BetterThanThou wrote: » In World War 2, the US put 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry into internment camps because they were afraid the Japanese were planning an attack on the west coast and had planted spies. 60+ percent of these people were American citizens. Why is this unethical decision never talked about? You often hear about unethical decisions on all sides of World War 2, but this is something I've only heard of recently. Is this something that people try hide away to protect the name of the US?
BetterThanThou wrote: » You often hear about unethical decisions on all sides of World War 2, but this is something I've only heard of recently. Is this something that people try hide away to protect the name of the US?
kowloon wrote: » There are films about it, and quite a few books. There was a strong racial element to it, a lot of poking fun at those funny little yellow men. There was a superiority complex there and the US got a shock when it turned out they could fight. You just don't get that with their attitude towards Europeans. Anti-Axis propaganda tends to focus more on the leadership when it's aimed at the Europeans. It also helps that the Japanese attacked the US on their own soil whereas the US was more eased into the war in Europe.
SamHarris wrote: » The timespan was two days, the extent of the damage was known well before they surrendered (a week+ after the second bomb). The lag was not some misconception of the power of the weapon (more destruction had already been caused on multiple occasions in conventional cases, but did not cause a surrender) but because many still wanted to fight on. In fact there was an attempted coup even after the surrender. The knowledge that they would be completely annihilated (albiet with fire bombs, though why that would make a difference with regards to surrendering are not you would have to explain) existed for a very long time at many levels of the military and the government - the means of that annihilation was immaterial. Matters of honor and religion is what prolonged the ultimate end. There were 50,000 casualties everyday at that point on the mainland. That is to say it would take another 4 days for the casualties to be made up elsewhere had they not been used. The only way people can come to the "conclusion" that less suffering could have been caused is if people make the assumption that within a week the Japanese government would have quickly come to their senses and surrendered without the bombings. Which is just complete bull****. The rate of casualties would have continued to climb (as they had been since the beginning, despite Japans near zero chance of victory) had any of the other proposed strategies been used. I have absolutely no doubt that had the US not used the bomb and instead invaded the Japanese mainland, or began starving them (both with casualty projections well into the millions, or even 10's of millions) the very same people who think the bombs unnecessary now would accuse the US of unnecessarily prolonging the war to teach Japan a lesson/ for whatever other reason. It is easy to see the accusation "They knew Japan had no chance, why did htey not just destroy one small city and they would have surrendered and it would have been over!" The fact is there was no "good" or "nice" way to end the war, not for a very long time before they were used. The very continuation of the war at its "normal" rate would have meant vastly more suffering within weeks. Normal bombing runs routinely killed more people. It is very telling that the revisionism that something else could/should have been done did not start appearing until 20-30 years after the end of the conflict. That is to say long enough so that people could make the statement without addressing in any real way the realities of continuing the war for an unspecified period of time.
SamHarris wrote: » Many US Marines had been reared on stories of the Japanese super soldiers, all trained in martial arts.
KyussBishop wrote: » The bomb on Hiroshima completely severed all communications, and it took somewhere in the region of 16 hours for Tokyo to just begin getting word on what had happened - and this only because of a public announcement from the White House. So that's already most of a day gone, just to begin finding out what happened, and it was only a day and a half later that the next bomb was dropped - not nearly enough time to properly assess what happened and put together a diplomatic response. If all that you say about annihilation from firebombs is true as a concern overriding that of the atomic bombs, then that implies the atomic bombs didn't put any new considerations on the table for the Japanese government (i.e. that it didn't push them closer to surrender) and were completely unnecessary - that's a big logical inconsistency in that argument. There was nothing stopping the US simply demonstrating the bombs at an uninhabited island/atoll either, as a demonstration of power. What really ended it for the Japanese, was the declaration of war by the Soviets after the first atomic bomb - they were already internally discussing and preparing for surrender, when the second bomb was dropped. The only 'revisionism' in all of this, is the idea that there was no other choice - even if you accepted the first bomb as being necessary, there was no justification at all for the second bomb.
In 1942, the Takei family was forced to live in the horse stables of Santa Anita Park before being sent to the Rohwer War Relocation Center for internment in Rohwer, Arkansas. The family was later transferred to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center in California.
Wompa1 wrote: » The US did drop the bomb on an uninhabited Island...Bikini Island...People were well aware of what it could do. It certainly seemed strategical, but then I don't know, I wasn't alive back then. Also regards the discussion about surrender. They were discussing a surrender and their serving Army general was adamant they would never surrender. He ended up dying in the way of the old samurais, sword to the stomach.
KyussBishop wrote: » Their serving Army general was Umezu, and he did not die of suicide, he died naturally years later.
[-0-] wrote: » Probably the same reason that nobody talks about the Irish slaves.
Lou.m wrote: » George Takei does. He and his family were put into one.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0
GoAheadCaller wrote: » Because it's old and boring news and nobody cares now. What's happening today in Syria is an another scale of horror and depravity and people don't really care about that so why would they care about something that happened 60-70 years ago.
marienbad wrote: » No big secret at all and often talked about and pops up in popular culture from time to time - Just off the top of my head - The Japanese American guy on startrek has often referred to his own family being interned , there was an Ethan Hawke film about it a few years back and lots more.
BetterThanThou wrote: » From reading up, the conditions in these camps were terrible, entire families living in one cell and not even being fed enough to survive.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » I don't think it's mentioned much. That's not to say I think it's a big bad US conspiracy either though - because that's lazy and stupid thinking. One of those things that has slipped through the net, I guess. It was horrible though, and in no way justified by the atrocities of the Japanese state/military, horrific and all as they were.
camel jockey wrote: » You have half answered your own question - most people don't care about a civil war in Syria, and rightly so.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » Why is it "rightly so"?
camel jockey wrote: » Because it is nothing to do with us. Let them do what they want as long as it doesn't effect us or lead to terrorist attacks in the west. Would you prefer that the US or EU send in peacekeepers?
Femme_Fatale wrote: » I know a group of soldiers from the Irish army out there, but anyway, I didn't give any such opinion - I just asked what's "right" about not caring about Syria, as if it's an honourable stance to take. There's nothing wrong with not caring about Syria when you're hundreds/thousands of miles away, but there's nothing "right" about it either. It's certainly hard and cold to think it's great when people don't care about it. But then again, muslims, your username being a derogatory term for muslims, explains a lot. /awaits Camel Jockey becoming fierce upset
5live wrote: » Just an interesting piece of info. Pat Morita, the asian master in the original 'Karate Kid' was a japanese-american interred during the war too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Morita
![Photo of [-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
