Italian Americans persecuted during WW II in the US

[Aristaeus]

That's actually very informative, Aristaeus, as relates to the technical differences between the terms "internment" and "relocation." Honestly, though, I doubt that such semantics would have been of much comfort to a native-born American of Japanese ancestry living in a "relocation" camp during WWII.

Yes they had it rough in the relocation camps.

"It was only out West that the U.S. government provided relocation centers as a temporary alternative to resettlement for those who wished it. Such housing was restricted to Japanese evacuees only, however.Ten such centers were established and administered by the civilian War Relocation Authority. These relocation centers had the highest live-birth rate and the lowest death rate in wartime United States and were exempt from the rationing programs imposed across the country.
Residents of such centers were free to leave when outside employment and living arrangements for them could be obtained. Of the 112,000 Japanese evacuees, 15,000 were immediately able to relocate elsewhere on their own. Another 35,000 who did enter the relocation centers eventually left and resettled in other parts of the country as employment or college opportunities arose during the war years. In some instances, Japanese living outside the exclusionary zone sought and received admittance to these centers.
The exclusion policy for the West Coast differed from that pursued elsewhere in the country because, in addition to the relocation centers, it also included a National Student Council Relocation Program. Under this government initiative, 4,300 students of Japanese ancestry -- but not those of German and Italian ancestry -- received scholarships to attend more than 500 colleges and universities located outside the exclusionary zone. In both cases of internment and relocation, U.S. citizen spouses and children were permitted to accompany head-of-household enemy aliens into relocation centers or internment camps on a voluntary basis so that families would not be separated."

As regards numbers, it's also important to note that of the 120,000 ethnic Japanese relocated, 62% were Nisei (American-born, second-generation) or Sansei (third-generation). There is no proof that all of the Nisei were dual citizens "by choice."

It is not important if dual citizenship was by choice, but rather or not they renounced Japanese citizenship on the outset of hostilities. The following is just one example of how high some regarded thier U.S. citizenship.

"Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952)
Tomoya Kawakita was a dual US/Japanese citizen (born in the US to Japanese parents). He was in Japan when World War II broke out, and because of the war was unable to return to the US. During the war, he actively supported the Japanese cause and abused US prisoners of war who had been forced to work under him. After the war, he returned to the US on a US passport, and shortly thereafter he was charged with (and convicted of) treason for his wartime activities.

Kawakita claimed that he had lost his US citizenship by registering in Japan as a Japanese national during the war, and as a result he could not be found guilty of treason against the US. Presumably, the reason Kawakita fought so tenaciously not to be considered a US citizen was that he saw this as the only way to escape a death sentence for his treason conviction.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that since Kawakita had dual nationality by birth, when he registered himself as Japanese, he was simply reaffirming an already existing fact and was not actually acquiring Japanese citizenship or renouncing his US citizenship.

The court acknowledged that a dual citizen, when in one of his countries of citizenship, is subject to that country's laws and cannot appeal to his other country of citizenship for assistance. However, even when the demands of both the US and the other country are in irreconcilable conflict -- such as in wartime -- a dual US/other citizen must still honor his obligations to the US even when in the other country.

Although Kawakita lost his appeal, his death sentence was eventually commuted by President Eisenhower. He was released from prison, stripped of his US citizenship, and deported to Japan.

The reason the respondent in this case (the second party named in the case's title) was the United States -- rather than a government official (such as the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of State) -- is that the case started as a criminal prosecution rather than as a lawsuit."
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

The relocation of Japanese ethnics simply reflects the attitude of then California Attorney General Earl Warren: "When we are dealing with the Caucasian race [in this case, Italians and Germans] we have methods that will test the loyalty of them. But when we deal with the Japanese, we are on an entirely different field." And regarding Executive Order 9066, it's interesting that in 1982 the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians found that the incarceration of Japanese ethnics was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." This, of course, was after President Ford had rescinded EO 9066 in 1976.

They were interned/relocated because of this:

"The total number of people interned during World War II was 31,275.
This number includes 5,620 Japanese who were renunciants -- i.e., native-born U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry who renounced their U.S. citizenship so they could be deported to Japan and help that country’s war effort."
If 5,620 were stupid enough to step up and say thay wanted to return to Japan to fight the U.S. then how many others kept their mouths shut about their intentions?

And this:

Takeo Yoshikawa: World War II Japanese Pearl Harbor Spy.
http://www.historynet.com/takeo-yoshikawa-world-war-ii-japanese-pearl-harbor-spy.htm
He was aided by U.S. Citizens.

