple reason that a belligerent has more leeway in making the rules for his
own backyard, than in making them once he's got boots on enemy ground.

If we also know a little bit of history of international law, we will now
remember that the reason why the Hague Conventions got a section about the
military administration of occupied territories was, as it often is the case
with international law, the dissatisfaction with the previous state of
things - or to put it more bluntly, the fact that occupying armies had done
what the heck they had wanted on enemy territory in, for instance, the
Napoleonic wars and the war of 1870.

So hypothesizing that the position of a foreigner on enemy territory and
that of a local in his own home when the foreigners are the occupying
soldiers are the same, not only goes against a basic knowledge of
international law as it was in 1939, but also against simple reason and
against a knowledge of history.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michele
People like the Japanese we are talking
about here were called "inhabitants of
occupied territory", not "enemy civilians".

No. to define exactly who they were they
would need to be called "enemy civilians"
which is because that is exactly what they
were.

The "exact definition" is one that suits yourself, but it's not the one used
by the Hague Convention IV. Since you seem to know it contents,
notwithstanding your complaints that nobody seems able to deliver it, please
look it up for yourself.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by w***@aol.com
Nobody was sent back to Japan from the

Post by w***@aol.com
U.S. who did not want to go at war's end.
But in the Marianas, there was plenty of
of logistical reason to repatriate them,
voluntarily or not. As it turned out,
however, (as already noted on this thread), requests from the
internees to stay in the
Marianas were noteworthy by their absence.

Perhaps not but French citizens of Russian descent (i.e. children of
"White Russians") who had taken German uniform during the war WERE
forcibly 'repatriated' to the Soviet Union in 1945 despite being born
outside Russia post-1917 and thus never having owed any sort of
allegiance to the Bolshevik regime.

If they were found in consort with Soviet citizens (which in that era
also referred to those native to territories that were acquired by
Russia after 1 Sept 1939 - i.e. Balts, Poles and western Ukrainians)
in German uniform that was deemed to be 'good enough'.

Tolstoy suggests in The Last Secret that among those handed over was a
small number of people who the Soviets had never in fact actually
asked for. This was a key part of his defence in his libel suit
brought by Lord Addington in 1990 (going from memory here - not sure
on the exact date of the lawsuit). The other key part in his defence
was his claim that the British Ministry of Defence had removed
documents from the public records which by not being available damaged
his claims of truth.

[GFH]

Post by David Wilma
I was listening to an author describe some of the movement
of populations in Europe after 1945 and I recalled that the
Japanese had settled many islands in the Pacific in the
decades before the war. Wiki says that most of the
surviving settlers were "repatriated" to Japan. Do we
have another case of ethnic cleansing? Saipan became
a U.S. trust territory. Was this repatriation compulsory?
Was it instigated by the U.S. or local authorities? Any
reparations for lost property?
David Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com

In other words, yes.

GFH

[David Wilma]

Backing up. After the Turkish and Greek war of the
early 1920s the movement of populations became something
of an accepted action. We call it today ethnic cleansing, but
not the term applied at the time. In 1945, there occurred
massive movements of populations, particularly ethnic Germans
from places like East Prussia, the Sudetenland, and western
Poland. I read one figure of 10 million people involuntarily
relocated because of their ethnicity. Some of these people had
resided in those areas for generations. Most of this took
place after the war ended. I don't know what legal framework
was applied to these movements other than bayonets. It
probably depended upon the national power exercising the
deportations.

This is distinct from actions against "enemy aliens" during
wartime. One can suppose that enemy aliens can be interned and
relocated as a wartime measure, but this is different than the
seizure and forfeiture of their assets including real property. In
the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain people were interned and
relocated, but I don't think their properties were seized.

The question in the Marianas starts with the circumstances of
the residence of the Japanese settlers. Were they employees of
plantations like in Hawaii or did they own or lease land? How
were they treated once resistance on the islands ended? What
was the legal mechanism for removing them back to Japan? The
war was over so they weren't enemies.

If their properties were seized for whatever reason, who took title?

Whatever happened I say it was the same ethnic cleansing that
took place in Europe.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by David Wilma
The question in the Marianas starts with the circumstances of
the residence of the Japanese settlers. Were they employees of
plantations like in Hawaii or did they own or lease land? How
were they treated once resistance on the islands ended? What
was the legal mechanism for removing them back to Japan? The
war was over so they weren't enemies.

David,

Being curious, I looked to see whether there were any articles on the
subject. The most appropriate citation I found was: Trefalt, Beatrice
(12/01/2009). "After the Battle for Saipan: the Internment of Japanese
Civilians at Camp Susupe, 1944-1946.". Japanese studies (1037-1397), 29
(3), p. 337. I wasn't able to read the article; University of Washington
doesn't have electronic access to articles in this journal after 2005.
You might be able to ILL a copy.

There's also
Hughes, Matthew (01/01/2011). "War Without Mercy? American Armed Forces
and the Deaths of Civilians during the Battle for Saipan, 1944.". The
Journal of military history (0899-3718), 75 (1), p. 93. Again, same
story - no electronic access to that issue.

There was another Hughes article in History Today that I was able to
read. The useful information from that was that most of the civilian
population, presumably the Okinawans and Koreans, were plantation labor,
presumably with a higher strata of skilled workers, managers and
professionals, likely to be Home Island Japanese. When Soldiers Kill
Civilians. By: Hughes, Matthew, History Today, 00182753, Feb2010, Vol.
60, Issue 2.

Stephen

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham
Being curious, I looked to see whether there
were any articles on the subject. There's...
Hughes, Matthew (01/01/2011). "War Without
Mercy? American Armed Forces and the
Deaths of Civilians during the Battle for Saipan,
1944.". The Journal of military history...no
electronic access to that issue.

I have a oopy of the above article which is
available electronically to members of the
Society for Military History and is a review
of an article by Prof. John Dower in another
publication titled: "War Without Mercy: Race
and Power in the Pacific War."

Apparently in the initial article by Dower
his main theme was to set forth his view
that the war in the Pacific was far more
savage and violet on the part of both Japan
and the U.S. than the war in Europe
because of a parallel degree pf "racism" in
both the Japanese and American culture that
left no room for mercy by either side.

