Japanese-American Inequivalent

Between 1942 and 1946, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated to concentration camps with the justification of military necessity after the Japanese launched the devastating attack on pearl harbor in 1941. However, it is of debate to which extent was the degree posed by Japanese-American equivalent to the treatment of Internment they received from the US government. Orthodox Historians who regard the internment decision to be wrong, suggests that the degree of threat posed by Japanese-American were completely inequivalent to the treatment they received as it was unconstitutional since the military justification were counterfeit from the start without any concrete evidence and was merely resulted of racism and war hysteria as it was an US-planned policy to excuse themselves from their security incompetence. Revisionists historians who regard the internment decision to be correct, offer their interpretation on how the threat posed by Japanese-American was equivalent to their treatment when considering the long-standing prejudice of America towards the Japanese which possibly fueled up their anger to take revenge as it is wiser to be cautious during interwar years, especially when Japanese has a nature to be false. A third interpretation based on the post-revisionists perspective synthesizes both approaches, asserting the threat posed by Japanese-Americans as equivalent to a small extent as while they view the increasing population of Japanese-American that poses economic competition to Americans as a systematic expression of Japanese war preparation, the threat had been exaggerated and the treatment was way harsher when considering the lack of immediate measures taken after pearl harbor attack. Orthodox Historians argued that the degree of threat posed by Japanese-American as completely inequivalent to the treatment they have received from the US government as it was unconstitutional. They view the internment decision as "the worst single wholesale violation of civil rights of American citizens in our history." that resulted from pure racism and war hysteria as it was merely a US planned-policy to excuse themselves from their security incompetence in Hawaii and Malaya that resulted from the undervalue of Japanese capabilities and intentions. This is exemplified by the fact that resources to enhance the competence of western intelligence are inadequate prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, in which there were even much skepticism about value of Security and Intelligence Services (SIS) reporting on Japan, reinforcing the idea that America undervalues Japanese capabilities. This is important as while espionage can be crucial for strategy and tactics, the fact that Japan’s successful attack on Pearl Harbor was not merely a result of tactical intelligence as underpinned by USA's successful code breaking in the Battle of Midway, implies that even espionage contributed it could be easily undermined …show more content…
Revionists historians argues that the degree of threat posed was equivalent as war between America and Japan is inevitable when considering America’s “long-standing prejudice towards the Japanese” that had fueled up their anger to take revenge. This is exemplified through considering the breakdown of Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1921 with the eventual formation of Anglo-US security cooperation in Asia and the Pacific that had risen from colonial perception of Japanese espionage, and the invasion of Manchuria that resulted from Japan outrage at the western interference in Japanese affairs. This is significant as it implies that the ensuing mutant distrust that developed over three decades prior to 1941 had built up the fear that Japanese intelligence agencies had planned for war through vigorous espionage efforts, giving value to the argument that the threat posed by Japanese-Americans was equivalent to their treatment since even Japanese-Americans are not necessarily Japanese, but since it is impossible to determine loyalty of a person, the internment camp therefore acts as a safety precaution as President Roosevelt have said success in war “requires every possible protection against espionage and sabotage." especially when there are …show more content…
However, when considering the lack of historical evidence and the lack of immediate action taken after the Pearl Harbor attack, the “threat” do seem to be exaggerated. Therefore, the interpretation by post revisionists historians that argues the threat posed by Japanese-Americans to be somewhat equivalent seems to be the most appropriate as it would be too superficial to have strong tendency on the interpretations that suggests the threat to be completely equivalent or inequivalent as the nature of two interpretations are different in the way that the revisionists perspective is based on unquantifiable components like racism and