And this:

The Niʻihau Incident (or Battle of Niʻihau) occurred on December 7, 1941, when a Japanese Zero pilot crash-landed on the Hawaiian island of Niʻihau after participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese pilot was aided by a U.S. Citizen.

Clearly since before Dec 7th to the 5000 who renounced their U.S. Citizenship a pattern was developing.

Going back to the Italians, what is interesting about the whole matter, as I earlier alluded to, is that less than a year after the restrictions against Italian nationals went into place, they ended. The desire to not further alienate "ethnic" voters against the Democrats was likely a major factor, yet the words of Gen. Biddle should again be recalled: "We found that 600,000 enemy aliens were, in fact, not enemies." (Although Pres. Roosevelt's crack that Italy was "a nation of opera singers" is also food for thought...)

-Lee

Your right. the Italians are cut form a different cloth form the Germans and Japanese.

 

[LordBest]

One of my old German teachers was a German Jew who escaped Nazi Germany only to be locked up in Australia for a few years during the war. Not our finest hour.

 

[Lillemor]

This is way simplistic and wishful thinking.
I already stated how things had gone, but if you still want to conveniently ignore them for the sake of "blame a whole people makes me feel so good", I'm not going to repeat them infinitely.
That's all I can do for you.

You seem to consider a people as a single entity with a single wish and point of view.
What is even worst, you patently ignore causes, effects, origins and developments... in one word History.

Finally, I don't care if you for one think that all the persons of a nation, for some reason that eludes me, share the same ideas, and I'm not responsable of how many shopkeepers in Gaeta have fascist ideas (I guess you interrogated them all).

I honestly think that your way of generalizing, not to say about your cartoonish representation of WWII, is chauvinistic and bordering with racism.

My family suffered enough during fascism to let everyone come here and say that "we" could have overthrown Mussolini, "if only we tried".
Sorry, my family hadn't superpowers at the time, we are equipping now so that we can overthrow Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il, at your permission.

Ciao.

Very well put.:eusa_clap

 

[The Good]

Thank you for sharing this, Dhermann1. I guess I can be considered Italian American, due to the fact that my surname is of origin from Sicily, although I'm only 12.5% of that, and in addition 12.5% Tuscan (I'm 50% Croatian, 12.5% English, and 12.5% Scots-Irish too, for that matter). Previously though, I have heard of these attrocities going on during the war. I'm not sure how involved with these events my own family was at the time, though. I think we were back east, as well.

 

[Aristaeus]

This is way simplistic and wishful thinking.
I already stated how things had gone, but if you still want to conveniently ignore them for the sake of "blame a whole people makes me feel so good", I'm not going to repeat them infinitely.
That's all I can do for you.

You seem to consider a people as a single entity with a single wish and point of view.
What is even worst, you patently ignore causes, effects, origins and developments... in one word History.

Finally, I don't care if you for one think that all the persons of a nation, for some reason that eludes me, share the same ideas, and I'm not responsable of how many shopkeepers in Gaeta have fascist ideas (I guess you interrogated them all).

I honestly think that your way of generalizing, not to say about your cartoonish representation of WWII, is chauvinistic and bordering with racism.

My family suffered enough during fascism to let everyone come here and say that "we" could have overthrown Mussolini, "if only we tried".
Sorry, my family hadn't superpowers at the time, we are equipping now so that we can overthrow Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il, at your permission.

Ciao.

Your right no nation or ppl have ever freed themselves from a Despot, Dictator or King, and it is impossible to do so, I stand corrected.
As for that being a Racist remark, nothing I have posted has been racist. You should be carefull before you let your anger get the better of you.

 

[LordBest]

There have been relatively few successful popular 'revolts' against tyrants in history, most have been overthrown by political plots from within their inner circle, or by outside intervention.

Your right no nation or ppl have ever freed themselves from a Despot, Dictator or King, and it is impossible to do so, I stand corrected.
As for that being a Racist remark, nothing I have posted has been racist. You should be carefull before you let your anger get the better of you.

 

[Pompidou]

@ Aristaeus: Masses have overthrown tyrants, individuals, not so often. We need to keep some semblance of reasonable expectations here. Expecting individual Italians to form La Resistance, rally the nation and take down the government, is hardly reasonable at all. We in the US can't even get people to vote. You get 12 jurors in a room, and they have to argue for days to come to an agreement. You make it sound like raising a successful rebel army without being crushed at the onset, defeating professional standing armies, and forming a new government is all in a day's work. It's not. People aren't inclined to risk their lives like that. The US was wrong to set up the concentration camps. The Italians were victims.