Hughes, in his critique of the Dower view,
in essence asserts that the Dower position
does not take into consideration a number
of other factors not having to do with
ideology, and goes on for 32 pages to
describe in detail the battle for Saipan in
which he makes a number of interesting
points that are not often covered in many of
the other reports I have seen.
Among these are that the number of
civilians on Saipan during the battle has
not been determined with accuracy. Estimates
ranged from as high as 30,000 to as low
as 21,000. Hughes seems to feel that the
30,000 number is close to the truth, the
majority being Japanese and Korean.
Hughes also notes that Japan had
evacuated 5,000 of it's civilians to mainland
Japan before the battle, which further confused
the number of those remaining. He also
notes that many civilians were enrolled with
Japanese military units as labor battalions
and it was difficult for Americans to tell the
difference between them and Japanese
military as they worked with and for the
military and wore identical military
clothing as the Japanese soldiers and
some carried weapons and were seen
to fight side by side with Japanese troops
against the Americans.
As for the U.S. administrative
personnel, Hughes indicates that they
were ill-prepared to deal with civilian
populations, particularly Japanese, and
that such military government personnel
were attached to the Army 27th Division
and few in number.
A surprise they did not expect was that
there had been no apparent love lost
between the Japanese and the island's
indigenous Chamorros people, many of
whom had openly greeted the arrival
of the U.S. troops,In fact, the Japanese
were seen to have used the Chamorros
as shields during the battle.
According to Hughes, the number
of suicides by Japanese during the battle
was considerably exaggerated in later
reports because it made an impressive
story. In his view, the number of actual
suicides from cliff-jumping and other means
was less than 1,000 but that a total of
10-12,000 civilians had died as a result of
the battle, and that included 1,000
Chamorros. At the end of the battle, he
says, 18,000 civilians remained of which
13,500 were Japanese, about half being
children.
As for the some 30,000 Japanese
military at the start of the battle, 25,392
were killed and 1734 (896 being Japanese
and 838 Korean) survived. What could
have occurred to the approx remaining
Japanese soldiers of the original 30,000
(about 2800) was not disclosed but they
were probably MIAs. Ironically, two Japanese
flag officers who committed hara kiri after
their defeat, were buried with full military
honors by American forces.
In his concluding remarks, Hughes
summed up his review with the comments
excerpted below
"On Saipan the invading U.S.forces
lacked the will to take seriously the problem
of civilians caught up in a war zone....
(with) psychological as well as material
unpreparedness......However in bitter combat
on a small island like Saipan there was
little that could have been done practically
to secure the safety of the noncombatants
present, short of the Americans not
invading or a mass surrender by the Japanese.
....The argument that the proper treatment
of civilians relies in on effective pre-battle
preparation provides a lazy, partial answer
to a more profound issue...both instrumental
and ideological factors were responsible for
civilian deaths on Saipan. Japanese national
ideology, culture, and notions of honor explain
why many civilians chose to kill themselves
and why Japanese soldiers helped them
commit suicide, before killing themselves.
The Americans also saw their enemy in
ideological terms...(helping) to explain why
they paid so little attention to the care of
civilians on Saipan during the battle...leaving
he troops on the ground to decide what to do
with civilians."

WJH

[Michael Emrys]

In the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain people were interned and
relocated, but I don't think their properties were seized.

I am not the authority on this, but I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property held by ethnic Japanese who were interned in
the US. My understanding is that they were not compensated for their
loss or were compensated at far below market values. In any event, many
were wiped out and had to start over again after the war. And this even
though they had not committed any disloyal act against the US.

Michael

[David Wilma]

Post by Michael Emrys
I am not the authority on this, but I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property held by ethnic Japanese who were interned in
the US. My understanding is that they were not compensated for their
loss or were compensated at far below market values. In any event, many
were wiped out and had to start over again after the war. And this even
though they had not committed any disloyal act against the US.

Foreign born Japanese, Issei, were not permitted to own property in states
of the West Coast. These usually rented land or space for businesses and
simply walked away from rental agreements and leases.

Nissei could own property. Here in Seattle there are stories of Caucasian
spouses and friends maintaining property while the owners were "in camp."

I read about some scrap aluminum foil that was "seized" as a strategic material from
an Issei-owned business, but this was of little financial consequence. The
business was in rented space in the Pike Place Market.

I know of no instances where property was seized from citizens of
enemy nations.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Michael Emrys
I am not the authority on this, but
I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property held by
ethnic Japanese who were interned in
the US.

Since you know little about the matter
let me give you some info you should have.
What items the Japanese could not
carry or cars driven by evacuees to the
relocation camps were placed in custody
of bonded bonded warehouses or with the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
which acted as custodians for the evacuees.
The Farm Security Agency was responsible for
taking care of evacuee farm problems,
and an Alien Property Custodian was
appointed to coordinate and oversee the administration of economic
situations
arising from the evacuation.
There were, however, some economic
losses by evacuees because of confusion, bureaucratic red tape and
fringe area
swindlers who took advantage of the evacuees.
After the war, the U.S. government
set up a program to compensate for such
losses which considered claims for almost
ten years as a result of the Evacuation
Claims Act of 1948. I detailed this program
in a prior post on this thread.

Post by Michael Emrys
My understanding is that they
were not compensated for their
loss or were compensated at far below
market values.

So some claimed, although the U.S.
made considerable efforts in the
1950s through the Evacuation Claims
Act to compensate legitimate losses.
Over 26,000 claims were settled and
only 15 were ever appealled.
But no good deed ever goes
unpunished. In the 1970s much
misinformation was widely disseminated
by political action groups on behalf
of the former internees and evacuees
(including enemy aliens and Japanese
Americans who renounced their U.S.
citizenship)in efforts to collect large
sums of money from the government for
so-called redress and reparations.
And they succeeded in doing so. Many
PJA families got quite wealthy in the
process.
And the misinformation continues
today through the establishment of what
in many countries would be called a Ministry
of Propaganda." This office pays out thousands
of dollars each year in grant money to "educate"
school children about the evils perpetrated
by our wartime government during WWII in the
evacuation of PJAs from the West Coast for
security reasons and the internment of enemy
aliens arrested by the FBI on security charges.
Those events, they claim was motivated solely
by "racism."

Post by Michael Emrys
In any event, many were wiped out and had
to start over again after the war.

No more than many, GI veterans of WWII who
got shot at besides and didn't get a $20,000
bonus each for sitting out the war in relative
comfort in a relocation center or internment
camp.

Post by Michael Emrys
And this even though they had not
committed any disloyal act against
the US.

Except for the thousands of them who did and
were arrested and interned by the FBI on
security chages, and the thousands who
renounced their U.S. citizenship, and the
were exposed by the breaking of the pre-war Japanese codes by the
communication
intellgence divisions of the U.S. Army and
Navy.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by Michael Emrys
I am not the authority on this, but
I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property held by
ethnic Japanese who were interned in
the US.

Since you know little about the matter
let me give you some info you should have.

Well, he seems to have a good grasp of it. In fact, Ronald Reagan even
apologized for that very thing more than 40 years later.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

On Nov 25, 5:19 pm, Michael Emrys

Post by Michael Emrys
I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property...by
...Japanese...interned in the US.

Since you know little about the matter
let me give you some info you should have.

....Ronald Reagan even apologized for that
very thing more than 40 years later.

Biggest mistake he ever made. Except,perhaps
laying that wreath at Bitburg where the
German SS were buried. Some may say these
could have been early symptoms of his later
bout with Alzheimers.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

On Nov 25, 5:19 pm, Michael Emrys

Post by Michael Emrys
I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property...by
...Japanese...interned in the US.

Since you know little about the matter
let me give you some info you should have.

....Ronald Reagan even apologized for that
very thing more than 40 years later.

Biggest mistake he ever made.

People who have studied this far more than you disagree.

History, and most historians, seem to conclude that the compensation was
insufficient and the apology merited.

The revisionist school of thought has much to do to make a case, and has
yet to do so.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Michael Emrys

In the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain people were interned and
relocated, but I don't think their properties were seized.

I am not the authority on this, but I think there was considerable
forfeiture of real property held by ethnic Japanese who were interned in
the US. My understanding is that they were not compensated for their
loss or were compensated at far below market values. In any event, many
were wiped out and had to start over again after the war. And this even
though they had not committed any disloyal act against the US.

That was also the case in Canada.

My late grandfather was a commercial fisherman in the years before
Pearl Harbor and he says the ethnic Japanese community pre-war tended
to stay to themselves and avoid mainstream society. (The is in stark
contrast to post-war where they have been one of the most integrated
communities anywhere) He said it was the belief of most fisherman that
some of the "Japanese fishermen" seemed more interested in patrolling
and mapping than catching fish but these individuals were not seen
after September/October 1941. (This is of course next to impossible
one way or another 70 years after the fact) He also believed there
were no disloyal "Japanese fisherman" on the coast at the time of
Pearl Harbor and the Canadian evidence supports that.

