Japanese-American Internments

The Japanese-American Internments Question: Discuss the arguments for and against interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Was it justified? Context: December 7 th, 1941: Pearl Harbor, an attack by the Japanese on the Hawaiian base

A photo of the USS Shaw, as it exploded, at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7 th, 1941, prompting revenge from the US. harbor.jpg

Causes of Internment By far, the main cause of the internments was a fear of anyone of Japanese descent following Pearl Harbor. By far, the main cause of the internments was a fear of anyone of Japanese descent following Pearl Harbor. The US and Japan’s “peaceful” feud before the attack prompted some concern as well The US and Japan’s “peaceful” feud before the attack prompted some concern as well In August 1941, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan suggested, to President Roosevelt, jailing 10,000 Hawaiian Japanese to ensure “good behavior” on the part of Japan. In August 1941, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan suggested, to President Roosevelt, jailing 10,000 Hawaiian Japanese to ensure “good behavior” on the part of Japan.

Causes of Internment (cont.) Roosevelt’s presidential Executive Order 9066 authorized the armed forces to consider any areas necessary of the US as military areas “from which any or all persons may be excluded,“ essentially the Japanese. Roosevelt’s presidential Executive Order 9066 authorized the armed forces to consider any areas necessary of the US as military areas “from which any or all persons may be excluded,“ essentially the Japanese.

Effects of Internment Nearly 120,000 Japanese-Americans were relocated inland, of which 62% were already American citizens. Nearly 120,000 Japanese-Americans were relocated inland, of which 62% were already American citizens. Over 1,000 Japanese, who renounced their American citizenship, were repatriated back to Japan Over 1,000 Japanese, who renounced their American citizenship, were repatriated back to Japan

Effects of Internment This girl, with her “ID tag,” is part of one of many families forced inland, out of their homes, due to the internments. This girl, with her “ID tag,” is part of one of many families forced inland, out of their homes, due to the internments. Academic/Relocation.htm

Japanese American teens, 1942 In February of 1942 President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that all Japanese Americans living on the West Coast be rounded up and placed in prison camps. These families were awaiting a train to take them to an assembly center in Merced, California; from there, they would be sent to relocation camps in remote inland areas. (National Archives) Japanese American teens, 1942 Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Korematsu v. US (1944) Facts of the Case: Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. Constitutional Question: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent? Conclusion: The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril.“ Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against

Questions What were the arguments for and against interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Was it justified?

Atomic Bombing of Japan

hattan/potsdam_decision.htm hattan/potsdam_decision.htm

Island Bases in Marianas and on Iwo Jima provided strategic staging areas for the bombing of Japan and dropping of the bomb.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki

To Bomb or Not to Bomb, p. 751 PRO PRO CON CON

Questions to consider… Was the bombing necessary? Was the bombing necessary? Was it necessary to use both bombs? Was it necessary to use both bombs? Was it necessary to bomb civilian centers of population? Was it necessary to bomb civilian centers of population? Does what we know now change whether the decision was justified? Does what we know now change whether the decision was justified?