Denial claim: It was wartime internment, no different from the Japanese-American camps or the British ones.

“It was wartime internment, no different from the Japanese-American camps or the British ones.”

The United States interned Japanese-Americans; it did not gas them, shoot them into pits, or build factories to render their corpses. No internment in history selected an entire people, infants included, for total elimination as stated policy. The comparison is not an argument. It is a way to change the subject.

Where the comparison comes from

The move to flatten the Holocaust into ordinary wartime detention is not new. It descends from the “revisionist” school that French former internee Paul Rassinier began building in the 1950s and 1960s, arguing the camps were harsh labor camps whose death tolls were exaggerated by postwar propaganda. The Institute for Historical Review, founded in California in 1978, institutionalized that framing under the language of dispassionate historical inquiry, publishing a house journal and awarding a cash prize for anyone who could disprove that Auschwitz gassings occurred. It never had to pay out. The specific comparison to Japanese-American camps became a stock talking point once that history entered mainstream American memory, after the US government’s own 1983 commission report, “Personal Justice Denied,” and the 1988 Civil Liberties Act formalized the word “internment” in public consciousness. Deniers borrowed the vocabulary of a real, acknowledged wrong to launder a fabricated one. It now circulates mostly on forums, comment sections and social media, less often as considered argument than as a one-line deflection, per the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, whose accounting of denial tactics identifies exactly this pattern: minimize intent, inflate the “just like everyone else did it” framing, and let the comparison do the work an argument can’t.

Where the comparison holds, and where it breaks completely

Stated at its strongest: both were wartime governments confining a civilian population by ancestry, without individual charges, for years, causing real suffering and loss. That much is true and worth stating plainly. Executive Order 9066, signed 19 February 1942, led to roughly 112,000 people of Japanese ancestry, nearly 70,000 of them US citizens, being forced from their homes into camps between March and August 1942, according to the National Archives. Britain interned tens of thousands of German, Austrian and Italian nationals as “enemy aliens” in 1940, many of them Jewish refugees who had fled the Nazis in the first place, holding them on the Isle of Man and in Commonwealth camps before releasing most within a year or two through tribunal review.

That is where the resemblance ends. The camps holding Japanese-Americans had barracks, schools, camp newspapers and, per survivor testimony collected by the National Archives, guard towers whose guns famously pointed inward rather than out, a grievance internees raised at the time precisely because confinement, not extermination, was the injury being protested. No camp built a gas chamber. No camp operated a crematorium furnace sized for tens of thousands of bodies a day. No government minister convened a conference to plan the total physical elimination of the confined population’s parents, children and grandchildren as a stated goal of state policy.

That is what happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau and the other extermination centers. The Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942, fifteen state secretaries and SS officers meeting in a Berlin villa, coordinated the machinery of the Final Solution across the German bureaucracy: railways, ministries, camps. Einsatzgruppen mobile killing units shot roughly 1.5 million Jews into pits and ravines across the occupied Soviet Union between 1941 and 1943, an operation documented in the killers’ own daily reports, tallied and radioed back to Berlin. At the extermination camps, Sonderkommando units, Jewish prisoners forced under threat of death to clear the gas chambers and feed the crematoria, left buried testimony describing the process in the killers’ own operational terms. The Nuremberg tribunal, chartered by the Allied powers in August 1945 under the Avalon Project’s text of the agreement, tried the men who ran this system on documents the Nazis generated themselves: transport manifests, camp construction orders, crematorium invoices, Einsatzgruppen field reports. None of that paperwork exists for Manzanar or the Isle of Man, because none of it happened there. The USHMM’s demographic accounting puts the Jewish death toll at roughly six million, cross-checked against prewar census figures, deportation lists, and postwar demographic studies in country after country, a convergence no comparable body of evidence produces for wartime internment anywhere.

Who pushes it today, and the real wrong it borrows from

Today the line surfaces in two very different mouths. From committed deniers, it is a rhetorical device meant to relativize genocide into bureaucratic overreach, often paired with claims that the death toll was inflated or that testimony can’t be trusted. From casual commentators with no denialist intent, it is usually just historical illiteracy, an assumption that any government camp is the same kind of thing. Japanese-American internment was a genuine violation of civil liberties, committed by a democracy against its own citizens, based on nothing but ancestry, and the United States formally apologized and paid reparations for it in 1988. British internment, too, wronged people, including refugees who had already lost everything once to the Nazis. Neither fact licenses the comparison. Acknowledging a real historical wrong and using it to launder a fabricated one are opposite acts, and confusing them insults the victims of both.

Full context: Holocaust Denial, Answered

Denial claim: It was wartime internment, no different from the Japanese-American camps or the British ones.

Where the comparison comes from

Where the comparison holds, and where it breaks completely

Who pushes it today, and the real wrong it borrows from

Related pages

Sources