What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror
Everything you've been taught about the World War II "internment camps" in America is
376 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2004
11 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
About the author
Michelle Malkin
16 books126 followersMichelle Malkin is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, and author. Her weekly syndicated column appears in a number of newspapers and websites. She is a Fox News Channel contributor and has been a guest on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and national radio programs. Malkin has written four books published by Regnery Publishing.
Malkin began her journalism career at the Los Angeles Daily News, working as a columnist from 1992 to 1994. In 1995, she worked in Washington, D.C., as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market, anti-government regulation, libertarian think tank. In 1996, she moved to Seattle, Washington, where she wrote columns for The Seattle Times. Malkin became a nationally-syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate in 1999.
Malkin began her journalism career at the Los Angeles Daily News, working as a columnist from 1992 to 1994. In 1995, she worked in Washington, D.C., as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market, anti-government regulation, libertarian think tank. In 1996, she moved to Seattle, Washington, where she wrote columns for The Seattle Times. Malkin became a nationally-syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate in 1999.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 22, 2016
This is a book which is in favor of the internment of persons of Japanese ancestry during World War II, and is written by Michelle Malkin, who is a strong conservative.
The book is subtitled The Case for 'Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror. The cover shows what type of book it is, since there is a picture of a modern-day terrorist linked to a picture of a person of Japanese ancestry for the time of WWII.
The book is not as badly written as other books on this same topic. She presents her arguments in a fairly straight forward, usually non-wild manner. Her problem is that she doesn't consider the culture of that time, and she has some logical errors big enough to fly a B-29 through.
First, one would get the impression that the book, from the cover, spends lot of time on the current War on Terror, and makes a strong effort to link that back to the internment process. Actually, that's not the case at all. The vast majority of the book is on the internment, and only a small bit is on the War on Terror, and links between the two are quite weak.
“Ethnic Japanese forced to leave the West Coast of the United States and relocate outside of prescribed military zones after the Pearl Harbor attack endured a heavy burden, but they were not the only ones who suffered and sacrificed.”
Quite true, but she overlooks a major point. Yes, almost everyone suffered and sacrificed in World War II, but that was done voluntarily (except for those who were drafted into the military). People lived with rationing, cut back on purchases, saved scrap metal and paper, etc, but all this was done with their compliance. The persons of Japanese ancestry, on the other hand, were forced to leave their homes and businesses without any concern for their civil rights. They were not charged with any crimes. They were not arrested and put on trial. They were rounded up based on their ethnicity, forced to leave their homes and businesses (often suffering financial ruin as a result), then shipped off to various camps, forced to remain there or, if allowed out, were allowed out only on certain conditions.
This was enforced suffering, not voluntary, and, as such, was much worse that that of other person in the war (with the exception of those who lost loved ones.)
Later, she says people don't remember or understand the conditions that existed at that time, and I fully agree with her. Japan had attacked the U.S. Their armies were marching through Southeast Asia. There were some sinkings of merchant ships by Japanese submarines, and there was even very limited shelling of the U.S. coast by Japanese subs, and a couple of incidents where a Japanese sub-carried plane tried to start forest fires (during the wet season.)
What she totally fails to go into is the pre-existing prejudice against Orientals on the West Coast of the U.S. (I have reviewed a number of books on this topic and there are in my reviews section, along with related samples in my newspapers section.) The movement of PJAs (Persons of Japanese Ancestry) out of the West Coast area was as much a matter of ethnic prejudice and economic jealousy as it was anything else, if not more so.
She spends a chapter on one incident where a Japanese flyer was aided by PJAs after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was eventually killed by someone on the island. There was also one instance (which she doesn't recount) of a couple of PJA women helping Germans who had escaped from a P.O.W. Camp. Outside of those two examples, that was pretty much the extent of regular PJAs betraying the U.S.
Now, there were PJAs working in Japanese consulates, and she spends a lot of time on that subject. Those people would be expected, naturally, to work for the Japanese government and not care about the U.S. They were not reflective of the “average” PJA in the states at all.