Certainly captured Japanese maps of those waters were by no means
inferior to Canadian / American maps - but whether this was due to
clever purchasing of commercial maps or espionage can't be proven.

Many Japanese Canadians were interned and many either themselves or
through their children accompolished great things - the best known
cases probably being geneticist David Suzuki or National Hockey League
star Paul Kariya (whose father I knew personally - and was a real life
"Mr Miyagi" - you simply would not want to cross T K Kariya!)

[w***@aol.com]

...In 1945, there occurred massive
movements of populations....
This is distinct from actions against
"enemy aliens" during wartime.

I agree, but it also follows that movements
of enemy civilians in wartime such as
with "internments" and "repatriations," are
normal and expected consequences of
wars between nations, not wars between
races. Accordingly, to re-name such
long-ago movements "ethnic cleansing" in
the current generally accepted meaning of
the term more than 65 years later, is to
falsify history.

One can suppose that enemy aliens can
be interned and relocated as a wartime
measure, but this is different than the
seizure and forfeiture of their assets
including real property.

Agreed in general, but then one would have
to show where such seizures had actually
taken place without compensation. It is
easy to make broad and unsubstantiated
claims, and not all claims are legitimate.
For instance, after the war ended
the U.S. Congress passed the Evacuation
Claims Act of 1948 as Amended through
the 1950s to indemnify losses sustained
by persons of Japanese ancestry who were
relocated from West Coast war zones in
WWII. Over 26,568 claims were filed
totalling $148,000,000, the maximum
allowed being $100,000 each. Provision
was made for those not satisfied with the
Government's offer of settlement
to appeal to the U.S. Court of Claims.
The U.S. distributed approx $37,000, 000
and only 15 cases were ever appealed to
the U.S. Court of Claims.
In the fog of war, many things
happen which would not happen in
less violent times. And so-called seizures
of assets may have not been seizures
at all, but the result of societal disruptions
caused by the war. Claims arising as a
result of the occupation by an enemy
power on one side or the other, are
particularly hard to substantiate for those
reasons and are best addressed during
post-war peace treaty negotiations.

In the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain
people were interned and relocated, but
I don't think their properties were seized.

Speaking for the U.S,, that's correct,and
I'm confident that was true for Canada and
Britain as well.

The question in the Marianas starts with
the circumstances of the residence of the
Japanese settlers....

When the battle was over the war wasn't
over so the surviving Marianas Japanese
military (if captured) became POWs. The
surviving Japanese civilians, as enemy
nationals, became subject to internment
and were interned.

What was the legal mechanism for
removing them back to Japan? The war
was over so they weren't enemies.

The hostilities had ceased with Japan's
surrender but the war was technically not
over until a peace treaty was signed 6
years later. Accordingly, surviving
civilians maintained their enemy status for
administrative purposes and were
repatriated when conditions in Japan
permitted. The U.S. military commander
in the Marianas was authorized to take
such action under existing international law
and U.S. Executive Order 9066. There is
no evidence that I know of that any of the
Japanese in the Marianas objected to their
repatriation but if any had, it is not likely
that they would have been returned to Japan
inasmuch as it was U.S. policy with regard
to those Japanese interned on mainland
USA not to repatriate any who did not want
to be repatriated.
.

If their properties were seized for whatever
reason, who took title?

A rhetorical question inasmuch as there seems
to be no evidence that any property was seized.

Whatever happened I say it was the same
ethnic cleansing that took place in Europe.

And I would say you have no legitimate reason
for that belief. The two situations were miles
apart in circumstances and logistics.

WJH

[David Wilma]

I went out and answered my own question. Stephen
Graham sent me some citations which I was able to
locate in the stacks of the University of Washington
Libraries. The best information comes from Beatrice
Trefalt's Japanese Army stragglers and memories
of the war in Japan, 1950-1975, pp. 24-30.

At the end of the War in the Pacific there were an
estimated 6 million Japanese (including subjects
from Taiwan, Okinawa, and Korea) outside of Japan,
about half of whom were civilians. Even before the
surrender documents were signed the Japanese
government made plans to repatriate its subjects
through the Office for Welfare of Repatriates
(later Bureau of Repatriate Welfare). Basically
the Japanese government assumed that all Japanese
were supposed to be in Japan. This process was
managed by the Japanese with a little help by the
Allies (shipping).

With the fall of Saipan some 16,000 civilians including
about a thousand Chamorros were in U.S. camps mostly
because their homes had been destroyed. Probably half
of these were children. The Japanese defenders had
incorporated many civilians into their formations so
civilians and POWs were pretty much the same thing
to the Army and Marines.

In the sources I examined there was no discussion of
enemy civilians or internees on Saipan although these
terms could apply along with refugee and displaced
person. It was the Japanese who said these are our
citizens and we want them home.

According to Matthew Hughes in an article in The
Journal of Military History (Vol. 75, Issue 1) 90 percent
of Saipan's civilians survived the battle which he
acknowledges is different than the larger figures
normally quoted.

As for the ethnic cleansing term I proposed I say it
still applies even if it was the Japanese doing the
repatriation. Semantics.

What is interesting to me is that the Japanese did not
apparently attempt to repatriate persons of
Japanese descent in Hawaii or the U.S.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by David Wilma
What is interesting to me is that the Japanese did not
apparently attempt to repatriate persons of
Japanese descent in Hawaii or the U.S.

Well, they weren't Japanese.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by David Wilma
What is interesting to me is that the
Japanese did not apparently attempt
to repatriate persons of Japanese
descent in Hawaii or the U.S.

Well, they weren't Japanese.

Oh, but about 85,000 of them were.
According to the 1940 U.S.census,
there were then approx 47,000 Japanese
nationals living in the U.S. and
37,000 in Hawaii. After Pearl Harbor,
11,000 had been arrested by the FBI on
security charges and interned. Another
38,000 of them on the mainland were
evacuated from the West Coast. Thus
close to 50,000 Japanese nationals
living in Hawaii and on the mainland
were either interned or relocated during
WWII. But another approx 35,000 Japanese
nationals, most in Hawaii, were neither
interned nor relocated, just left alone.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by David Wilma
What is interesting to me is that the
Japanese did not apparently attempt
to repatriate persons of Japanese
descent in Hawaii or the U.S.

Well, they weren't Japanese.

Oh, but about 85,000 of them were.

No, Mr Hopwood, they were Americans, either natural born or barred from
naturalizing. They had already "voted with their feet".

To declare otherwise is flatly racist.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...the Japanese did not...attempt
to repatriate...Japanese...
in Hawaii or the U.S.

Well, they weren't Japanese.

Oh, but about 85,000 of them were.

No, Mr Hopwood, they were Americans,
...They had already "voted with their
feet".To declare otherwise is flatly
racist.

You've got to be kidding, or if not,
showing solid proof of a state of
denial. The 85,000 were born in Japan
of Japanese parents and were immigrants
to the U.S. mainland and Hawaii. To call
the cencus-takers or anyone else "racist"
for classifying them as anything other
than what they were, which was Japanese
nationals, is tantamount to claiming
that the moon is made of green cheeze.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

...the Japanese did not...attempt
to repatriate...Japanese...
in Hawaii or the U.S.

Well, they weren't Japanese.

Oh, but about 85,000 of them were.

No, Mr Hopwood, they were Americans,
...They had already "voted with their
feet".To declare otherwise is flatly
racist.

You've got to be kidding, or if not,

No. As always, you cannot distinguish between Japanese (ie, residents of
Saipan, Okinawa, Japan) and those who left, becoming de facto (if not
de jure) Americans. This is racist. Those in Hawaii and the US were Americans,
as stated. That they were barred from naturalizing (a fact you contiually
fail to address) doesn't change that. And even AFTER the war, when their
adopted country locked them up for their race (regardless of citizenship),
they stayed.