 

[Italian-wiseguy]

Your right no nation or ppl have ever freed themselves from a Despot, Dictator or King, and it is impossible to do so, I stand corrected.
As for that being a Racist remark, nothing I have posted has been racist. You should be carefull before you let your anger get the better of you.

As for people freeing themselves form tyrants, as others yet told you, it happens; not so often.
Why some succeed in doing so, and others not, should be a matter of serious investigation, not a way to demonize or blame whole nations: which indeed is racistic.
Fascism was openly and actively opposed since its birth, and as long as it was possible:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barricades_de_Parme_en_1922
(sorry I'm in a hurry a couldn't find a link in english, hope you understand french).

Ditto for your amazingly simplistic description of the supposed opprtunism of italian army:
the same opportunism, I guess, which led to the Kefalonia massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division

ort, on the other side, to the Folgore paratroopers steadily refusing to surrender to Allies in Al Alamein.

As you can notice, there were seemingly different ideas going on, which ended up with soldiers "opportunistically" chosing to get killed.

Given the chance to do so, many soldiers opted for fighting on the Allies' side; hope you don't blame for doing so!

Others, for lack of opportunities, for belief in Fascism, or in many case for the feeling of being dishonorated if they switched alliance, continued to fight for the puppet RSI government;

and even so, many deserted and met the partisans, fighting in the Resistence.

Come here and be my guest: I'll have the privilege to show you their tombs, scattered in the countryside.
No shortage of these, either.

Ciao.

 

[MikeBravo]

An interesting footnote

At the outbreak of war in 1939 the Vienna Boy's Choir was touring Australia. They had to stay here until the war ended.

Was it cruel to keep them in a foreign country away from their family and loved ones?

Maybe. But it kept them alive rather than be dragged off to the meat grinder of war

 

[kampkatz]

A very informative discussion and educational , to boot! It should be obvious that government and politics are complicated. Wartime makes it even more difficult. Invariably people from different ethnic backgrounds become convenient targets. Current events just reflect the problems.

 

[Widebrim]

It's easier for me to answer within your text; hope you don't mind.

Yes they had it rough in the relocation camps.

"It was only out West that the U.S. government provided relocation centers as a temporary alternative to resettlement for those who wished it. Such housing was restricted to Japanese evacuees only, however.Ten such centers were established and administered by the civilian War Relocation Authority. These relocation centers had the highest live-birth rate and the lowest death rate in wartime United States and were exempt from the rationing programs imposed across the country.
Residents of such centers were free to leave when outside employment and living arrangements for them could be obtained. Of the 112,000 Japanese evacuees, 15,000 were immediately able to relocate elsewhere on their own. Another 35,000 who did enter the relocation centers eventually left and resettled in other parts of the country as employment or college opportunities arose during the war years. In some instances, Japanese living outside the exclusionary zone sought and received admittance to these centers.
The exclusion policy for the West Coast differed from that pursued elsewhere in the country because, in addition to the relocation centers, it also included a National Student Council Relocation Program. Under this government initiative, 4,300 students of Japanese ancestry -- but not those of German and Italian ancestry -- received scholarships to attend more than 500 colleges and universities located outside the exclusionary zone. In both cases of internment and relocation, U.S. citizen spouses and children were permitted to accompany head-of-household enemy aliens into relocation centers or internment camps on a voluntary basis so that families would not be separated."

Widebrim's comments: Come to Little Tokyo here in Los Angeles and give a speech trying to convince the residents, some of whom went through relocation, that they or their ancestors were really much better off in the camps than they thought...and do it in front of the Japanese American National Museum. "After all, we gave some of you scholarships, you had the lowest death-rate in the U.S., etc..." This is not primarily a matter of humane vs. inhumane treatment, but rather forced relocation of (mostly) native-born Americans from their homes and businesses to camps. If this had happened to you and/or your family, you most likely would have a different take on it, or at least that is my sober opinion...

It is not important if dual citizenship was by choice, but rather or not they renounced Japanese citizenship on the outset of hostilities. The following is just one example of how high some regarded thier U.S. citizenship.

"Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952)
Tomoya Kawakita was a dual US/Japanese citizen (born in the US to Japanese parents). He was in Japan when World War II broke out, and because of the war was unable to return to the US. During the war, he actively supported the Japanese cause and abused US prisoners of war who had been forced to work under him. After the war, he returned to the US on a US passport, and shortly thereafter he was charged with (and convicted of) treason for his wartime activities.