“After December 7, 1941, it would have been unforgivably irresponsible of American officials to ignore the possibility of attacks on the mainland-...”
She is, of course, totally correct on this. What she doesn't really consider, and herein is her biggest error in logic, is that, if the U.S. West Coast was in danger from Japan, then Hawaii was REALLY in danger from Japan. It is a lot closer to Japan than is the U.S. mainland. It had already been attacked once (and was, in fact, bombed again, but on a much more minor scale.) If the Japanese were to attack, then Hawaii, not the West Coast, would have been the logical place for an invasion.
What one has to consider, again, is the difference in the times. In today's world, attacking the U.S. from Japan would be comparatively easy. ICBMs could reach the US. There are planes that can fly the distance without refueling, and ships that can go the distance without refueling.
Back then, there were no such missiles, and there were no such long-range planes or ships. Refueling and reprovisioning were major problems for both sides during the war. At attack on the U.S. West Coast would have stretched Japanese resources far beyond what they could actually manage. Remember, Japan was already in China. It was moving through Southeast Asia. It had attacked Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands (which she also doesn't remember to include.)
Their forces were stretched as is, and to attack Hawaii would have been very difficult, but not totally impossible, but attacking the U. S. West Coast in strength, rather than by a few very isolated submarine incidents, was pretty much out of the question.
Also, consider that about 1/3 of the people in Hawaii were PJAs. (A much larger percentage than PJAs on the West Coast). Since there were many more PJAs in Hawaii proportionally, and since Hawaii was within striking distance for a major invasion (albeit pretty much at the limits of their abilities), then why weren't Hawaiian PJAs gotten off the island and shipped to the mainland. Logically, if Malkin's suspicious about PJAs are accurate, then the PJAs on Hawaii posed a much more dire threat to U.S. security than did those on the West Coast.
Yet, there was no major movement of PJAs off Hawaii. Some were arrested and removed, true, but this was a very small percentage of the overall PJA population. Why weren't they moved? Because they were a major part of the work force, and removing them would have severely damaged the economic structure of Hawaii (not counting the fact that it would have tied up numerous boats that would have been used for shipping PJAs from Hawaii to the U.S., rather than using those boats directly for the war effort.) So, the PJAs stayed in Hawaii (under wartime conditions and controls, of course.)
So, if her fear of PJAs was actually justified, then the ones in Hawaii should have been moved first and foremost, and the ones on the mainland secondly, yet only the ones on the mainland suffered a major resettlement, and then only those PJAs on the West Coast.
Again, logic is a problem for her. If the PJAs were so dangerous, subversive and willing to cooperate with the Japanese military, then it would be logical to gather up ALL the PJAs in the entire country, not just in one part of it. What logic holds for some must hold true for all, or for none at all.
Also, a lot of her examples of subversion, etc, take place in other countries, primarily in Southeast Asia, and not in the U.S. These were countries being invaded actively by Japan and, as in any war, some people will try to curry favor with the enemy.
She spends a lot of time going into the various Japanese organizations in the U.S., including the Japanese language schools. There were, indeed, such organizations. What she doesn't adequately point out is that the organizations were already under scrutiny, and, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the FBI picked up most of the leaders of these organizations within a day or two (whether or not they were engaged in anti-U.S Activities.)
She spends a lot of time on the MAGIC intercepts. She says, for example, “...a series of MAGIC messages revealed Japan's intent to establish an espionage network in the United States.” Well, duh. Of course they would. Again, what she doesn't point out is that these were run through the consulates, and the Japanese agents weren't really able to get many volunteers among the PJAs in the U.S.
She spends some time over the fear of radios in the hands of PJAs. Well, for one thing, many of the PJAs were fisherman, and having radios was not unusual. Actually, anyone having radios was not unusual, since this was before television, and radios, shortwave and otherwise, were about the only way to keep up on world events. Having a radio was not a sign of some evil, devious purpose at work; it was a sign of a regular person having a regular interest.
She talks about the lack of internment of Italians and Germans in the country, and says “...there was no evidence that Germany or Italy had organized a large-scale espionage network...” This sort of overlooks the BUND, which was a fairly major organization in the Eastern part of the U.S.
