« Best of The Redhunter | Main | Just War Series - Discrimination »
March 2, 2005
Book Review: In Defense of Internment
One of the most controversial books to come out in the past year was Michelle Malkin's In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror. She has, to put it mildly, raised quite a stir. All you have to do is read the reviews on Amazon.com to get a picture of how much she is hated as a result of this book. It's obvious that there was a concerted effort to post as many negative reviews as possible. Their "reviews" are often nothing short of hysterical rants.
I remember catching Michelle Malkin one night on C-SPAN, where she was giving a talk at a university, I don't recall which. She gave her remarks and took questions from the audience. All the while, in the background, you could hear this incessant chant. It turns out that there was a protest group in the hallway who was trying to drown out her speech (Malkin eventually told the C-SPAN audience as to "why you hear a chant in the background"). The campus police kept the protesters in the hallway, where they could not directly interrupt her appearance. Such are the lengths to which some will go to prevent debate on certain issues.
Such tactics are nothing new to those of us who grew up during the 80's. I recall reading at the time about how conservative speakers were regularly shouted down during their speeches on college campuses. Some kept speaking even when it was obvious that no one could hear them, others simply gave up in frustration.
And, of course, one cannot help noting, as Malkin does in her book, that many who oppose racial profiling have no problem with allowing public universities to discriminate on the basis of race in their admissions policies.
One of the problems that I had with evaluating her book is that all too often those on the other side simply denounce the decision to intern as "racist hysteria!", as if that explained everything. There is an unfortunate tendancy in this country for the left to see all history in terms of class, race, and sex (no not "gender") oppression. Further, anyone who would dare to present a contrary view must be a racist or sexist. Malkin has been put in the same category as those who deny the holocaust, has been called a 'race traitor' (Asian solidarity, you see), and all the rest of it.
Of course I'm not really surprised by this. The new McCarthyites" are all on the left, and have been for some time now. I'm so jaded by modern-day cries of "racist!" that "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome set in a long time ago.
Back to her book. Malkin's thesis is this:
The central thesis of this book is that the national security measures taken during World War II were justifiable, given what was known and not known at the time. It is unfair to judge the decision-makers of the time as though they had all the knowledge that we do today.
In other words, one can only make decisions with information that is available at the time. One cannot make a decision based on information that is not known, or is gained later.
If this sounds obvious I do apologize, but so often we hear arguments by people who seem to think the opposite. Current anti-war types speak as if we knew all along that Saddam did not have stocks of WDM, or that Bush should have "known better" and contradicted all of his advisors.
Likewise, one of the arguments against Malkin is that "Japanese served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during World War II." This may be, but it was in the future when the decision to intern was made. Further, the notion that all immigrants automatically become patriotic Americans is inaccurate.
I discussed the issue of whether a Japanese invasion of our West Coast was possible, or more precisely, whether American decision makers had cause to fear Japanese invasion or attacks, in a previous post.
So What about the Book?
I'm not going to even attempt a point-by-point summary of her book, much less try to sort out whether she is right or not. I've gone through several negative book reviews, and read her responses to them. I can't figure out who is right in each case. What I will do is offer some thoughts on her book, and encourage readers to purchase it so that they can make their own decisions.
Fear of espionage and sabotoge was one of the motivating factors that led to the decision to intern Issei and Nisei (first and second-generation Japanese-Americans). That the Japanese wanted and tried to set up an intelligence network is indisputable. That they enjoyed at least some limited success has also been proven. The question is whether policy-makers in 1941-42 had reasonable cause to believe that there was an extensive intelligence or espionage network and that it was a threat to our national security.
The MAGIC Revelations
Much of Malkin's case rests on the MAGIC intercepts. MAGIC was the operation in which we broke the Japanese diplomatic code. The existence of MAGIC was top-secret during the war, with only a few officials beyond FDR himself knowing of it's existence. Essentially, the Japanese sent messages to and from their embassies in which they discussed the creating of an intelligence network in the United States, and especially on the West Coast. They encouraged the use of Issei, Nissei, "Negroes", and other disaffected Americans. Malkin's thesis is that the MAGIC intercepts played a key role in the decision to intern the Japanese-Americans.
A Tradition of Internment
Malkin points out that internment was the norm around the world at the time, and we're talking about our allies. Canada, Australia, the British, New Zealand, almost everyone interned ethnic Japanese, Germans, and Italians (and others). As for those who say that we should make a no distinction between American citizens and aliens, she says that "...it would be idiotic, and suicidal, to presume that foreign nationals from hostile countries with which we are at war are as loyal or friendly to the United States as native-born Americans or naturalized citizens...."
Why didn't the government simply monitor the Japanese here in the U.S.?
Mere monitoring of suspected subversives seemed an inadequate response, given what was at stake and the scope of the effort that would have been required. Beat in mind that close monitoring of ethnic Japanese agents in Honolulu had done nothing to prevent the transmission of sensitive information to Tokyo.Criminal prosecutions were not possible because most had committed no overt crime and we didn't have enough evidence of espionage (and didn't want to reveal MAGIC in open court), martial law or quasi-judicial military tribunals were of dubious constitutionality. In short, there were too many Issei and Nissei to do anything else.
Malkin also explains that the reason that Germans or Italians were not interned was because they had not developed an extensive intelligence network as had the Japanese, and because so many Germans and Italians had already intermarried with native Americans, quite unlike the Japanese.
An Intelligence Network or Not?
Much of her book is based on the belief that American policy-makers believed that the Japanese had built an extensive intelligence network. Now go back and read that again. The question is not whether such a network existed, for hindsight is always 20/20, but whether we had cause to believe it existed. Malkin says yes, her detractors say no. Detractors point to the lack of prosecutions of Japanese-American spies "so where are they?", Malkin responds by saying that A) before Pearl Harbor the DOJ deferred to the Dept of State, which wanted to resolve the crisis with Japan peacefully, B) we did not want to reveal MAGIC in open court, and C) they were simply more difficult to discover and root out.
"B" was certainly true with other U.S. intelligence operations, such as Venona. Several communist spies, notably Judith Coplon, were able to escape conviction (she had two convictions overturned) because the government did not want to give up the existence of a code-breaking operation.
Racism?
No doubt that racism, as we understand it today, had something to do with the decision to intern. Malkin downplays this more than she should. At the same time, it is clear to me that to view the decision to intern solely in terms of "racist hysteria" is ludicrous. As is the case with most historical events, many factors are at work, and work together in a complicated way. It is high time that those who view our countries history as a record of racial, sex, and class oppression have their feet held to the fire. In this respect Malkin has done us a great service.
So what of It?
I'm not even going to try and sort out the claims and counterclaims. A quick Google search using the book title will provide much food for thought. To her credit, Malkin links to several of her critics on her website, see here, here, here, here, and especially here. Read the debates and come to your own conclusion.
The men who made the decision to intern were criticized not long after the war. Many went to their deathbeds saying "...you just don't understand. We feared an invasion. We were trying to protect our country."
I wonder what I would have done had I been a decision maker in January of 1942. One easy way out is to use hindsight and say that you would have boldly stood up against injustice (wave fist now). Another is to explain complicated historical events in terms of modern racial ideas, and to write off internment as "racial hysteria." Given what policy-makers knew at the time, I can't blame them for taking the decision they did. Hindsight is always 20/20. Would I have done it myself? I can't say. Was it the right thing to do? I'm not sure.
Posted by Tom at March 2, 2005 10:15 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/340