The rest of the nation came to terms with this some time ago. There was
an apology, and admission of wrong. Only revisionists such as yourself
hold out.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

....you cannot distinguish between
Japanese (ie, residents of...Japan)
and those who left, becoming de facto
(if not de jure) Americans. This is
racist.

I don't mind the name-calling, but really,
what utter nonsense. There was no such thing
as a "de facto" American citizen who was not
also a "de jure" American citizen, either
during WWII or now, particularly in the
case of enemy aliens. If one was an enemy
alien after Pearl Harbor, one was classified
as such and subject to internment under international law.
Not all Japanese enemy aliens were
interned but those who were, and there were
thousands of them, were given individual
hearings before enemy alien control boards
and if found to be security risks which
many were, they were interned. Others thought
to be "possible" security risks on the basis
of military intelligence were not interned
but moved from sensitive areas as a
precautionary measure, an action found to be necessary and appropriate
under the
circumstances by the Supreme Court in a 1944 decision which that body
has never reversed.
The fact that political expediency
more than four decades later led to
compensation and apologies was not considered
a remote possibility "at the time" by those responsible for national
security. But
latter-day ideology superceded wartime reality.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

....you cannot distinguish between
Japanese (ie, residents of...Japan)
and those who left, becoming de facto
(if not de jure) Americans. This is
racist.

I don't mind the name-calling, but really,
what utter nonsense.

No, "non-sense" is claiming US citizens of Japanese descent are really
Japanese.

Post by w***@aol.com
There was no such thing
as a "de facto" American citizen who was not

You like to insert words, to argue points you think you can handle, rather
than address what is said. Perhaps that is among the (many) reasons you
have been unable to convert people to your revisionist POV.

I said "de facto Americans", not "de facto American citizens". In fact, (as
you deleted), they could not naturalize by law, so were left being actual
Americans, without the benefit of citizenship, though they had lived in the
US a minimum of 20 years by the time the war was over.

Those who were not born in the US were Americans; they lived in America for
decades, held jobs, paid taxes, etc. They were no longer Japanese.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by w***@aol.com
There was no such thing
as a "de facto" American citizen who

Finish it: "was not a "de jure" American
citizen." Quite true.

...Perhaps that is among the (many)
reasons you have been unable to convert
people to your revisionist POV.

It's not my intent to "convert" anyone.
I only express a factual POV and could
not care less about people whose beliefs
are "frozen in stone" such as yourself.

I said "de facto Americans", not "de facto
American citizens"...

Then you acknowledge that the Japanese
nationals were not U.S. citzens but were
enemy aliens, right?

Those who were not born in the US were
Americans;

No. They were Japanese residing in America.

...they lived in America for decades,
held jobs, paid taxes, etc.

Which didn't change their nationality.

They were no longer Japanese.

Not unless they renounced their Japanese
citizenship. It was easy to do. Just
go to a pre-war Japanese consul an do so.
Of course the number who did so was close
to or zero in number. But, of course that
still would not have made them American
citiens. You can't get around it with the
nonsense you espouse. Just face it.
After Pearl Harbor these were enemy aliens.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by w***@aol.com
There was no such thing
as a "de facto" American citizen who

Finish it: "was not a "de jure" American
citizen." Quite true.

You're arguing with yourself; both the above are your own quotes.

Post by w***@aol.com

...Perhaps that is among the (many)
reasons you have been unable to convert
people to your revisionist POV.

It's not my intent to "convert" anyone.
I only express a factual POV and could

No. If that were so, you would acknowledge that your POV is revisionist. The
matter seems settled so far as reputable history is concerned.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com
It's not my intent to "convert" anyone.
I only express a factual POV....

No. If that were so, you would acknowledge
that your POV is revisionist.

Not really. My POV is based on fact, not
emotionalism and fiction. The revisionist
shoe is on your foot, not mine.
That my POV does not conform
to much of the conventional wisdom with
regard to the WWII evacuation/relocation
of persons of Japanese descent, I freely
admit, but that's because so much of the
conventional wisdom pertaining to that
wartime event (as reflected by your own
view) has been so openly based on the
tailoring of historical evidence to conform
to current ideological fashion.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
The matter seems settled so far as
reputable history is concerned.

No. It's never been more open to
review. Many of the volumniNous
archives of WWII U.S. military
intelligence have by now been
declassified and are available
to historians as well as journalists
for serious analytical examination.
One who has made a study
of them, the late historian, Page
Smith of UofC at Santa Cruz,
author of the eight volume series,
"A People's History of the United
States," wrote:
"It was obviously not the case
that the decision to relocate was the
result of racial attitudes...That those
existed in the general public....is
undeniable...That such attitudes
determined the outcome, is, on the
other hand, completely deniable...
We can only say that it was based

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
From Smith's "Democracy on Trial--The

Japanese American Evacuation and
Relocation in World War II."
And a Japanese historian, Brian
Masaru Hayashi, an Associate
Professor at Kyoto University in Japan
wrote of persons of Japanese descent
living in the U.S. pre-Pearl Harbor;
"Various male organizations
militantly backed Japan...(by 1940)
claimed to have ten thousand members
in over sixty branches throughout
the United States mostly in Central
California... They stated their purpose
was 'to encourage the proudest Japanese
spirit among the first and second
generation Japanese and whoever is
a descendent of the Japanese race.....
because the war in China required
awakening 'the Japanese national spirit
in each and every one who has the
blood of the Japanese race in him..."
[Hayashi: "Democratizing the Enemy
--The Jalpanese American Internment."] '

WJH

[David H Thornley]

Post by w***@aol.com
of them, the late historian, Page
Smith of UofC at Santa Cruz,
author of the eight volume series,
"A People's History of the United
"It was obviously not the case
that the decision to relocate was the
result of racial attitudes...That those
existed in the general public....is
undeniable...That such attitudes
determined the outcome, is, on the
other hand, completely deniable...
We can only say that it was based

Okay, now let's apply the scientific method.

You and Smith have a hypothesis that the evacuations were
based on perceived military threat, rather than racial
concerns. We can make predictions from that: in particular,
we can predict that people of Japanese descent that were
clearly no threat would not necessarily be evacuated.
Minors living with their parents might be forcibly
relocated, of course, to avoid breaking up families.
US citizens of Japanese descent that were not dependent on
evacuees and were not potentially steeped in pro-Japan
feelings would not be.

I have a hypothesis that the evacuations were based on
racism. We can make predictions from that: in particular,
that all people of Japanese descent would be evacuated,
regardless of circumstances.

Now, the vast majority of the evacuation is consistent with
either hypothesis. Almost all Japanese were either Japanese
citizens or dependents of Japanese citizens (I include dual
citizens, however many there were, here). We can find a
few test cases, though.

For example, very young US citizens of Japanese descent in
non-Japanese-run orphanages would clearly be no threat. On
the other hand, we know that these were evacuated, removed
from where they were living in pro-US conditions.

I find this completely consistent with my hypothesis, and
inconsistent with yours.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by David H Thornley

Post by w***@aol.com
We can only say that it was based

Okay, now let's apply the scientific method.
Now, the vast majority of the evacuation is consistent with
either hypothesis. Almost all Japanese were either Japanese
citizens or dependents of Japanese citizens (I include dual
citizens, however many there were, here). We can find a
few test cases, though.
For example, very young US citizens of Japanese descent in
non-Japanese-run orphanages would clearly be no threat. On
the other hand, we know that these were evacuated, removed
from where they were living in pro-US conditions.
I find this completely consistent with my hypothesis, and
inconsistent with yours.