Like other books in the series, she tries to paint a fairly rosy picture of conditions in the internment camps, totally overlooking the fact that the people were forced to go there without any attention being paid to their legal rights. Anyone who goes over my reviews of books on the camps will see that conditions in those camps were anything but rosy.
She writes about violence at some of the centers, and that is correct. There was violence in some, and deaths in some. A good part of this was brought about by the loyalty test given to the PJAs, and the tremendous split in the PJA community over what questions 27 and 28 meant, and how they should react to them. Also, she doesn't factor in the fact that these people were put into the camps and kept there against their will (until programs were set up for allowing some to work outside of the camps.) It's perfectly natural that some violence would eventually erupt, given the conditions the people lived under.
It's also amazing how far some conservatives will go to justify their beliefs. She writes “There is not one documented case of an ethnic Japanese espionage agent or saboteur-Issei or Nisei-turning himself in to U.S. authorities.” A shocking condemnation of PJAS?
No. Just a matter of logic. If you were a spy or a saboteur would you turn yourself in to the authorities? I don't think so.
The basic information part of the book is 165 pages long. Then, there are 144 more pages of documents and photos, allegedly to prove her points.
A lot of them are very standard things, things that one would expect be sent from a consulate to the home country. There are also some rather interesting things included.
In a paper from March 12, 1941, Hoover, head of the FBI, says that the Japanese espionage effort is going to be moved to Mexico. So, it if was going to Mexico, why ship out the U.S. PJAs to the camps? A paper from the Navy Department, dated December 4, 1941, talks about PJAs in Hawaii, and how almost all of them “belongs to one or more purely Japanese organizations.” By Malkin's logic, then these people were very, very suspicious and should have been moved to the mainland camps, but they weren't.
A paper from January 26, 1962 notes that “..the entire 'Japanese Problem' has been magnified out of its true proportion...and, finally, that it should be handled on the basis of the individual, regardless of citizenship, and not on a racial basis.”
In other words, no mass evacuation was called for.
A number of the papers she includes have nothing at all to do with PJAs in the U.S. or Hawaii of the time. They deal with Mexico, Latin America, and other areas of the world.
She has some photos, noting in one of them a PJA named Richard M. Kotoshirodo, and that he was involved in gathering intelligence. She doesn't point out that he was working for the Japanese consulate at the time.
Thus, what we have is a rather flawed book. It doesn't examine the history of the times very well at all. It includes material that is totally irrelevant to the book's major thesis about how untrustworthy PJAs on the mainland were. It has major logic flaws. It's a typical conservative argument based on half-truths, omissions, and diversions. It might seem sort of convincing to someone who had read only this book and nothing else on the internment process, but to any person aspiring to be a historian, the book shows its limitations all too easily.
The book is subtitled The Case for 'Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror. The cover shows what type of book it is, since there is a picture of a modern-day terrorist linked to a picture of a person of Japanese ancestry for the time of WWII.
The book is not as badly written as other books on this same topic. She presents her arguments in a fairly straight forward, usually non-wild manner. Her problem is that she doesn't consider the culture of that time, and she has some logical errors big enough to fly a B-29 through.
First, one would get the impression that the book, from the cover, spends lot of time on the current War on Terror, and makes a strong effort to link that back to the internment process. Actually, that's not the case at all. The vast majority of the book is on the internment, and only a small bit is on the War on Terror, and links between the two are quite weak.
“Ethnic Japanese forced to leave the West Coast of the United States and relocate outside of prescribed military zones after the Pearl Harbor attack endured a heavy burden, but they were not the only ones who suffered and sacrificed.”
Quite true, but she overlooks a major point. Yes, almost everyone suffered and sacrificed in World War II, but that was done voluntarily (except for those who were drafted into the military). People lived with rationing, cut back on purchases, saved scrap metal and paper, etc, but all this was done with their compliance. The persons of Japanese ancestry, on the other hand, were forced to leave their homes and businesses without any concern for their civil rights. They were not charged with any crimes. They were not arrested and put on trial. They were rounded up based on their ethnicity, forced to leave their homes and businesses (often suffering financial ruin as a result), then shipped off to various camps, forced to remain there or, if allowed out, were allowed out only on certain conditions.