Kawakita claimed that he had lost his US citizenship by registering in Japan as a Japanese national during the war, and as a result he could not be found guilty of treason against the US. Presumably, the reason Kawakita fought so tenaciously not to be considered a US citizen was that he saw this as the only way to escape a death sentence for his treason conviction.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that since Kawakita had dual nationality by birth, when he registered himself as Japanese, he was simply reaffirming an already existing fact and was not actually acquiring Japanese citizenship or renouncing his US citizenship.

The court acknowledged that a dual citizen, when in one of his countries of citizenship, is subject to that country's laws and cannot appeal to his other country of citizenship for assistance. However, even when the demands of both the US and the other country are in irreconcilable conflict -- such as in wartime -- a dual US/other citizen must still honor his obligations to the US even when in the other country.

Although Kawakita lost his appeal, his death sentence was eventually commuted by President Eisenhower. He was released from prison, stripped of his US citizenship, and deported to Japan.

The reason the respondent in this case (the second party named in the case's title) was the United States -- rather than a government official (such as the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of State) -- is that the case started as a criminal prosecution rather than as a lawsuit."
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

Widebrim's comments: And he should have been prosecuted to the full extent for being a traitor. Yet that doesn't excuse relocating tens of thousand of other Nisei/Sansei simply because theoretically they could have done the same thing.


They were interned/relocated because of this:

"The total number of people interned during World War II was 31,275.
This number includes 5,620 Japanese who were renunciants -- i.e., native-born U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry who renounced their U.S. citizenship so they could be deported to Japan and help that country’s war effort." If 5,620 were stupid enough to step up and say thay wanted to return to Japan to fight the U.S. then how many others kept their mouths shut about their intentions?

Widebrim's comments: This is akin to an argument from silence, and is also preemptive action ("make a move against someone because you think he may make a move against you"), something which at the least is questionable when dealing with nations, even more questionable when dealing with civilians.

And this:

Takeo Yoshikawa: World War II Japanese Pearl Harbor Spy.
http://www.historynet.com/takeo-yoshikawa-world-war-ii-japanese-pearl-harbor-spy.htm
He was aided by U.S. Citizens.

And this:

The Niʻihau Incident (or Battle of Niʻihau) occurred on December 7, 1941, when a Japanese Zero pilot crash-landed on the Hawaiian island of Niʻihau after participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese pilot was aided by a U.S. Citizen.

Widebrim's comments: Yes, and both incidents cited happened in Hawai'i, which is thousands of miles closer to Japan than is California, and where (ironically) no relocation was initiated...

Clearly since before Dec 7th to the 5000 who renounced their U.S. Citizenship a pattern was developing.


Your right. the Italians are cut form a different cloth form the Germans and Japanese.


Widebrim's comment: That last comment is actually funny!lol (And please don't think I'm insulting you; it is actually funny...) But the point is that Gen. Biddle publically (even if just to save face for FDR and the Dems) exonerated the Italian nationals, verifying that they were not an enemy.

 

[Guttersnipe]

It's easier for me to answer within your text; hope you don't mind.

Well said Widebrim! It's easy for historians (of the armchair variety or otherwise) to discount the intangible personal/psychological toll of events like the Japanese internment during WWII. Sure, measured against other injustices of the period, it may seem "not as bad," however, you cannot quantify human tragedy. The is no metric by which to compare human suffering.

 

[Pompidou]

The worst thing about the internment camps the US set up during WWII is that it puts us in a similar boat to Germany and Russia. All three nations were big on shipping inconvenient people to prison camps. The difference seems to be the treatment once there. Thankfully, the US didn't torture/kill its inconvenient minorities. We just imprisoned them indefinitely without charge. Some things never change.

 

[Lincsong]

That's right, and you do it by placing a five-mile boundary limit on Joe DiMaggio's father...

Seriously, while it's true that the U.S. had a right to monitor citizens of a country that was beligerent to it, merely being a citizen of said country did not in and of itself merit restrictions. Many of those nationals restricted had no record of involvement in Italian politics, and of those who did, a great number had already renounced Mussolini when he aligned himself with Hitler. Granted, it was a different time and mentality (and hindsight is theoretically 100% accurate), but as I stated in my first post, such restrictions were not imposed on the East Coast (or anywhere else in the U.S.) due to logistics, a fact which likely made very few people nervous. It was done in California because the majority of Italian nationals were concentrated in the San Francisco area, as well as a number in Los Angeles, and were therefore easier to monitor/restrict than the enormous number of them living all over the East Coast. (Sheer numbers also accounted for why less than 1,500 Japanese in Hawai'i were interned. If all Japanese Hawaiians had been relocated, the Hawaiian economy would have pretty much ceased to exist.)