Or a case where US citizens of Japanese descent had served in the US military
decades earlier, and had taken oaths to reject any other foreign allegiance.

These people would be considered "loyal" if enemy descent, but locked up if
of Japanese descent.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by David H Thornley
You and Smith have a hypothesis that the
evacuations were based on perceived
military threat...,

Not perceived, The threat was real. And
it was supported by MID and ONI Intelligence
as well as MAGIC intercepts.

Post by David H Thornley
... we can predict that people of Japanese
descent that were clearly no threat not
necessarily be evacuated....

And they were not. Only PJAs living in zones
specifically designated by the military along the
U.S.West Coast and a section of Arizona were
affected. Those living elsewhere (an estimated
9,000 of them) were not disturbed.

Post by David H Thornley
Minors living with their parents might be
forcibly relocated, of course, to avoid breaking
up families.

The children were evacuated with the parents
to keep families together, but it was the parents
who made the decision to evacuate the minors.
I have not heard of any parents who decided
against taking their minor children with them.
The minor chidren represented most of
the American-born evacuees (60%) of them.
That's where the myth started that "only
Japanese Americans" were evacuated. The
average age of the minors was only 15 years.
Approx two-thirds of the ADULTS evacuated
were Japanese nationals.

Post by David H Thornley
I have a hypothesis that the evacuations were
based on racism. We can make predictions
from that:in particular that all people of
Japanese descent would be evacuated,
regardless of circumstances.

Well, it is a fact that all people of Japanese
descent WERE NOT evacuated or interned.
Accordingly, the hypothesis that the cause
of the evacuation was "racism'" is false. If
race" had been the motivation, why would not
all persons of Japanese ancestry have been
evacuated?

Post by David H Thornley
Now, the vast majority of the evacuation is
consistent with either hypothesis.

No it isn't. The "racism" hypothesis is false.

Post by David H Thornley
See directly above.
most all Japanese were either Japanese
citizens or dependents of Japanese citizens
(I include dual citizens, however many there
were, here). We can find a few test cases,
though.

I don't know what you are driving at there. As
for the number of dual citizens among the
Ameerican-born, pre-war estimates ranged well
over 50%. All those born before 1924 were
Japanese under Japanese law. That law was
changed by Japan in 1924 so that those born
after 1924 anywhere in the world had to be
registered by their parents at a Japanese
consulate within two weeks of birth to be a
Japanese subject. Of course any dual citizen
Japanese-American could renounce the
Japanese citixenship status easily if he or she
wanted to, but very few did. According to
historian Prof. John Stephan of the University
of Hawaii, only as few as 8% did so in the
1930s.

Post by David H Thornley
For example, very young US citizens of
Japanese descent in non-Japanese-run
orphanages would clearly be no threat.
On the other hand, we know that these
were evacuated, removed from where
they were living in pro-US conditions.

They were removed because such Japanese
orphans had been cared for by Japanese
adults who were being evacuated. Only
a very small number were affected and they
were cared for in first-class conditions by the
Maryknoll nuns at a special Childrens Village
set up at the Manzanar Relocation Center.

Post by David H Thornley
I find this completely consistent with my
hypothesis, and inconsistent with yours.

Think as you wish. But based on the facts
I've outlined, your hypothesis is inconsistent
with the historical reality.

WJH

[Stephen Graham]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
You and Smith have a hypothesis that the
evacuations were based on perceived
military threat...,

Not perceived, The threat was real. And
it was supported by MID and ONI Intelligence
as well as MAGIC intercepts.

We've gone over this repeatedly. Essentially, you wish to place the most
liberal interpretation upon the slender evidence presented, whereas the
rest of us support an interpretation akin to that used for the other
Axis nationals in the US.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
... we can predict that people of Japanese
descent that were clearly no threat not
necessarily be evacuated....

And they were not. Only PJAs living in zones
specifically designated by the military along the
U.S.West Coast and a section of Arizona were
affected. Those living elsewhere (an estimated
9,000 of them) were not disturbed.

It's disingenuous to use the phrasing you choose, since the zone
encompassed all of California and the western and more populous portions
of Oregon and Washington.

Throughout the rest of the US, military exclusion zones were drawn
around military installations and other sensitive areas and enemy aliens
excluded from them. So of the 9,000 other Japanese, some also had to
move. Just not as far and not into camps.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
Minors living with their parents might be
forcibly relocated, of course, to avoid breaking
up families.

The children were evacuated with the parents
to keep families together, but it was the parents
who made the decision to evacuate the minors.
I have not heard of any parents who decided
against taking their minor children with them.

This implies that a Japanese-American minor could have stayed on the
West Coast had they so wished. As Mr Hopwood knows full well, there was
no exception to the orders, unless you were a poultry-sexer, already
incarcerated in a federal prison, or literally could not be moved.

Post by w***@aol.com
The minor chidren represented most of
the American-born evacuees (60%) of them.
That's where the myth started that "only
Japanese Americans" were evacuated. The
average age of the minors was only 15 years.
Approx two-thirds of the ADULTS evacuated
were Japanese nationals.

Mr Hopwood's definition of adult is drawn more narrowly than most of us
would, so as to make this claim. If you look at the 1940 US Census, you
find that among those 20 or older, there were 46,635 non-citizens and
28,255 citizens. However, among those 15 or older, there were 46,909
non-citizens and 48,199 citizens. In other words, there's a huge cohort
of citizens in the 15-19 age range.

An illuminating number is what the US Census defined as Militia Age,
those between 18 and 44 inclusive, who, if male, would be subject to
military service. While precise numbers aren't given, there were
approximately 17,000 non-citizens and 35,700 citizens in this group.

It's missing the reality of life in World War Two to pretend that only
those aged 21 or above were adults, when the draft and the labor pool
embraced those younger than that.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com
Not perceived, The threat was real. And
it was supported by MID and ONI Intelligence
as well as MAGIC intercepts.

We've gone over this repeatedly.

Yes we have and you apparently refuse to take
seriously much of the official documents (now
declassified) left by the pre-war military intelligence
branches. Many can now be seen on the Internment
Archives website at www.internmentarchives.com
for those with the unbiased curiosity and intellectual
integrity to go there and look. Or to review NSA
career intelligence officer, David Lowman,'s boo
MAGIC and its reams of now-declassified wartime
documents.

Post by Stephen Graham
Essentially, you wish to place the most
liberal interpretation upon the slender evidence
presented,

What you consider "slender evidence" were reports
such as the MID Report 336.8 of October 1941
revealing the existence of two Japanese ex-service
organizations numbering over 7,000 members and
operating over 69 branches on the U.S. West Coast
and Hawaii and composed of Issei and Nisei "pledged
to do sabotage (railroads and harbors)...in time of
emergency."

Post by Stephen Graham
whereas the rest of us support an interpretation akin
to that used for the other Axis nationals in the US.

Which circumstances were entirely different than the
circumstances involving the Japanese community
on the West Coast, except to those more concerned
with the "race" of enemy aliens than with their nationality.

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com
.... Only PJAs living in zones specifically designated
by the military along the U.S.West Coast and a
9,000 of them) were not disturbed.

It's disingenuous to use the phrasing you choose,

Inasmuch as under the rules of the forum Your Honors
have me at a disadvantage in the personal attack
department, let me just say, "I don't think so,"

Post by Stephen Graham
since the zone encompassed all of California and the
western and more populous portions of Oregon and
Washington.

Why should that be a surprise? That's where the heavy
concentration of Japanese enemy aliens happened to be.

