The evacuation and internment of the Japanese was seen as a necessity to national security. The Japanese-Americans were a potential threat to the country and the war effort. The relocation of Japanese-Americans may have been legally carried out, but not without consequence. The Japanese-Americans who were forced to leave their homes lost a great deal. They were often given notice of the relocation only a few days in advance. They could only bring with them what they could carry, and they were forced to abandon, give away or sell their assets at fractions of the actual worth. Before more permanent facilities could be built, the displaced people had to live in make shift detention areas, often nothing more than a converted horse stable. The actual relocation camps were an improvement from the temporary facilities but still far from adequate housing. At the camps they were forced to live in undesirable conditions where they had little or no privacy and only the luxuries that they brought with them. Their treatment was harsh and unethical, but considered a necessary consequence of war.
After years of hardship, the Japanese in the relocation camps were ordered released. The threat of Japanese spies had passed and it was no longer deemed necessary to detain them. The Japanese-Americans had little or nothing to return to. Most had lost everything during their internment. Years later, in 1976, President Gerald R. Ford made Proclamation 4417, which made Executive Order No. 9066 completely void. The proclamation was also written to admit that the government had been wrong to treat its citizens with such disrespect. It states that the Japanese-Americans were extremely loyal and were unfairly suspected. In 1983 the government decided to give monetary compensation to the internees and to apologize and make up for their lost possessions and suffering.
The Government is given the power to do what is necessary to win in times of war. This right is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. ‘What is necessary to win a war’ includes the relocation of anyone posing a threat to our national security, and the Japanese seen as a threat during the war. The population redistribution of the Japanese-Americans in WWII, was a temporary solution to a potential threat to national security and it was a way to protect the Japanese from fearful and angry American citizens.
American history gives an example of mishandled population redistributions. The atrocities against the American Indians in the 1800’s are a brutal example of what can result when population redistributions are poorly executed. The U.S. relocated Indian tribes to reservations throughout the U.S. The Indians were forced to leave not only their homes but also their entire way of life behind. This was the end to years of bloodshed between the cavalry and the Indians. Unfortunately the Indians were killed nearly to extinction before they were relocated to these reservations. Did this preserve the lives of the remaining Indians or was it just one final step in taking the land where the Indians had resided for generations.
Recent precedents exist to endorse the concept of forced Population redistributions to bring about domestic security. Since 1991, the newly created nations, which constitute the former Yugoslavia, have repeatedly turned to violence to solve their territorial disputes. Despite the internal peace that had existed in Yugoslavia during the Cold War, the demise of communism has awakened long-standing ethnic rivalries. Bosnia was the center of the fighting between the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats and Kosovo has been the center of fighting between the Serbs and Ethnic Albanians. Many of these people who were neighbors and lived in the same communities for decades, now find the thought of reestablishing their ethnically diverse communities an impossibility after so much bloodshed. Once peace has been established and the borders have been confirmed in Kosovo and the various regions of Yugoslavia, can an ethnic population redistribution insure the peace?
As it was in the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans in WWII, the biggest obstacle to involuntary Population redistributions is the morality of such a program. To force people from the land and communities of their ancestors in order to procure the possibility of internal stability is an enormous price. The emotional and psychological toll to these people is likely far more costing than that which the Japanese-Americans faced. Simply because this has been their homeland for hundreds of years as opposed to a few generations.
Unless such a population transfer is done under the protection of friendly troops or the United Nations, the results could be disastrous. Thousands in Bosnia and Kosovo have already died due to the ethnic cleansing policies of the rival powers. During World War II millions of Jewish people suffered indescribable torture at the hands of the Germans and millions more lost their lives. At the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of German civilians lost their lives after being inhumanly expelled from their homes without adequate food, clothing, transportation, or protection from vengeful enemies. The forced transfer of the German populations from their inherent regions were achieved, but at an appalling cost. Proper protection, logistical support, and assistance in establishing a livelihood are absolutely essential to a successful population redistribution.
A population transfer could bring internal long-term stability to the regions of the former Yugoslavia, but it is a policy, which must be thoroughly planned and negotiated prior to being implemented. Maintaining the peace may be attained through other means without an ethnic redistribution, and this could be the morally correct decision. The United States has generally been successful with its “melting pot” society and can be used as an example of different cultures living together peacefully in the same nation. After peace has been established in the former Yugoslavia, a discussion about possible population transfers should be conducted at the United Nations with the rival powers present, so the most humane decision can be made regarding the citizens.
It is impossible to decide for a race of people what their fate shall be and to remain confident that the decision is morally correct. Redistribution could prevent war and bloodshed, but it could also wipe out a way of life and in time a race of people. Are the people still the same people when they have been forced to change their way of life eventually killing the culture which made them who they were? It comes down to the choice of allowing the possible death of thousands to war or the possible death of a culture to forced population redistribution. Population redistribution could be the solution to lasting peace in nations faced with rivaling cultures due to ethnic diversity, but the peace would not come without a price.