Attitudes toward the Japanese?

Just what false pretense?

Aiko Herzig Yoshinaga was the "principal researcher" for the CWIRC who also assisted in locating "newly discovered evidence" in the corum nobis cases.

Herzig-Yoshinaga's "newly discovered evidence" refers to a January 26, 1942 memo written by Lt. Commander K.D. Ringle, deputy intelligence officer for 11th Naval District.

So the "newly discovered evidence" that Aiko "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is this Ringle memo the the pro-reparations (National Council on Japanese American Redress, who wanted to sue for $28 billion) lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT."

The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI.

Thus, the memo was an unofficial document having no status whatsoever, was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and CONFLICTED WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER.

Neither Korematsu nor Hirabayashi have been overturned by the Supreme Court. However, on a coram nobis the two cases were reviewed by district federal courts in 1983 and 1985 repectively. In both cases the petitioners claimed that becuase of "newly discovered evidence" it could now be proved that the U.S. government had lied to the Supreme Court and withheld key intelligence information.

The lower court in San Francisco at the Korematsu hearings accepted this so-called "newly discovered evidence" ploy. Operating on the theory that the Supreme Court would not have arrived at its 1944 decision if this evidence had been available, the federal judge in San Francisco vacated Korematsu's conviction.

None of the offical intelligence reports issued by the U.S. intelligence community, nor any MAGIC was introduced by the government during the hearings.

Korematsu's attorney's, who were by now aware of MAGIC, seized the opportunity to request that a statement be written into the decision that there was no credible evidence that resident Japanese were involved in espionage.

Having no evidence to the contrary, Judge Patel agreed to the request.

While this was being done the U.S. Dept. of Justice attorney sat silently in the court room with a briefcase filled with MAGIC and U.S. intelligence reports. which were and absolute refutation of what the court was allowed to include in the decision.

No attempt was made to introduce any of this data because it was the government's policy at the time not to refute the case.

That's the story on the Ringle memo, and the "newly discovered evidence" the court received in the Corum Nobis cases. It was a legal circus and the pro-reperations lawyers knew it.

Here's a link to the Ringle memo:

You'll find that even in this unofficial report Ringle mentions a 75% loyalty rate among Nisei. That could also be a read a 25% disloyalty rate.

Here's the Keisker memo the pro-reperations lawyers conveniently disregarded when submitting evidence in a Federal Court.

And yes, the Supreme Court rulings are all still good law to this day.

 

The Japanese were brilliant fighters. They were true soldiers, with their policies of 'no surrender' and 'fight to the death' and all that. They were a lot more hardy than the Americans were in the jungle theaters (in terms of food and resilience) and they were ruthless and efficient in their goals.

The Americans and other allies did not think much fo the Japanese, and thought them to be 'moneys' and 'inferior' to other nations, which contributed to the British fall at Singapore and Hong Kong, as they underestimated their enemy too much. In Singapore they underestimated the Japanese resolve as they entered into Singapore through the 'impenetrable jungles'.

I personally think that the Japanese are still underestimated by those who did not fight personally in the theatre, or only have a vague idea of the Japanese military. The Germans are always regarded as the most 'hardfighting' of the Axis, but in my opinion, the Japanese were. The Japanese fought with their honor and they did not care how they did it. Sure, they did some horrid things. But they were hard soldiers, and that is the fact people forget - much like the German S.S, who were also good fighters as well as murderers. The Japanese fought with whatever they could. They had many casualties, yet they were still going to defend their homeland to the last man - only the bomb stopped that from happening.

 

Good law??? Remember when those decisions were made in the 1940's racial segregation was still the law. Alot has changed since then. The participants in those decisions in the 1980's drew on what the Commision of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civillians had found .
edit...
Just glancing through the documents you posted links to seems to show that on page 2(c) less then 3% were considered dangerous. On page 3(F) it states the most dangerous were ones who had left the US for Japan for 10-20 years then returned to the US with there be only about 1200-1400 of them while in page 3(H) it states the Japanese problem has been stated all out of proportion. Your link just supports the case that it wasn't military necessity. If military necessity was the reason I retort that how may sub attacks occurred off our West Coast? The few Incidents that happened there were trumpeted but look at how our East Coast was being attacked by U-Boats at the time furthermore if Japan was such a big threat as to justify interning even US citizens then why was our policy Germany first?
edit..
Oh and to support my view that Korematsu isn't good law today just read some of what William Rehnquist had to say ,one of the most conservative and pro-government justices we've ever had, he stated that while MAYBE the government had the right to relocate the Issei the Nissei definately had the protection of the 14th Amendment in this case. Also have you ever heard of the Supreme Court case Ex parte Endo?

 

Why do you think so?

Why is this the mark of a true soldier? Indeed a pretty strong case exist to the contrary.

Source PLS. From what I've read they were pretty hard hit by both malnutrition and dissease.

Not always the best policy. Indeed it rather violates some of Sun Tzu's maximums.

To some extent but the naval professionals seem to have had a fair amount of respect of them. Indeed respect for their decision making may have contributed more to the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore than lack of respect.