Post by Stephen Graham
Throughout the rest of the US, military exclusion
zones were drawn around military installations and
other sensitive areas and enemy aliens excluded
from them. So of the 9,000 other Japanese, some
also had to move. Just not as far and not into camps.

Oh, come on. That's no reasonable comparison of
areas of concern and numbers of people moved, and
I'm sure you know it;.

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com
The children were evacuated with the parents
to keep families together, but it was the parents
who made the decision to evacuate the minors.
I have not heard of any parents who decided
against taking their minor children with them.

This implies that a Japanese-American minor could
have stayed on the West Coast had they so wished.
As Mr Hopwood knows full well, there was
no exception to the orders....

And as you indicate, there were some exceptions and in
addition included extenuating circimstances such
as orphans being well-cared for by other than Japanese
personnel who could continue to do so under the wartime
conditions. This whole "orphan" complaint is "nit-picky"
in view of the emergency turmoil in general. Anyone
with a reasonable degree of understanding should be
able to comprehend that.

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by w***@aol.com
The minor chidren represented most of
the American-born evacuees (60%) of them.
That's where the myth started that "only
Japanese Americans" were evacuated. The
average age of the minors was only 15 years.
Approx two-thirds of the ADULTS evacuated
were Japanese nationals.

Mr Hopwood's definition of adult is drawn more
narrowly than most of us would..,.If you look at the
1940 US Census, you find that among those 20 or
older there were 46,635 non-citizens and 28,255
citizens.....

Let's not say you are being disingenuous, but you
are quoting from the wong set of figures. Mine are
taken from the number of those evacuated.
Not a census of people taken a year before Pearl
Harbor, as you do. We have been discussing
the evacuation have we not?

Post by Stephen Graham
.......In other words, there's a huge cohort
of citizens in the 15-19 age range.

Not among the evacuees. in the 15-19 year age
range there were only 15.494 (per WRA figures)
or approx half the number you quote. And of that
number, 8,881 of them were classified as dual
citizens. Altogether among the evacuees there
were a total of some 71,500 American-born plus
6000 babies born in the relocation centers during
the war, 49,500 of them were under the age of
21 (the legal age of adulthood during WWI). So,
that shows that 64% of the American-born were
minors. I believe I had previously noted that
approx 60% were minors but that did not include
the babies born in the camps, which had the
highest birth rate in the nation during the war.
How many babies were born at Auschwitz?

Post by Stephen Graham
An illuminating number is what the US Census
defined as Militia Age, those between 18 and 44
inclusive, who, if male, would be subject to
military service. While precise numbers aren't
given, there were approximately 17,000
non-citizens and 35,700 citizens in this group.

Those 1940 numbers includied ages which might
qualify for service AS DIFFERENT AGE BRACKETS
WERE CALLED UP. But they whole range was not
called up all at once. After 1942 no more Japanese
Americans were inducted for more than a year.
Then, according to Special Monograph 10
(Selective Service-1953) there were 19,000 of
male citizens eligible for military service in the
relocation centers at the peak of the evacuation.
Of that number less than 1500 (8%)
would volunteer for the U.S. military. Approx
800 of the volunteers were accepted and no
more until the draft was re-sstablished for
JAs in 1944 when approx 3500 more were
drafted.
Hawaii was a different story as that's
where the majority of the 100/442d (which
originated in the pre-war National Guard) came
from.

Post by Stephen Graham
It's missing the reality of life in World War
....to pretend that only those aged 21 or above
were adults, when the draft and the labor pool
embraced those younger than that.

Well, although it is, perhaps, questionable as to
how much of "the reality of life" in World War II
you may have experienced in order to judge
how much of it others missed, there are a few
facts you question which are open to dispute.
Not the least of which is contained in your
implication that the majority of ADULT evacuees
were not enemy aliens, at least by your method
of lowering the ,wartime legal definition of ADULT
to conform to a definition established long
thereafter for voting purposes. .
But even using your revisionist
numbers and adding the wartime evacuee citizen age
group of 18 thru 20 to the adult range , one still
arrives at the fact that most of the ADULTs
evacuated were enemy aliens, not American citizens.
Even under your figures, the number of enemy aliens
evacuated, according to the WRA, comes to 38,707,
while the number of American-born over age 18
amounted to 38,461 of whom those over age 17
(about 25,000) were classified as dual citizens.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
You and Smith have a hypothesis that the
evacuations were based on perceived
military threat...,

Not perceived, The threat was real. And

It was imaginary, as noted by actual intelligence people (Hoover, eg) and the
utter lack of any incidents in the nearly six months between PH and the final
relocations and internments.

Zero.

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David H Thornley
... we can predict that people of Japanese
descent that were clearly no threat not
necessarily be evacuated....

And they were not.

This is a lie; US citizens who had never been to Japan were locked away along
with people who were actually suspect.

Again, your revisionism is showing.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Not perceived, The threat was real....

It was imaginary, as noted by actual
intelligence people (Hoover, eg)

Hoover was not one of the "actual
intelligence people." For instance
he was excluded from distribution
of the MAGIC intercepts was included
only in selected exchanges of official
memorandum with which the FBI had a
specific interest,

And the utter lack of any incidents in
the nearly six months between PH and
the final relocations and internments.

Not much they could do while under
constant surveillance and restriction
of movement. Sensitive military and
war production areas were extra heavily
guarded in the era between PH and the
relocation of the PJAs.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
....US citizens who had never been to
Japan were locked away along with people
who were actually suspect.

My Goodness. But maybe some of them had
been listening to and indoctrinated in the
ways of Japan by the some 20,000 of the
Anerican-born PJAs who had been sent to
Japan to be educated and had come back
from Japan more Japanese than American
having been there for many years. Some
came back holding reserve ratings in the
Japanese Army.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Again, your revisionism is showing.

But dwarfed by your ignorance of the
issue.

WJH

[Duwop]

Post by w***@aol.com
Japanese American Evacuation and
Relocation in World War II."
And a Japanese historian, Brian
Masaru Hayashi, an Associate
Professor at Kyoto University in Japan
wrote of persons of Japanese descent
living in the U.S. pre-Pearl Harbor;

"His conclusion: the motives of government officials and top military
brass _likely_ transcended the standard explanations of racism,
wartime hysteria, and leadership failure. Among the other surprising
factors that played into the decision, Hayashi writes, were land
development in the American West and plans for the American occupation
of Japan. "

http://books.google.com/books/about/Democratizing_the_Enemy.html?id=N6mNB0-99g4C

Venality, worshipping Mammon is oh so much better than merely racism?

It also appears that in attempting to make a name for himself he's
purposely made some *provocative* claims to spice things up, while
also doing some good research.

My parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles *who live in California
at the time* all believed an injustice had been done and that greedy
banks, politicians and jealous farmers took advantage of the situation
(which includes taking cynical advantage of of the local racism).

No revisionism, no damn PCism or any of those derogatory terms you
attempt to paint opinions or (more importantly) facts that differ than
yours needed.
People who lived and worked where it happened thought an injustice was
done. and, no, they weren't all that worked up by it either, for them
it was more an observation, little to no emotion involved. Certainly
not everyone, but I do not personally know anyone who thought
otherwise. Admittedly, this is a fairly small sampling base, which
includes a few uncles and aunts as I've long been interested in
history, esp. WWII history and asked back when.

This does not, by itself, make my opinion right, but Mr. Hopwood,
please get off your high horse, you are not Quixote fighting against a
tide of "PC revisionist liberalism gone wild". These sentiments have
been there since the very beginning. So please stick to the facts and
stop trying to paint yourself as the single lone voice of a man of
your time fighting against "modern revisionism", it's foolish.