This was enforced suffering, not voluntary, and, as such, was much worse that that of other person in the war (with the exception of those who lost loved ones.)
Later, she says people don't remember or understand the conditions that existed at that time, and I fully agree with her. Japan had attacked the U.S. Their armies were marching through Southeast Asia. There were some sinkings of merchant ships by Japanese submarines, and there was even very limited shelling of the U.S. coast by Japanese subs, and a couple of incidents where a Japanese sub-carried plane tried to start forest fires (during the wet season.)
What she totally fails to go into is the pre-existing prejudice against Orientals on the West Coast of the U.S. (I have reviewed a number of books on this topic and there are in my reviews section, along with related samples in my newspapers section.) The movement of PJAs (Persons of Japanese Ancestry) out of the West Coast area was as much a matter of ethnic prejudice and economic jealousy as it was anything else, if not more so.
She spends a chapter on one incident where a Japanese flyer was aided by PJAs after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was eventually killed by someone on the island. There was also one instance (which she doesn't recount) of a couple of PJA women helping Germans who had escaped from a P.O.W. Camp. Outside of those two examples, that was pretty much the extent of regular PJAs betraying the U.S.
Now, there were PJAs working in Japanese consulates, and she spends a lot of time on that subject. Those people would be expected, naturally, to work for the Japanese government and not care about the U.S. They were not reflective of the “average” PJA in the states at all.
“After December 7, 1941, it would have been unforgivably irresponsible of American officials to ignore the possibility of attacks on the mainland-...”
She is, of course, totally correct on this. What she doesn't really consider, and herein is her biggest error in logic, is that, if the U.S. West Coast was in danger from Japan, then Hawaii was REALLY in danger from Japan. It is a lot closer to Japan than is the U.S. mainland. It had already been attacked once (and was, in fact, bombed again, but on a much more minor scale.) If the Japanese were to attack, then Hawaii, not the West Coast, would have been the logical place for an invasion.
What one has to consider, again, is the difference in the times. In today's world, attacking the U.S. from Japan would be comparatively easy. ICBMs could reach the US. There are planes that can fly the distance without refueling, and ships that can go the distance without refueling.
Back then, there were no such missiles, and there were no such long-range planes or ships. Refueling and reprovisioning were major problems for both sides during the war. At attack on the U.S. West Coast would have stretched Japanese resources far beyond what they could actually manage. Remember, Japan was already in China. It was moving through Southeast Asia. It had attacked Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands (which she also doesn't remember to include.)
Their forces were stretched as is, and to attack Hawaii would have been very difficult, but not totally impossible, but attacking the U. S. West Coast in strength, rather than by a few very isolated submarine incidents, was pretty much out of the question.
Also, consider that about 1/3 of the people in Hawaii were PJAs. (A much larger percentage than PJAs on the West Coast). Since there were many more PJAs in Hawaii proportionally, and since Hawaii was within striking distance for a major invasion (albeit pretty much at the limits of their abilities), then why weren't Hawaiian PJAs gotten off the island and shipped to the mainland. Logically, if Malkin's suspicious about PJAs are accurate, then the PJAs on Hawaii posed a much more dire threat to U.S. security than did those on the West Coast.
Yet, there was no major movement of PJAs off Hawaii. Some were arrested and removed, true, but this was a very small percentage of the overall PJA population. Why weren't they moved? Because they were a major part of the work force, and removing them would have severely damaged the economic structure of Hawaii (not counting the fact that it would have tied up numerous boats that would have been used for shipping PJAs from Hawaii to the U.S., rather than using those boats directly for the war effort.) So, the PJAs stayed in Hawaii (under wartime conditions and controls, of course.)
So, if her fear of PJAs was actually justified, then the ones in Hawaii should have been moved first and foremost, and the ones on the mainland secondly, yet only the ones on the mainland suffered a major resettlement, and then only those PJAs on the West Coast.