I don't think the British considered those jungle impenetrable as they set up at least some defences in them. They may have misjudged the creativity of the Japanese but that's a different matter.

A rather nebulous concept there.

That seems to me to be as far off base as the opposing view you presented.

 

Germans are better fighters than the Japanese and smarter when the Germans see a battle that was pointless they surrendered like smart people but the Japanese on the other hand have to take things to the extremes.All of thoses people did not have to die on IwoJima,Okinawa,and the Philippines they where fighting for nothing and dying for a stupid cause and i think their crappy fighters.

 

The Japanese were crappy fighters, huh? We died for nothing? Well, I'll tell you what, kid...when you've got the Japanese shooting up your ass, and your buddies have got their blood spilled out over the coral, and you've got to keep humping these ragged cliffs, one after another, in 100 degree + weather, so that sneaky yellow bastards don't get away with killing more Americans, and Chinese, and Vietnamese, and all of Asia...and then you look around you with your color televisions and your steaks, and your hot and cold running water, and your new born babies who don't have to tote a weapon, because we killed Nips for a free America...then you tell me who fought for nothing, and how many servicemen died and were maimed for life because the Japs couldn't shoot worth a damn.

Learn something. Because evidently I didn't put myself in harm's way enough to satisfy some people.

You don't owe me anything - but I thought I owed you enough to kill and survive for a better state of the world.

Sterling Mace, K/3/5, 3rd squad, 3rd Platoon, 3rd Fire Team, Peleliu, Ngesebus and Okinawa. U.S. Marine Corps 1942-1945.

 

I just realized I used the term "Japs" and "Nips." For this I am very sorry.

You know, I didn't even hate the Japanese during the time. I did not like them very much, but hate? No, there was no hate in me. I had a job and that was it. Like screwing caps on toothpaste tubes or operating a cheese press.

I'm also sorry that I became a little angry. Perhaps I read it wrong. Things do not usually upset me these days - but the more I get into my book, and the more I think about what could have happened to me, but didn't...I tend to view those things in a heated light.

Maybe my post can be deleted?

Regards,
sm

 

The only thing really brilliant about the Japanese were their knee mortars and how they employed them. My God, if we only had mortars like that!

But the Japanese were tough. Real tough. Yes, the Japanese people at the time were brainwashed - and so were the Nazis - but I've seen the Japanese soldier go through some things that nearly inhuman they way they persevered. It still boggles the mind.

 

Stirling Mace, Sir,..........

You are a class act. First Class.

I don't know if the powers that be will delete you previous post or not, but I do know you have earned the right to say what you want.

Best Regards,

Duckbill

 

The notion that the German's always surrendered in hopeless situations is very untrue. For a couple of examples look at the Kurland pocket, the broken and battered Heersgruppe Nord was isolated for many months with no hope of escape but yet they still resisted furiously, why? For a good many reasons but none of us were there so do not act like you have the ability to flick your fingers and declare judgment and call them stupid.

Another example would be Falaise, with our After Action Reports and our battle maps sure we could point out how obviously hopeless their chances of escape would be but what did they do? They still ran anyway! They ran until they were surrounded or they ran until they were shot to bits by airplanes who were having a "picnick". What a human mind can convince itself to do is quite astounding and these poor Germans were set on scrambling out of the pocket rather then surrendering. (Not that I blame them as the airplanes had quite a scare factor to them and many probably thought they would be ground into beef while trying to surrender anyway)

What of the Japanese? Let's see: Iwo Jima, first off you should be told this is considered a direct part of Japan, so this had a great value to the average Japanese soldier as they were essentially preserving Japan now rather then fighting in island outposts , second of all, many of the IJA garrison were simply High school students and graduates who had been fed propaganda since a very young age, this makes following any cause quite easy to latch on to. Not to mention they had been fed repeatedly that the Americans did not take prisoners, which quite obviously made it clear to them that there was no point in giving up. You must also consider there commander Tadamichi Kuribayashi who was quite an old schooler in the Japanese leadership (Comparable to Germany's Prussians) and was well aware of the fate of the island. His sense of honor and duty bled into his subordinates who were the hardliner middle aged NCOs who motivated the susceptible youth to fight till the end.

It takes much more reading into things before one can make a judgment of the emotions that surround a cause to fight.

 

Good law??? Remember when those decisions were made in the 1940's racial segregation was still the law. Alot has changed since then. The participants in those decisions in the 1980's drew on what the Commision of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civillians had found .

The Supreme Court Rulings still stand. Racial segregation had nothing to do with the evacuation.

Yasui v. U.S. (320 U.S.115--1943)
Hirabayashi v. U.S. (320 U.S.81--1943)
Korematsu v. U.S. (323 U.S. 214-248--1944)

The Yasui and Hirabayashi cases were constitutional challenges to their convictions as U.S. citizens for violations of a curfew in effect prior to the evacuation which applied to all enemy aliens and also to citizens of Japanese descent. The Korematsu case was a similar challenge to the evacuation order.

All three decisions were in the government’s favor and stand to this day.

More than 40 years later (in the 1980’s) a lower court claimed to set aside the convictions in a Coram nobis "let bygones be bygones" move.