People who were around at the time disagree with you too.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by w***@aol.com
It's not my intent to "convert" anyone.
I only express a factual POV....

No. If that were so, you would acknowledge
that your POV is revisionist.

Not really.

Yes, really. The large majority of reputable scholarship disagrees with your
nonsensical assertions that there was any significant danger posed by the
issei or nisei to the US during WWII.

Post by w***@aol.com
My POV is based on fact, not

No, it's founded in racist misunderstandings and hysteria. In fact, as stated,
the question has been settled for some decades; the interments, concentration
camps, and the whole process was unnecessary, wasteful, and an embarassment
to the US. US presidents have apologized, and historians pretty much agree on
these points.

Your POV is revisionist.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

...The large majority of reputable
scholarship disagrees with your
nonsensical assertions that there
was any significant danger posed by
the issei or nisei to the US during
WWII.

I take that with a grain of salt as I
find it unlikely that you are qualified
to speak on behalf of any "reputable
scholars" on this subject,let alone a
majority of them.
But be that as it may, the
military intelligence branches
knew there was plenty of danger from
agents of the Japanese who were part of
and planted among such people. This
the Japanese government acknowledged
in numerous of its messags being decoded
by U,S.pre-war cryptographers. [See the
Dept. of Defense 8-Volume series: "The
MAGIC Background of Pearl Harbor.) (See
also:
"MAGIC--The Untold Story of U.S,
Ingelligence and the Evacuation of
Japanrse Residents From the West Coast
During WWII" by David D.Lowman, former Spec.Assistant to the Director,
National
Security Agency.)

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

...The large majority of reputable
scholarship disagrees with your
nonsensical assertions that there
was any significant danger posed by
the issei or nisei to the US during
WWII.

I take that with a grain of salt as I
find it unlikely that you are qualified
to speak on behalf of any "reputable
scholars" on this subject,let alone a
majority of them.

Actually, I just read them. I don't need to speak for them, as they do that
quite well for themselves.

And, of course, we don't rely on "historians" like Michelle Malkin.

Mike

[David Wilma]

The U.S. Census always asked for race. The U.S.
Government was in many ways racist in classifying
people and treating them differently because of
race.

My point was that the Issei and their children
the Nissei were the same sort of migrants as
resided all over Asia and the Pacific. In some cases
the settlers went to Japanese controlled areas and
in others they went to foreign countries.

As for the movements of populations after the war
"ethnic cleansing" is one term that can apply
regardless of who sponsored the movement. I only
recently became aware myself of the extent of German
movements. It would appear that these movements
took place all over the world.

How about Italians in Libya and Ethopia?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by David Wilma
My point was that the Issei and their children
the Nissei were the same sort of migrants as
resided all over Asia and the Pacific.

No, there were important differences.

Post by David Wilma
In some cases
the settlers went to Japanese controlled areas and
in others they went to foreign countries.

When they went to foreign countries, they were the responsibility of that
country. They lived under those laws, paid those taxes, raised their
children under the native tongue of whatever nation they lived in, whether
the US or its territories, Canada, Brazil, Peru, etc.

When they went to Saipan, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, they were living under
a Japanese government.

A very big difference.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

Post by David Wilma
The U.S. Census always asked for race. The U.S.
Government was in many ways racist in classifying
people and treating them differently because of
race.

Much like today. The U.S. gov't continues to classify people by race
but now such programs are given euphemisms such as "Affirmative
Action" or
surreptitiously or openly amount to racial quotas
no matter what they may be called, particularly
in colleges and universities running programs
with government funds.

Post by David Wilma
As for the movements of populations after the war
"ethnic cleansing" is one term that can apply
regardless of who sponsored the movement.

I would qualify that definition. The term "ethnic cleansing" may be
appropriately used only in some circumstances involving the movement
of people because of wartime conditions, but is not appropriate in
connection with ALL movements of populations at such times. And it is
certainly not appropriate in the case of people who move or are moved
in the process of internment of alien enemies under international law
as a result of wartime or from one country to another in peacetime
conditions while looking for a better way to make a living.

WJH

[David Wilma]

Post by w***@aol.com
I would qualify that definition. The term "ethnic cleansing" may be
appropriately used only in some circumstances involving the movement
of people because of wartime conditions, but is not appropriate in
connection with ALL movements of populations at such times. And it is
certainly not appropriate in the case of people who move or are moved
in the process of internment of alien enemies under international law
as a result of wartime or from one country to another in peacetime
conditions while looking for a better way to make a living.

I used the term ethnic cleansing in my original post because it was used
by other historians in describing events of the period. For World War II
this might not be appropriate. The OED cites the first use as 1991 in a
Washington Post article. The term that seemed to evolve after the
Greek-Turkey war of the 1920s was population exchange. This type of
action gained acceptance by politicians and diplomats in the following
decades probably without understanding its cost.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

Post by David Wilma
The U.S. Census always asked for race. The U.S.
Government was in many ways racist in classifying
people and treating them differently because of
race.

Much like today. The U.S. gov't continues to classify people by race
but now such programs are given euphemisms such as "Affirmative
Action" or

Actually, the term is "demographics", as in "the changing demographics" of
America.

Relating this back to WWII, it's much preferable to segregating units by
race, banning immigration by race, banning inter-racial marriage, rounding
up people by race, and the remaining nonsense of those times.

Mike

[Mario]

Post by David Wilma
As for the movements of populations after the war
"ethnic cleansing" is one term that can apply
regardless of who sponsored the movement. I only
recently became aware myself of the extent of German
movements. It would appear that these movements
took place all over the world.
How about Italians in Libya and Ethopia?

Italians were expelled, or flee, from Istria after the war.

They were expelled from the Dodecanese islands that became Greek
land.

They were expelled from Albania that gained independance.

Italian settlers in Africa were not expelled, neither from
Ethiopia (Emperor Haile Selassie wanted them to remai, maybe as
a modernization factor) nor from Libya (king Idriss) nor from
Somalia (UN mandate). Many had married local women. The colony
disappeared by natural reasons.

It was Gadhafi that after his rise to power expelled Italians
still living there, as a matter of national pride and to grab
their properties, which were grabbed by Italy decades earlier
to local or Turkish landowners and then developed with a great
capital investment (with scarce return...)

[The Horny Goat]

Post by w***@aol.com
Oh, but about 85,000 of them were.
According to the 1940 U.S.census,
there were then approx 47,000 Japanese
nationals living in the U.S. and
37,000 in Hawaii. After Pearl Harbor,
11,000 had been arrested by the FBI on
security charges and interned. Another
38,000 of them on the mainland were
evacuated from the West Coast. Thus
close to 50,000 Japanese nationals
living in Hawaii and on the mainland
were either interned or relocated during
WWII. But another approx 35,000 Japanese
nationals, most in Hawaii, were neither
interned nor relocated, just left alone.

The most obious reason being that they were critical to the Hawaiian
economy which would have been a bad thing to disrupt in wartime!

On the mainland their influence was much less and as a result they
were treated more harshly.

[w***@aol.com]

...close to 50,000 Japanese nationals
living in Hawaii and on the mainland
were either interned or relocated during
WWII. But another approx 35,000 Japanese
nationals, most in Hawaii, were neither
interned nor relocated, just left alone.

The most obvious reason being that they were
critical to the Hawaiian economy....

That wasn't the main cause they weren't
interned. Although they were important to
the Hawaiian economy that was only a
secondary reason they weren't interned.
In Hawaii, only hours after
the attack on Pearl Harbor martial law was
declared in the islands. Draconian security measures went in effect
for everybody and
because of the extent of such measures it
was not necessary from a security standpoint
to intern the Japanese nationals as a group, although about 1200 of
those considered most
dangerous were taken into custody and interned
at Sand Island.