Again, logic is a problem for her. If the PJAs were so dangerous, subversive and willing to cooperate with the Japanese military, then it would be logical to gather up ALL the PJAs in the entire country, not just in one part of it. What logic holds for some must hold true for all, or for none at all.
Also, a lot of her examples of subversion, etc, take place in other countries, primarily in Southeast Asia, and not in the U.S. These were countries being invaded actively by Japan and, as in any war, some people will try to curry favor with the enemy.
She spends a lot of time going into the various Japanese organizations in the U.S., including the Japanese language schools. There were, indeed, such organizations. What she doesn't adequately point out is that the organizations were already under scrutiny, and, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the FBI picked up most of the leaders of these organizations within a day or two (whether or not they were engaged in anti-U.S Activities.)
She spends a lot of time on the MAGIC intercepts. She says, for example, “...a series of MAGIC messages revealed Japan's intent to establish an espionage network in the United States.” Well, duh. Of course they would. Again, what she doesn't point out is that these were run through the consulates, and the Japanese agents weren't really able to get many volunteers among the PJAs in the U.S.
She spends some time over the fear of radios in the hands of PJAs. Well, for one thing, many of the PJAs were fisherman, and having radios was not unusual. Actually, anyone having radios was not unusual, since this was before television, and radios, shortwave and otherwise, were about the only way to keep up on world events. Having a radio was not a sign of some evil, devious purpose at work; it was a sign of a regular person having a regular interest.
She talks about the lack of internment of Italians and Germans in the country, and says “...there was no evidence that Germany or Italy had organized a large-scale espionage network...” This sort of overlooks the BUND, which was a fairly major organization in the Eastern part of the U.S.
Like other books in the series, she tries to paint a fairly rosy picture of conditions in the internment camps, totally overlooking the fact that the people were forced to go there without any attention being paid to their legal rights. Anyone who goes over my reviews of books on the camps will see that conditions in those camps were anything but rosy.
She writes about violence at some of the centers, and that is correct. There was violence in some, and deaths in some. A good part of this was brought about by the loyalty test given to the PJAs, and the tremendous split in the PJA community over what questions 27 and 28 meant, and how they should react to them. Also, she doesn't factor in the fact that these people were put into the camps and kept there against their will (until programs were set up for allowing some to work outside of the camps.) It's perfectly natural that some violence would eventually erupt, given the conditions the people lived under.
It's also amazing how far some conservatives will go to justify their beliefs. She writes “There is not one documented case of an ethnic Japanese espionage agent or saboteur-Issei or Nisei-turning himself in to U.S. authorities.” A shocking condemnation of PJAS?
No. Just a matter of logic. If you were a spy or a saboteur would you turn yourself in to the authorities? I don't think so.
The basic information part of the book is 165 pages long. Then, there are 144 more pages of documents and photos, allegedly to prove her points.
A lot of them are very standard things, things that one would expect be sent from a consulate to the home country. There are also some rather interesting things included.
In a paper from March 12, 1941, Hoover, head of the FBI, says that the Japanese espionage effort is going to be moved to Mexico. So, it if was going to Mexico, why ship out the U.S. PJAs to the camps? A paper from the Navy Department, dated December 4, 1941, talks about PJAs in Hawaii, and how almost all of them “belongs to one or more purely Japanese organizations.” By Malkin's logic, then these people were very, very suspicious and should have been moved to the mainland camps, but they weren't.
A paper from January 26, 1962 notes that “..the entire 'Japanese Problem' has been magnified out of its true proportion...and, finally, that it should be handled on the basis of the individual, regardless of citizenship, and not on a racial basis.”
In other words, no mass evacuation was called for.
A number of the papers she includes have nothing at all to do with PJAs in the U.S. or Hawaii of the time. They deal with Mexico, Latin America, and other areas of the world.
She has some photos, noting in one of them a PJA named Richard M. Kotoshirodo, and that he was involved in gathering intelligence. She doesn't point out that he was working for the Japanese consulate at the time.