This could not, and did not, legally reverse the Supreme Court wartime rulings.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the only body authorized to interpret the constitution, and that is what they did in the Oct.1944 session; Koromatsu v. U.S.

In a crushing blow to the JACL and the NCJAR the Supreme Court Justices on October 31, 1988, without comment, let stand the findings an appellate court that effectively put an end to courts actions for additional money (they wanted $27 BILLION!).

It also left the Korematsu and Hirabayashi cases in place. The had the opportunity to reverse the decisions and they did not. As you mentioned Renquist supports the decisions in his book.

Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld provided another opportunty to comment on the “consensus” but criticism of the wartime cases was relatively minor and then only by Souter and Ginsberg.

As for the CWRIC, it was a stacked deck from the beginning. Not one military or intelligence official (or historian for that matter) was a member of the commission. The members were hand picked by the JACL.

Consider that of the nine commission members, six were biased in favor of reparations. Ishmail Gromoff and William Marutani, relocatees themselves, sat in judgment of their own cases. Arthur Goldberg and Joan Bernstein made sympathetic, pro-reparation statements publicly before hearings even began. Arthur Fleming had worked closely with the JACL (he was a keynote speaker at its Portland convention in the '70s). Robert Drinan was a co-sponsor of the bill establishing the commission.

Consider that notices of when and where hearings were to be held were not made known to the general, non-Japanese public.

Consider that witnesses who gave testimony were not sworn to tell the truth.

Consider that witnesses who were pro-reparation were carefully coached in their testimony in "mock hearings" beforehand.

Consider that witnesses against reparation were harassed and drowned out by foot-stomping Japanese claques, that the commission members themselves ridiculed and badgered these same witnesses.

Consider that not one historian was asked to testify before the commission, that intelligence reports and position papers contrary to reparations were deliberately ignored.

Consider that as a result of the above, the United States Department of Justice objected strongly to the findings of the commission.

Just glancing through the documents you posted links to seems to show that on page 2(c) less then 3% were considered dangerous.

The document was unofficial but submitted as official as evidence. The document is one man's opinion, nonetheless on page five, Ringle says seventy five percent or more of Nisei are loyal United States citizens. That could also be read 25% of Nisei are disloyal United States citizens. Why not read the documents rather than glance at it?

Also have you ever heard of the Supreme Court case Ex parte Endo?

Yes. the decision did not hold that the detention per se was unlawful, but that detention of a concededly loyal citizen was unlawful. After a citizen's loyalty had been affirmatively decided, the citizen could no longer be held. The Court did not hold that the detention of one whom the government had not yet conceeded to be loyal, is unlawful.

In other words, under the existing circumstances, detention of persons of
questionable loyalty is OK until their loyalty has been determined. Then they can go.

Incidentally, Endo was moot. The exclusion orders were lifted before
the decision was released. It should also be noted that the reason Endo was not released earlier is because she refused to fill out the proper paperwork for a permanent leave in order to bring the case to court. If she had filled out the paperwork she could have left the Relocation Center.

 

I'm sorry for my comment Mr.Mace i was referring to the Japanese.

 

That was the eastern front what make you think the Germans were even going to surrender??

Will if they stayed and fight they still would have been slaughtered and the Germans did fight in the falsie pocket you make it sound they just ran witch was not the case at many points they fought off the allied attacks to allow thier comrades escape.

Yea but being 17 or 18 on a island you know your going to die on you would be smart enough to really think of what your fighting common sense would kick in to think for your self and make your own decisions.yes i do know the island was considered apart of japan the governor of Tokyo had power over the island.

Honestly your making these dumb post like i don't know anything.

 

Take care here "Mark4", I think the point being made was that you were making a "generalization", not that you "don't know anything".

Generalizations can be very difficult to defend, even though they do tend to become generaliztions for a reason. Whether the reason itself is defensible is a question.

 

I've had enough of reading your posts. You clearly don't know a thing about what it was like for the enlisted soldier in the Imperial Japanese Army. You're just over-generalizing what you vaguely perceive their situation could have been for them.

One thing you should know about Japan, that persists even today is the value of group action. Everyone performs together, and dissenters will not be tolerated. For a country back then that employed Banzai charges and Kamikaze attacks, deliberately sacrificing their own soldiers to achieve their means, would it be so easy for one man to stand up to everyone else and claim that all his actions, his comrade's and his nation's efforts are in vain? There was so little information available to the enlisted man back then, how would he know that defeat for his nation was imminent?

Most soldiers were drafted into the army, sent thousands of miles away from home and constantly being fed propaganda while fighting in terrible conditions with no real hope of getting back alive. Added to news of their homes being bombarded by the Allies, can you really blame them for fighting to the death for their country and families? For what "stupid" reason did those men and women have to die for? Can you tell a veteran in the face that the death of all his comrades were for a stupid cause?

You are entitled to your own opinions, but know that I will not have you blatantly insult the millions of young men and women who served Japan back then, my relatives among them. If you are going to make criticisms such as yours, then base them on hard fact and educational responses rather than blind remarks such as yours which are not appreciated here.