Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the Japanese American internment camps of WW2?

Jonny7 · 28-12-2013 03:44AM

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?

In context of such a vast war it's a pretty minor affair. Still, you'll find good books on Amazon on the subject if you are interested.

Carlos Orange · 28-12-2013 03:53AM

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?

No but most people don't pay much attention to WW2 history. If you are interested you should follow @RealTimeWWII on Twitter. It tweets WW2 in real time. Japan and the US just declared war so the interment should be coming up soon enough.

I have never heard much said about the Canadian Japanese internment but I guess that is just because it was smaller.

kowloon · 28-12-2013 03:55AM

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 · 28-12-2013 04:02AM

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.

Though your right that there was a strong racial aspect to all the South East Asian wars (the Japanese state having a similar "super race" theory to the Nazi's) and the American propaganda playing on the idea of the "little yellow man" you could not be more wrong in that they were shocked when they learned they could fight. The opposite is the case.

Many US Marines had been reared on stories of the Japanese super soldiers, all trained in martial arts. It was common for the marines to be outright terrified of fighting them at first. As in the fear was the opposite of what you say. The realization that the Americans fought far more effectively in almost every sense came as a shock to both the Japanese and the Americans themselves.

KyussBishop · 28-12-2013 04:06AM

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.

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.

Links234 · 28-12-2013 04:13AM

SamHarris wrote: »

Many US Marines had been reared on stories of the Japanese super soldiers, all trained in martial arts.

Can I have a source for this? I've not heard this before.

c_man · 28-12-2013 04:18AM

Yeah it's a disgrace OP, but hardly comes into it when considering the other badness of the west, and pales in comparison to Japanese treatment of others.

Wompa1 · 28-12-2013 04:49AM

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.

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.

Lou.m · 28-12-2013 04:56AM

George Takei does. He and his family were put into one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0

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.

KyussBishop · 28-12-2013 05:35AM

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.

? Bikini Atoll was after the war - that was a generic bomb test, not a demonstration for achieving Japanese surrender.

Their serving Army general was Umezu, and he did not die of suicide, he died naturally years later.
Before any of the attempted coup happened, the emperor had already stated internally, his intention to surrender (he also was already losing confidence in winning the war, earlier in June) - with the Prime Minister Suzuki also stating this (and this was before Nagasaki - making that bombing completely unnecessary; they were already moving towards surrender, before Nagasaki was bombed).

So, with these two outranking everybody else, that makes surrender the position that the Japanese government was moving towards after the first bomb and Soviet invasion, and before the second bomb - so even if you accept the first bomb as justified, the second was completely unnecessary.

osarusan · 28-12-2013 05:59AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Their serving Army general was Umezu, and he did not die of suicide, he died naturally years later.

He's probably talking about Anami, who was war minister at the time. He did commit seppuku.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-12-2013 03:09PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Day_at_Black_Rock 1955 Film

Good film with a good cast. Spencer Tracy and Robert Ryan, Anne Francis, Dean Jagger, Walter Brennan, John Ericson, Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin.

[-0-] · 28-12-2013 03:30PM

Probably the same reason that nobody talks about the Irish slaves.

Links234 · 28-12-2013 03:34PM

[-0-] wrote: »

Probably the same reason that nobody talks about the Irish slaves.

On a related note, saw this a while back and thought it's intesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QHYFXDGf4Y

gugleguy · 28-12-2013 03:41PM

and the Rape Of Nanking? Certainly not only sacked as a city for sure. Now more commonly named Nanjing. Once a seat of a Chinese Emporer.

Overheal · 28-12-2013 03:48PM

Lou.m wrote: »

George Takei does. He and his family were put into one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0

I was about to say. Between all his funny posts on FB he occasionally plugs this issue, and I am fine with that.

qaf · 28-12-2013 06:43PM

I went to public school in the US and Japanese internment and the dropping of the bombs is one of the few things that I didn't feel they completely whitewashed. It even gets covered outside history class because Hiroshima was (at least when I went to school) a big part of English class one year and that 90s film about Japanese interment was shown and the whole issue discussed. People always see history from their own bias most of the time anyway even when exposed to information that might contradict that.

wp_rathead · 28-12-2013 07:12PM

Femme_Fatale · 28-12-2013 07:14PM

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.

People obviously do care a lot about World War II.

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.

Only for George Takei's posts to Facebook about it, I wouldn't have known about it at all. 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 · 28-12-2013 07:19PM

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.

So how many died? If they were 'not even being fed enough to survive' I would expect none to have survived? Or is this comment for melodramatic effect rather than factual?

Cee-Jay-Cee · 28-12-2013 07:21PM

Internet camps during WW2????

Carlos Orange · 28-12-2013 07:28PM

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.

A lot of things aren't mentioned about WW2 (or anything in history). If you aren't a bit active yourself you miss out on a lot.

I think the internment had more to do with the Niihau Incident than Japanese atrocities before or after the interment started. One of the pilots who took part in Pearl Harbour crash landed and was captured. Some Japanese Americans freed him.

camel jockey · 28-12-2013 07:28PM

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.

You have half answered your own question - most people don't care about a civil war in Syria, and rightly so.

Femme_Fatale · 28-12-2013 07:30PM

camel jockey wrote: »

You have half answered your own question - most people don't care about a civil war in Syria, and rightly so.

Why is it "rightly so"?

el pasco · 28-12-2013 07:31PM

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?

People do talk about it the US congress even apologised for it and gave the victims money for their ordeal

camel jockey · 28-12-2013 07:32PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why is it "rightly so"?

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 · 28-12-2013 07:41PM

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?

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

camel jockey · 28-12-2013 07:44PM

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

Strange that you would associate my username with racism. Probably says more about you than it does me. Most people rightly assume it is because of my love of camel racing.

/awaits apology :rolleyes:

5live · 28-12-2013 07:47PM

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

The priest who was chaplain at the hospital that he was being treated in was my grand-uncle and gave him a string of irish baptismal names, Patrick Ignatius Aloyisious being 3 that i can recall offhand.

He visited my uncle a few times before he died. An absolute gentleman.

Doesnt really add to the discussion so, eh, carry on..

Carlos Orange · 28-12-2013 08:10PM

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

Actually I think the interment was mentioned in the Karate Kid film.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the Japanese American internment camps of WW2?

Comments