Thus, what we have is a rather flawed book. It doesn't examine the history of the times very well at all. It includes material that is totally irrelevant to the book's major thesis about how untrustworthy PJAs on the mainland were. It has major logic flaws. It's a typical conservative argument based on half-truths, omissions, and diversions. It might seem sort of convincing to someone who had read only this book and nothing else on the internment process, but to any person aspiring to be a historian, the book shows its limitations all too easily.
April 4, 2014
I suppose I may be one of many that came across Malkin because of her blundering, ignorant support for the supposedly racist tweet by the Stephen Colbert corporate twitter account.
I actually thought this book couldn't be real, it seemed blatantly racist, as Malkin seemed so against as she hoped to defend the asian community from the harm that a tweet could do.
Boy was I wrong. So very, very wrong.
Every page felt as though it was someone that is willing to strip the freedoms of thousands in hopes of maybe, possibly catching one.
For someone who supposedly fights against racism, she seems pretty damn willing to jump to conclusions for entire ethnic groups based on speculation and hearsay.
If you have to pick it up, please do at a used bookstore just so that you know none of it funds this woman to write any more gibberish. Then do what I did after finishing it, burn it so that no one ever will again.
I actually thought this book couldn't be real, it seemed blatantly racist, as Malkin seemed so against as she hoped to defend the asian community from the harm that a tweet could do.
Boy was I wrong. So very, very wrong.
Every page felt as though it was someone that is willing to strip the freedoms of thousands in hopes of maybe, possibly catching one.
For someone who supposedly fights against racism, she seems pretty damn willing to jump to conclusions for entire ethnic groups based on speculation and hearsay.
If you have to pick it up, please do at a used bookstore just so that you know none of it funds this woman to write any more gibberish. Then do what I did after finishing it, burn it so that no one ever will again.
May 11, 2013
Malkin's conclusions are based on flawed sources, poor scholarship, and an incomplete understanding of the topic. This book was shrill; it would have made me laugh if its assertions weren't so disturbing.
February 26, 2013
Ick. I can't believe I even touched a copy of this tripe, let alone read it. Morbid curiosity, I guess.
September 29, 2014
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone that hasn't already read several alternative sources on the internment. It has some good conservative perspectives, but it tends to twist the facts and fails to effectively engage the strongest arguments raised by other authors about the causes of the internment.
Interestingly, there is little in this book that I took as an actual defense of the mass internment. She argues extensively that the government was right to detain ethnic Japanese that were suspected of disloyalty, but she fails to explain how this justifies the internment of all ethnic Japanese (many of which were American citizens). Malkin does not argue that internment is a reasonable solution to current security concerns, but rather that the government should be free to do racial and ethnic profiling. I found it puzzling that she should defend the internment as a whole, when really she is arguing that the government was right to selectively intern some enemy aliens. If the US government had only done this (and not proceeded to intern some 70,000 Japanese Americans including more Japanese aliens), there would be little controversy today.
As a sidenote, she occasionally makes some fairly bizarre statements. For instance, she cites the Canadian internment of Japanese-Canadians as proof that the United States government was reacting to a real security threat. However, the consensus on the Japanese-Canadian internment is that it was a political decision that was motivated by racial animus. At another point, she claims that General DeWitt was not racist because the decision to intern was really made under the supervision of President Roosevelt. Several chapters later she claims that Roosevelt was too busy to make the decision, and that he delegated that decision to his subordinates. Mistakes like these weakened her stronger arguments.
Interestingly, there is little in this book that I took as an actual defense of the mass internment. She argues extensively that the government was right to detain ethnic Japanese that were suspected of disloyalty, but she fails to explain how this justifies the internment of all ethnic Japanese (many of which were American citizens). Malkin does not argue that internment is a reasonable solution to current security concerns, but rather that the government should be free to do racial and ethnic profiling. I found it puzzling that she should defend the internment as a whole, when really she is arguing that the government was right to selectively intern some enemy aliens. If the US government had only done this (and not proceeded to intern some 70,000 Japanese Americans including more Japanese aliens), there would be little controversy today.