It was all about control of the agricultural farm land in California at the time. Huge swaths of farm land were owned by Italian immigrants and Americans born of Japanese ancestry, (Orientals were barred from citizenship, thus they couldn't own land under the Alien Land Act). What the Japanese immigrants did was this; save their money, when the oldest American born child turned 18 the parents already had their eyes on some land thus the child could buy the land when he reached age 18. So the land that was confiscated from Japanese American's was the property of American citizens. Any property confiscated by Italian nationals was land not owned by American citizens. Big difference there.

During World War I large business holdings of German nationals was confiscated in Hawaii, the holdings were grouped together to form American Factors (AMFAC). One of the department stores name was changed to Liberty House.

There was some motivation based on race, but it was mostly about control of land....easy money.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

It was all about control of the agricultural farm land in California at the time. Huge swaths of farm land were owned by Italian immigrants and Americans born of Japanese ancestry

Supposedly, General DeWitt, commander of the Western Defense Command, who was in charge of implementing the relocation of Japanese from the West Coast, had himself profited by buying up much of this land at bargain basement prices.

One of my old German teachers was a German Jew who escaped Nazi Germany only to be locked up in Australia for a few years during the war. Not our finest hour.

That's also what happened to Weintraub's Syncopators, a famous jazz band between the wars. (they're the band in the film The Blue Angel) They were on tour in Australia at the outbreak of the war and were interned even though most of the members were Jewish.

As if the indignity of internment wasn't bad enough, many of these Jewish refugees also had to put up with hard-core, genuine Nazis as fellow internees.

 

[Lincsong]

You have to remember that California, since the Gold Rush, was and still is founded/populated by squatters. Drifters who basically made their way across the desert over here, plunked their butts on a piece of land and said; "It's mine now get out".

In the opening scene of Pal Joey , a squad car pulls up at a train station in a small town. Then a detective and beat officer pull Joey out of the car and Joey is told he's "getting out of town". Joey replies; "but I don't have a ticket". The detective pulls a one-way ticket out of his hat ribbon and then they throw Joey on the train leaving town. The end of the rail line was Oakland. There's a LOT of truth behind that scene. lol

 

[Aristaeus]

The worst thing about the internment camps the US set up during WWII is that it puts us in a similar boat to Germany and Russia. All three nations were big on shipping inconvenient people to prison camps. The difference seems to be the treatment once there. Thankfully, the US didn't torture/kill its inconvenient minorities. We just imprisoned them indefinitely without charge. Some things never change.

Perhaps you should do a little more research. The internment camps put the U.S. in a similar boat as Australia, Canada, and the U.K.

 

[Pompidou]

Perhaps you should do a little more research. The internment camps put the U.S. in a similar boat as Australia, Canada, and the U.K.

Just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right.

 

[cookie]

California, for all its hippy-dippy image today, was a very hard-line place in the early forties -- and it tended to be whipped into a froth at the slightest provocation by its newspapers, especially the Hearst rags, which never met a xenophobic cause they didn't like. This had a lot to do with the whole internment-camp phenomenon.

Thanks for that information Lizzie. That theme comes through in all those 40s movies like LA Confidential, Mulholland Drive etc....

It was all about control of the agricultural farm land in California at the time. Huge swaths of farm land were owned by Italian immigrants and Americans born of Japanese ancestry, (Orientals were barred from citizenship, thus they couldn't own land under the Alien Land Act). What the Japanese immigrants did was this; save their money, when the oldest American born child turned 18 the parents already had their eyes on some land thus the child could buy the land when he reached age 18. So the land that was confiscated from Japanese American's was the property of American citizens. Any property confiscated by Italian nationals was land not owned by American citizens. Big difference there.

During World War I large business holdings of German nationals was confiscated in Hawaii, the holdings were grouped together to form American Factors (AMFAC). One of the department stores name was changed to Liberty House.

There was some motivation based on race, but it was mostly about control of land....easy money.

Shades of the water issue that was at the botton of the movie Chinatown.

 

[cookie]

The Legal Case that Internment was based on

The legal case BTW on the Internment scenario is Korematsu v United States (1944) 323 US 214

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States