On the mainland their influence was much
less and as a result they were treated
more harshly.

No.They were interned or reloated on the
West Coast of the mainland because there was
no martial law in effect there. To have
declared martial law with all of its
security ramifications would have seriously
interfered with war production and the
more practical course was to move the
security risks away from the sensitive
military and war production areas.


WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

...close to 50,000 Japanese nationals
living in Hawaii and on the mainland
were either interned or relocated during
WWII. But another approx 35,000 Japanese
nationals, most in Hawaii, were neither
interned nor relocated, just left alone.

The most obvious reason being that they were
critical to the Hawaiian economy....

That wasn't the main cause they weren't
interned. Although they were important to
the Hawaiian economy that was only a
secondary reason they weren't interned.

Which is silly upon even the briefest examination. People could still travel
within an island quite easily, IF there were any espionage agents on the islands
(there weren't), they could have still passed information to the Japanese, just
as agents in Nazi and Japanese-occupied territories were able to pass info to
the Allies, despite far more draconion restrictions on the local populace.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

... People could still travel within
an island quite easily,

Not too easily.

IF there were any espionage agents
on the islands ...they could have
still passed information to the
Japanese,

Not easily. Martial Law worked well. A
few suspicious persons were surveilled.
Some picked up and detained. By and
large Martial Law was very effective.
There was a strict curfew, mail
amd media censorship, listening posts on
telephone calls and for illegal radios
transmissions. Proof of identity had to
be carried by everybody all the time. All
military and war-related activities kept
under close guard, etc.

WJH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by w***@aol.com

... People could still travel within
an island quite easily,

Not too easily.

Actually, yes, quite easily. Buses and taxis worked quite well, Mr Hopwood,
and the islands, especially Oahu, are small enough that you can bicycle a
reasonable portion of the island in a short time.

Mike

[w***@aol.com]

....Even before the surrender...the
Japanese government made plans to
repatriate its subjects...
According to Matthew Hughes in an
article in The Journal of Military
History (Vol. 75, Issue 1) 90
percent of Saipan's civilians survived
the battle which he acknowledges is
different than the larger
figures normally quoted.

I believe you may have misunderstood
Hughes' conclusions as to the percentage
of survivals. Here is what he wrote:
"Some sources provide a reduced
pro-battle total of 20,000 or fewer
civilians on Saipan, and if one accepts
that about 18,000 civilians ended
up in Camp Supsupe, many fewer civilians
died during the course of rhe battle...
Up to 90% of civilians survived the battle,
a statistic that radically reworks the conventional view....The issue
with
this revisionism is that the sources for
the lower population figures seem less credible...and assuming that
only a few
thousand civilians left by ship before the
battle, the pre-war Japanese census figures
hold good, pushing the civilian
population total to over 25,000."
Accordingly, Hughes is saying that
the percentage of surviving Japanese would
NOT have been 90% but closer to 70% assuming
a more credible pre-war civilian population
estimate of 25,000. or 60% assuming a pre-war population of 30,000.

As for the ethnic cleansing term I proposed
I say it still applies even if it was the
Japanese doing the repatriation. Semantics.

Above you say "Even before the surrender...
the Japanese government made plans to
repatriate its subjects." You now seem to
be saying that the Japanese had decided to
"ethnic cleanse" themselves.

WJH

[Chris Morton]

In article <7958ab43-f254-48c2-89f6-***@googlegroups.com>, David Wilma
says...

Post by David Wilma
I was listening to an author describe some of the movement
of populations in Europe after 1945 and I recalled that the
Japanese had settled many islands in the Pacific in the
decades before the war. Wiki says that most of the
surviving settlers were "repatriated" to Japan. Do we
have another case of ethnic cleansing? Saipan became
a U.S. trust territory. Was this repatriation compulsory?
Was it instigated by the U.S. or local authorities? Any
reparations for lost property?

Given the typical behavior of Japanese in occupied territories, military AND
civilian, I'd bet that the Japanese were smart to get while the getting was
good.

Local Japanese civilian populations were subject to post-war reprisals in
Manchuria, Indonesia, Indo-China and elsewhere.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Chris Morton
says...
Given the typical behavior of Japanese in occupied territories, military AND
civilian, I'd bet that the Japanese were smart to get while the getting was
good.
Local Japanese civilian populations were subject to post-war reprisals in
Manchuria, Indonesia, Indo-China and elsewhere.

Supposedly, in China there was an effort made at "re-education" for the Japanese
who remained behind. The Soviets seemed less inclined in that regard.

Mike

[Chris Morton]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Supposedly, in China there was an effort made at "re-education" for the Japanese
who remained behind. The Soviets seemed less inclined in that regard.

Both sides in the Chinese Civil War used Japanese as technical advisors and
technicians. The same thing happened in the Dutch East Indies and Indo-China.

And in many instances, Japanese troops were tasked with maintaining order until
(and frequently AFTER) Allied forces arrived in country.

The Soviets were to a large extent, simply on a rampage in the last days of the
war, which apparently Stalin himself had to rein in. In newly "liberated"
eastern and central Europe, Soviet troops didn't apparently draw too much
distinction between Polish and German women when it came to rape.

[Mario]

Post by Chris Morton
Soviet troops didn't apparently draw too much
distinction between Polish and German women when it came to
rape.

Americans, being richer, bought that kind of "services" paying
with chocolate, cigarettes, clothes, paper currency etc.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Mario

Post by Chris Morton
Soviet troops didn't apparently draw too much
distinction between Polish and German women when it came to
rape.

Americans, being richer, bought that kind of "services" paying
with chocolate, cigarettes, clothes, paper currency etc.

Probably one reason the US occupations are remembered with less bitterness.

Mike

[Mario]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Mario
Americans, being richer, bought that kind of "services"
paying with chocolate, cigarettes, clothes, paper currency
etc.

Probably one reason the US occupations are remembered with
less bitterness.

Oh, you surely remember "the mouse that roared" with Peter
Sellers...
:-)

I have a book by Shimon Tzabar "The White Flag Principle: How to
Lose a War (and Why)" that explaines all the advantages of
losing a war (esp. against the Americans)

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

<<I thought that if there was a chance, however slim, that defeat
might be better than a victory, there was an urgent need for a
manual to teach military men how to be defeated. There are many
manuals of how to win wars. Almost every retired general writes
one. But there was not one for how to lose wars. Since I had a
very strong feeling that a war is already on its way, I sat
down immediately to write one before it was too late.>>

http://www.shimontzabar.com/books/white-flag-principle.html

[Chris Morton]

In article , Mario says...

Post by Mario
Americans, being richer, bought that kind of "services" paying
with chocolate, cigarettes, clothes, paper currency etc.

Barter, even for sexual "services" is a VOLUNTARY act.

Rape is NOT.

[Mario]

Post by Chris Morton
In article , Mario says...

Post by Mario
Americans, being richer, bought that kind of "services" paying
with chocolate, cigarettes, clothes, paper currency etc.

Barter, even for sexual "services" is a VOLUNTARY act.
Rape is NOT.

You are right.

The richer buys what the poor robs.

There were mass rapes in Italy in 1944.
Who were the rapists? French colonial troops, on the Ally side.

I knew a woman that worked on a shift that ended late evening
during the war (and after the war) and she had to go home in
the total dark.
She said she never has been afraid of German soldiers during the
war, she was afraid, after the war, of Allied soldiers, esp.
Americans, often drunk.