As a sidenote, she occasionally makes some fairly bizarre statements. For instance, she cites the Canadian internment of Japanese-Canadians as proof that the United States government was reacting to a real security threat. However, the consensus on the Japanese-Canadian internment is that it was a political decision that was motivated by racial animus. At another point, she claims that General DeWitt was not racist because the decision to intern was really made under the supervision of President Roosevelt. Several chapters later she claims that Roosevelt was too busy to make the decision, and that he delegated that decision to his subordinates. Mistakes like these weakened her stronger arguments.
May 27, 2011
I appreciated this book. I am grateful to Michelle Malkin for braving the cries of bigot and racist to write it. Sometimes there are things that you "learn" that just don't sound right or don't make sense. And although you don't have any evidence you just know it is wrong. Now, I have the evidence to match the common sense feelings I've always had.
"In defense of internment? The Japanese American internment? Is she really going to defend that? Well, yes and no. Now that I've gotten your attention..."
"This book challenges the religiously held belief that internment of enemy aliens and the West Coast evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese were primarily the result of 'wartime hysteria' and 'race prejudice.' That was the conclusion of a national panel, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians."
I learned more about the Japanese and their attacks on the US in the first few pages than I did in all of my history classes. And I am a nut about footnotes. I actually read them and look them up. There are copies of the actual MAGIC documents (ignored by the committee) and our intelligence memos. This book tells us what was actually happening at the time and reminds us to look at the historical context of events and not the hysterical hindsight of the victim culture born in the 60s and fomented in subsequent decades.
"In defense of internment? The Japanese American internment? Is she really going to defend that? Well, yes and no. Now that I've gotten your attention..."
"This book challenges the religiously held belief that internment of enemy aliens and the West Coast evacuation and relocation of ethnic Japanese were primarily the result of 'wartime hysteria' and 'race prejudice.' That was the conclusion of a national panel, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians."
I learned more about the Japanese and their attacks on the US in the first few pages than I did in all of my history classes. And I am a nut about footnotes. I actually read them and look them up. There are copies of the actual MAGIC documents (ignored by the committee) and our intelligence memos. This book tells us what was actually happening at the time and reminds us to look at the historical context of events and not the hysterical hindsight of the victim culture born in the 60s and fomented in subsequent decades.
August 8, 2015
The fact that anyone can defend the internment as not racially motivated is appalling and, quite frankly, terrifying. My grandfather was interned and this book awakened me to the fact that there are still some seriously bigoted people in general in this country. I mean, we all talk about the racial hatred against African-Americans and Latinos now, but against Asians? I for one thought we were getting past that. The blatant discarding of facts in this books allows it to serve as a cover-up for something we should look to in any country as a way to REMEMBER that there are some lines (like liberty, maybe) that should never be crossed without absolute proof. Look, people were only interned off the WEST COAST. Look up the history of Asians in that area and tell me there wasn't racial hatred there. I dare you.
And then tell all those interned people who served out of camps, my grandfather included, that all their sacrifice to PROVE their loyalty to a country that shouldn't have doubted it in the first place proved nothing. Tell the families of those who died saying "Go For Broke" that yes, their brave sons deserved to be interned because they couldn't be trusted because their parents came over from Japan. Please also realize that these people left Japan for a reason. Like, for instance, that they loved America and wanted to be here.
And then call me up and tell me you still think that. And then I will weep that yet another person believes these bigoted half-truths.
And then tell all those interned people who served out of camps, my grandfather included, that all their sacrifice to PROVE their loyalty to a country that shouldn't have doubted it in the first place proved nothing. Tell the families of those who died saying "Go For Broke" that yes, their brave sons deserved to be interned because they couldn't be trusted because their parents came over from Japan. Please also realize that these people left Japan for a reason. Like, for instance, that they loved America and wanted to be here.
And then call me up and tell me you still think that. And then I will weep that yet another person believes these bigoted half-truths.
July 25, 2013
Michelle discusses the WWII internment. The history books tell us that the internment was totally a hysterically racist act. This book has much documentation showing the current accepted history to be completely untrue. Canada and Mexico interned aliens before the US did. The aliens living in critical areas were given the option of relocating from those areas or going into the camps. During their internment they were free to leave in order to move into non-critical areas, to work, to college. Japanese were not the only aliens interned. Others included Germans, Italians, Polish, etc. This book includes many now unclassified documents and decrypted Japanese spy correspondence.
Fascinating account of total educational malpractice and political correctness.
Fascinating account of total educational malpractice and political correctness.
August 19, 2017
This book makes a very clear case that internment of Japanese was not a racial issue but a security issue. Using well-sourced and cited facts, including the secret (in 1941) MAGIC transcripts, it shows that Roosevelt had information that was credible and reasons to doubt Japanese Issei and Nisei loyalties if the Japanese were to bomb or invade the West Coast. Seems silly now but not in '41. I encourage anyone interested in the debate at all over the justice of internment to read this book. It will open your mind.
April 17, 2008
Poltical
-Defenses
-Defenses
May 18, 2008
Michelle did a great job researching this book.
April 28, 2008
A good book for the most part, and it gives the much-needed other side of the debate, but it does kind of go on (and on). There comes a point where you just want to yell WE GET IT, MOVE ON.
September 17, 2009
This book told another side to this story that I have not heard before. I knew there had to be reasons beyond America was just scared and racist but I had never really heard the complete truth.
Read
September 23, 2010In Defense of Internment: The World War II Round-Up and What It Means For America's War on Terror by Michelle Malkin (2004)
October 2, 2023
I just finished reading In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror by Michelle Malkin. Quite frankly I was disappointed. I personally believe that a racial profiling is OK, providing that is a confined to use as a sensible policing and national security usage. There is a good case to be made that groups of people that communicate among themselves in a foreign language should be scrutinized. Scrutiny does not equal internment.
The author goes far beyond that, defending the wholesale relocation of Japanese-Americans away from the Pacific Coast to inland relocation camps. Ms. Malkin over-makes her case. She properly places the security measures in the context of an ongoing war. She fails to also contextualize it to the ongoing bigotry practiced against the Jews. Basically, all groups that were not WASPs were subject to discrimination and/or exclusion.
The book cites reports that approximately 1.5% of Japanese-Americans were correctly subject to suspicion. The book takes the position that therefore all Japanese-Americans should be subject to treatment that she would no doubt find intolerable. The book presents a plethora of reports that there was some Japanese subversion. She makes conclusory statement that, therefore, the exclusion order, Executive Order 9066, was not the result of "wartime hysteria." I believe her support of her positions is weak, if not risible.
Edit/Delete Message
The author goes far beyond that, defending the wholesale relocation of Japanese-Americans away from the Pacific Coast to inland relocation camps. Ms. Malkin over-makes her case. She properly places the security measures in the context of an ongoing war. She fails to also contextualize it to the ongoing bigotry practiced against the Jews. Basically, all groups that were not WASPs were subject to discrimination and/or exclusion.
The book cites reports that approximately 1.5% of Japanese-Americans were correctly subject to suspicion. The book takes the position that therefore all Japanese-Americans should be subject to treatment that she would no doubt find intolerable. The book presents a plethora of reports that there was some Japanese subversion. She makes conclusory statement that, therefore, the exclusion order, Executive Order 9066, was not the result of "wartime hysteria." I believe her support of her positions is weak, if not risible.
Edit/Delete Message
May 26, 2018
Masterpiece! A must read if you want to know the truth of the internments. This is one of the few books that has not been perverted by Japanese propaganda and revisionism.
33.3% of all Japanese people in the USA were fanatically devoted to their mass murderer emperor. Japanese people could not be trusted.
We won World War II and the internment camps helped us win. That’s all that really matters.
33.3% of all Japanese people in the USA were fanatically devoted to their mass murderer emperor. Japanese people could not be trusted.
We won World War II and the internment camps helped us win. That’s all that really matters.
April 30, 2021
Very strong points, though a bit controversial
Read
April 12, 2017Malkin's assertions are comprise of faulty sources. Malkin's claims are unproven, inaccurate, and demonstrates her lack of knowledge on the topic. This book is a horrendous read.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews