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

jank · 02-01-2014 02:23AM

Links234 wrote: »

Except that the Yasukuni shrine couldn't be compared to a "Nazi shrine" at all, it commemorates all those who died in service of Japan, including civilians, stretching back to civil wars of the mid to late 1800's. So it's a little more complicated than that

Yet he has received international condemnation for this action. He is a smart guy and given his comments from the past and his previous record in regards Japan's involvement in WWII it is clear what he was up to. The current Japanese administration is trying to downplay Japan's atrocious and genocidal behaviour during WWII and China. They are trying to re-colour the historical narrative so that future generations of Japanese won’t fully understand their own terrible history during this period. Are you defending his visit to the Yasukuni Shrine. Why are convicted war criminals interned there?

Yet, even after the international condemnation of his visit only yesterday another minister visited the shine in what seems a deliberate attempt to antagonise their neighbours.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/01/us-japan-shrine-idUSBREA0003R20140101

InTheTrees · 02-01-2014 02:30AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was no indication, either domestically, or visible to the US, that the Japanese were about to surrender.

Th emperor of Japan didnt give a crap about the lives of his people, he would have happily sacrificed any number of them to avoid anything happening to him or his family.

KyussBishop · 02-01-2014 04:05AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was no indication, either domestically, or visible to the US, that the Japanese were about to surrender. Even after the decision was made, after the bombs were dropped, there was still a coup attempt to keep going. Be careful about applying our current values to what the Japanese were thinking at the time.

The US weren't even waiting on a possible surrender - they dropped the second bomb 3 days later, giving virtually no time for a diplomatic response.

There was Hiroshima on the 6th of August, then the Soviets declared war with Japan on the 8th, and then Nagasaki was on the 9th (the same day the Soviet invasion started).

The Allies knew this Soviet declaration of war as coming (it was agreed the Soviets would enter the war within 3 months of Nazi surrender on May 8th - which they did, precisely 3 months later on 8th August), and it was the Soviet declaration of war that had the decisive impact on the Japanese surrender (which is well documented).

So, even if you accepted the arguments in favour of Hiroshima as justified, they don't apply to Nagasaki at all because:
1: The US didn't wait to see if Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion would trigger a Japanese surrender.
2: The Soviet invasion did trigger the Japanese surrender (which was being discussed within the Japanese government on the 8th), as is shown in historical documentation.
3: The US are documented as having planned to drop bombs on Japan as fast as they could make them (which is the only reason Tokyo wasn't hit with an atomic bomb - the US had to wait for the next one to be manufactured, and the Japanese had communicated desire to surrender on the 10th); there was no intent of waiting for a Japanese surrender.

So it is completely untrue to say there would have been more casualties had the bombs not been dropped; it is 100% definitely untrue for Nagasaki (the Japanese had already decided to surrender before that), and the primary factor in the Japanese surrender was the Soviet invasion (which the Allies knew was coming - dropping the first bomb just days prior), which arguably makes Hiroshima pointless as well, as the Japanese would have surrendered anyway (they had shifted their defenses away from a possible Soviet invasion, instead focusing on a war of attrition with the US - and thus were totally shocked/unprepared for a war with the Soviets).

A point particularly relevant to the OP, about dehumanization of the Japanese; this was a statement from president Truman, after Nagasaki, speaking of the Japanese:
"The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true"

InTheTrees · 02-01-2014 06:38AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

A point particularly relevant to the OP, about dehumanization of the Japanese; this was a statement from president Truman, after Nagasaki, speaking of the Japanese:
"The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true"

War is hell all right. Its too bad because the japanese are a beautiful people.

I still maintain that it was the horror of the japanese treatment of the chinese before ww2 and the many american and western witnesses and press reports of the time, that really helped colour opinion against them.

Jawgap · 02-01-2014 08:51AM

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?

Maybe because no one is asking?

I'm doing a PhD looking at WWII in Italy. Although not the focus of the research the US Army's 442nd Regimental Combat Team (the Nisei) pops up repeatedly and there is loads of information, articles etc discussing their and their families treatment.

In many cases many were fighting in Italy while their families were interned back in the States - and the 442nd did some serious fighting in Italy. They were one of the most decorated infantry regiments in the whole of WWII, despite being relatively late into action (late June 1944). They were awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations and over 20 soldiers were awarded Congressional Medal of Honor.

In fairness to the Yanks, the treatment of the interned Japanese-Americans was given a good airing and subject to Congressional inquiry and some form of redress.

It shouldn't have happened, but, in this case, I don't think the Americans can be accused of sweeping it under the carpet.

EDIT: If you want to take a shot at the Yanks maybe pull them up for taking so long to officially and fully recognise the contribution made by all Native American 'code-talkers' - not just ones who starred with Nicolas Cage.

jank · 02-01-2014 02:19PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

So it is completely untrue to say there would have been more casualties had the bombs not been dropped; it is 100% definitely untrue for Nagasaki (the Japanese had already decided to surrender before that), and the primary factor in the Japanese surrender was the Soviet invasion

Do you have historical link for that?
Seems not everyone agrees.

I am convinced that the Americans had only one bomb, after all. ”

Korechika Anami, immediately after the drop of Little Boy over Hiroshima

ScumLord · 02-01-2014 02:42PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

As others have mentioned, that it's not often brought up in Europe is not massively surprising as it's a domestic USian affair. But it's certainly not hidden under the carpet in the US and I'll wager most of the population knows about it.

Indeed, Hawaii 5-0 just recently did an episode where they help one old prisoner find his daddies samurai sword and as a result he's fathers killer. Puke worthy TV at it's finest.

old hippy · 02-01-2014 02:49PM

Links234 wrote: »

The problem is they're not taught about it in school, so really from a Japanese perspective they got ****ed in WWII and this is what they remember. I've been to the peace memorial and the museum in Hiroshima, it's pretty sobering, what I saw in the museum was some of the most harrowing things I've ever imagined. That's what WWII is from their perspective

The Peace Memorial will soften even the hardest of hearts. I defy anyone to visit and not leave with a tear in the eye. I also visited a few islands in Okinawa (100 thousand citizens died) where there were memorials to the dead. Whole communities committed suicide because they were led to believe the US army would rape and torture them

Links234 wrote: »

What makes it so horrible is that it was civilians who suffered the most by far, as far as I know the idea was to bring the country to it's knees, destroying it's economy, infrastructure, people's homes, farms.. many people starved.

If you're interested, Grave of the Fireflies is a terrific movie to watch. It's about a kid and his younger sister trying to survive WWII Japan, and it's an unbelievably harrowing watch.

Not a cheerful movie at all but worth watching. Also, the graphic novel "Barefoot Gen" treads similar ground. As for internment; the film "Snow Falling on Cedars" is worth a look.

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.

The racial element still crops up. Everytime someone uses a certain slur, I cringe. It stems directly from the racism during the Pacific War.

Links234 wrote: »

That's not really true though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

There's a perception that Japan never apologized or addressed their actions, but it's not really the case. Hell, even Article 9 of the Japanese constitution forbids them from going to war, or for them to maintain armed forces capable of going to war. Part of the problem now is that Shinzo Abe is being a prize clown about it and seemingly putting his foot in his mouth at every opportunity about WWII

Abe is playing to the nationalists for now. The shrine visits, the military controversy, Okinawa, the disputed islands. It's a vote winner for the moment. But he's been ousted before, Japanese PMs of late have a short shelf life. Wait until Abenomics take another nosedive.

KyussBishop · 02-01-2014 02:57PM

jank wrote: »

Do you have historical link for that?
Seems not everyone agrees.

Korechika Anami, immediately after the drop of Little Boy over Hiroshima

There are good summaries here, which cite linking sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_8.E2.80.939:_Soviet_invasion_and_Nagasaki

These "twin shocks"—the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the Soviet entry—had immediate profound effects on Prime Minister Suzuki and Foreign Minister Tōgō Shigenori, who concurred that the government must end the war at once.
...
The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration but needed a guarantee of the emperor's position. Navy Minister Yonai said that they had to make some diplomatic proposal—they could no longer afford to wait for better circumstances.

In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb

So, right in the middle of the meeting they were having, where they were moving towards accepting a policy of surrender, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

From another page, about Japanese preparedness for the Soviet invasion:

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

old hippy · 02-01-2014 03:20PM

jank wrote: »

Yet he has received international condemnation for this action. He is a smart guy and given his comments from the past and his previous record in regards Japan's involvement in WWII it is clear what he was up to. The current Japanese administration is trying to downplay Japan's atrocious and genocidal behaviour during WWII and China. They are trying to re-colour the historical narrative so that future generations of Japanese won’t fully understand their own terrible history during this period. Are you defending his visit to the Yasukuni Shrine. Why are convicted war criminals interned there?

Yet, even after the international condemnation of his visit only yesterday another minister visited the shine in what seems a deliberate attempt to antagonise their neighbours.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/01/us-japan-shrine-idUSBREA0003R20140101

I think you're generalising a bit. Plenty of Japanese are aware of their country's imperialist brutal role but there is a right wing element when it comes to visiting the shrine. It sucks, sure but then - it happens all over the world. Closer to home - we have the likes of war criminals Churchill and (to some extent) Cromwell still lauded.

Jawgap · 02-01-2014 04:40PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The US weren't even waiting on a possible surrender - they dropped the second bomb 3 days later, giving virtually no time for a diplomatic response.

etc

etc

"

Documents in the US National Security Archive make it fairly clear that using the bomb was as much abut intimidating the Soviets as it was about concluding matters in the Pacific War.

Anyway, the use of the atom bombs and the destruction wrought by them pales into virtual insignificance when compared to the death and damage inflicted using napalm.

The atomic weapons incinerated 4.7 square miles of Hiroshima and 1.45 square miles of Nagasaki.

Between 9 March and 19 March 1945, LeMay's B-29s dropped over 9,300 tons of napalm on Japanese cities. From the end of March to the end of the War they dropped another 16,500 tons of the stuff - destroying 106 square miles of city centres and a further 169 square miles of suburban areas.

The firebombing of Tokyo (Operation MEETINGHOUSE) destroyed over 50 square miles, killed over 1,000,000 and 'de-housed' a further 3,500,000, and burned God knows how many.

As has been said - "the Bomb got the press, but napalm did the work"

Potatoeman · 02-01-2014 05:20PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The US weren't even waiting on a possible surrender - they dropped the second bomb 3 days later, giving virtually no time for a diplomatic response.

There was Hiroshima on the 6th of August, then the Soviets declared war with Japan on the 8th, and then Nagasaki was on the 9th (the same day the Soviet invasion started).

The Allies knew this Soviet declaration of war as coming (it was agreed the Soviets would enter the war within 3 months of Nazi surrender on May 8th - which they did, precisely 3 months later on 8th August), and it was the Soviet declaration of war that had the decisive impact on the Japanese surrender (which is well documented).

So, even if you accepted the arguments in favour of Hiroshima as justified, they don't apply to Nagasaki at all because:
1: The US didn't wait to see if Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion would trigger a Japanese surrender.
2: The Soviet invasion did trigger the Japanese surrender (which was being discussed within the Japanese government on the 8th), as is shown in historical documentation.
3: The US are documented as having planned to drop bombs on Japan as fast as they could make them (which is the only reason Tokyo wasn't hit with an atomic bomb - the US had to wait for the next one to be manufactured, and the Japanese had communicated desire to surrender on the 10th); there was no intent of waiting for a Japanese surrender.

So it is completely untrue to say there would have been more casualties had the bombs not been dropped; it is 100% definitely untrue for Nagasaki (the Japanese had already decided to surrender before that), and the primary factor in the Japanese surrender was the Soviet invasion (which the Allies knew was coming - dropping the first bomb just days prior), which arguably makes Hiroshima pointless as well, as the Japanese would have surrendered anyway (they had shifted their defenses away from a possible Soviet invasion, instead focusing on a war of attrition with the US - and thus were totally shocked/unprepared for a war with the Soviets).

A point particularly relevant to the OP, about dehumanization of the Japanese; this was a statement from president Truman, after Nagasaki, speaking of the Japanese:
"The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true"

I have to say this is spot on. There is a great Battlefield episode covering the Manchurian invasion by the Soviets which is refered to as the largest
engagements people dont know about.

Nodin · 02-01-2014 05:27PM

There may well have been a time where it was ignored etc, but it's long gone. This stands in stark contrast to something like the Tulsa race riot.

Jawgap · 02-01-2014 05:30PM

Tokyo wasn't hit with the atom bomb because there was nothing left to destroy there. The US needed to demonstrate the destructive potential of the new weapon and to do that they needed to use it on relatively unscathed cities.

jank · 03-01-2014 12:03AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are good summaries here, which cite linking sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_8.E2.80.939:_Soviet_invasion_and_Nagasaki

So, right in the middle of the meeting they were having, where they were moving towards accepting a policy of surrender, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

From another page, about Japanese preparedness for the Soviet invasion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

Hmmm nice editing there to portray your own version of events. You left you this part.

By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while Generals Anami, Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle their own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan

The full cabinet met on 14:30 on August 9, and spent most of the day debating surrender. As the Big Six had done, the cabinet split, with neither Tōgō's position nor Anami's attracting a majority.[86] Anami told the other cabinet ministers that, under torture, a captured American P-51 fighter pilot had told his interrogators that the United States possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed "in the next few days". The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan Project and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture. The lie, which caused him to be classified as a high-priority prisoner, probably saved him from beheading.[87] In reality, the United States would have had the third bomb ready for use around August 19, and a fourth in September 1945.[88] The third bomb probably would have been used against Tokyo.[89]
The cabinet meeting adjourned at 17:30 with no consensus. A second meeting lasting from 18:00 to 22:00 also ended with no consensus. Following this second meeting, Suzuki and Tōgō met the emperor, and Suzuki proposed an impromptu Imperial conference, which started just before midnight on the night of August 9–10.[90] Suzuki presented Anami's four-condition proposal as the consensus position of the Supreme Council. The other members of the Supreme Council spoke, as did Kiichirō Hiranuma, the president of the Privy Council, who outlined Japan's inability to defend itself and also described the country's domestic problems, such as the shortage of food. The cabinet debated, but again no consensus emerged. At around 02:00 (August 10), Suzuki finally addressed Emperor Hirohito, asking him to decide between the two positions. The participants later recollected that the emperor stated

I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer

Nowhere does it say that they decided to surrender before the 2nd bomb was dropped and many powerful members of the japans government didn't think that the US had the capacity to drop a second one. Also why meet the day after the Nagasaki to discuss the possibility of surrender? The Emperor decided two days after Nagasaki to surrender

Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would "prejudice the prerogatives" of the emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan's form of government[93]—that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power.

Again if you have any historical documents to say that they were surrendering before the 8th of August then by all means show it but I don't think they exist because that is not how it was played out.

Supporters of the bombings generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing casualties on both sides during Operation Downfall. One figure of speech, "One hundred million [subjects of the Japanese Empire] will die for the Emperor and Nation,"[219] served as a unifying slogan, although that phrase was intended as a figure of speech along the lines of the "ten thousand years" phrase. Although some Japanese were taken prisoner,[220] most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.[221] Nearly 99% of the 21,000 defenders of Iwo Jima were killed,[220] and the last Japanese soldiers did not surrender until November 1949.[222] Of the 117,000 Japanese troops defending Okinawa in April–June 1945, 94% were killed.[220] Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war when the POW camp was in the combat zone.[223]
War Minister Korechika Anami was opposed to the surrender. Immediately after Hiroshima, he commented, "I am convinced that the Americans had only one bomb, after all."[224] Eventually, Anami's arguments were overcome when Hirohito directly requested an end to the war himself. In Truman's 1955 Memoirs, "he states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives."[225] Scholars have pointed out various alternatives that could have ended the war just as quickly without an invasion, but these alternatives could have resulted in the deaths of many more Japanese

This is a highly debated topic with many opinions but we should not have a blanket revisionism on the matter either.

jank · 03-01-2014 12:06AM

old hippy wrote: »

I think you're generalising a bit. Plenty of Japanese are aware of their country's imperialist brutal role but there is a right wing element when it comes to visiting the shrine. It sucks, sure but then - it happens all over the world. Closer to home - we have the likes of war criminals Churchill and (to some extent) Cromwell still lauded.

No, it doesn't happen all over the world. Do the German government engage in this behaviour for example.
What evidence do you have that Churchill is a war criminal? More revisionism?
I am not even going to debate Cromwell because it is impossible to have a rational debate about him with anyone Irish.

biko · 03-01-2014 12:27AM

Unfortunately there just isn't enough room in the school curriculum (or in people's heads) for all the atrocities old and current during war.
And some are deemed more newsworthy than others.
For instance the Syria civil war or Palestinian plight in the West Bank are big news but various (much bigger and bloodier) conflicts in Africa and Asia are just not seen as news and never reach Irish ears.

For your perusing pleasure, current conflicts with more than 1000 dead per year, aka wars you probably haven't heard of..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#1.2C000.2B_deaths_per_year

KyussBishop · 03-01-2014 02:31AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Documents in the US National Security Archive make it fairly clear that using the bomb was as much abut intimidating the Soviets as it was about concluding matters in the Pacific War.

Anyway, the use of the atom bombs and the destruction wrought by them pales into virtual insignificance when compared to the death and damage inflicted using napalm.

The atomic weapons incinerated 4.7 square miles of Hiroshima and 1.45 square miles of Nagasaki.

Between 9 March and 19 March 1945, LeMay's B-29s dropped over 9,300 tons of napalm on Japanese cities. From the end of March to the end of the War they dropped another 16,500 tons of the stuff - destroying 106 square miles of city centres and a further 169 square miles of suburban areas.

The firebombing of Tokyo (Operation MEETINGHOUSE) destroyed over 50 square miles, killed over 1,000,000 and 'de-housed' a further 3,500,000, and burned God knows how many.

As has been said - "the Bomb got the press, but napalm did the work"

True indeed - and I think this also bolsters the point as well, that it was more the Soviets that led to Japanese surrender, rather than the bombs.

KyussBishop · 03-01-2014 02:57AM

jank wrote: »

Hmmm nice editing there to portray your own version of events. You left you this part.

By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while Generals Anami, Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle their own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan

Well, that bit left out that you quote, shows that all 6 of them favour surrender - they just disagree on the conditions of the surrender (3 favouring one additional condition, the other 3 favouring three additional conditions).

I've trimmed all the quotes for brevity, but haven't intentionally left any relevant parts out.

In the second quote, the relevant part is what the emperor thinks, and the quote I provided earlier showed that he was already (before Nagasaki) aiming for surrender:
"The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration but needed a guarantee of the emperor's position."

jank wrote: »

Nowhere does it say that they decided to surrender before the 2nd bomb was dropped and many powerful members of the japans government didn't think that the US had the capacity to drop a second one. Also why meet the day after the Nagasaki to discuss the possibility of surrender? The Emperor decided two days after Nagasaki to surrender

The emperor, as the quote above shows, was already leaning towards surrender before Nagasaki - the fact that the bomb was dropped during the middle of the Japanese government debating surrender, shows that the US gave them practically no time at all to offer surrender, before dropping the second bomb (the US government is even on record, as stating that they want to drop bombs as fast as they can be manufactured) - thus showing, that the bombs were not about forcing Japan to surrender.

They met to debate surrender before Nagasaki, and after the Soviet invasion started - debates carried on after Nagasaki.

jank wrote: »

Again if you have any historical documents to say that they were surrendering before the 8th of August then by all means show it but I don't think they exist because that is not how it was played out.

The claim I made, was that they were moving towards surrender when the second bomb was dropped, which the quotes I provide show - this was triggered by the Soviet invasion, and the US did not give the Japanese government enough time to debate this and form a diplomatic response, before dropping the second bomb - making the second bomb unjustified and totally unnecessary, for achieving surrender.

jank wrote: »

This is a highly debated topic with many opinions but we should not have a blanket revisionism on the matter either.

Sure, but the quotes I provide, show that Japan was totally unprepared for the Soviet invasion and was already leaning towards surrender because of that.

The bombs definitely played a part, but the second bomb was totally unnecessary, and (since the Soviet invasion was totally unprepared for and likely to trigger surrender anyway) the first bomb was likely unnecessary too.

jank · 03-01-2014 04:32AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, that bit left out that you quote, shows that all 6 of them favour surrender - they just disagree on the conditions of the surrender (3 favouring one additional condition, the other 3 favouring three additional conditions).

I've trimmed all the quotes for brevity, but haven't intentionally left any relevant parts out.

In the second quote, the relevant part is what the emperor thinks, and the quote I provided earlier showed that he was already (before Nagasaki) aiming for surrender:
"The Supreme Council met at 10:30. Suzuki, who had just come from a meeting with the emperor, said it was impossible to continue the war. Tōgō Shigenori said that they could accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration but needed a guarantee of the emperor's position."

The emperor, as the quote above shows, was already leaning towards surrender before Nagasaki - the fact that the bomb was dropped during the middle of the Japanese government debating surrender, shows that the US gave them practically no time at all to offer surrender, before dropping the second bomb (the US government is even on record, as stating that they want to drop bombs as fast as they can be manufactured) - thus showing, that the bombs were not about forcing Japan to surrender.

They met to debate surrender before Nagasaki, and after the Soviet invasion started - debates carried on after Nagasaki.

Yes, they were debating the terms of surrender but have not formally concluded the surrender officially or indeed indicated to the Allies that they were going to surrender via any official means or channels.
Again, you stated that the decision to surrender was already taken before Nagasaki, this is not true as it was still under debate..... hence your claim is false.

Also of course there is evidence that the US had other A-bombs on hand to bomb them again and again… only two bombs were dropped. Once word of surrender came through no more action was taken. If an official notice of surrender came through and the US decided to bomb them anyway then I would agree that would have been over the top but this is not what happened.

Personally I don’t see the problem with dropping either bombs as it speeded up the process and in the long run saved more lives on both side. Also, it made sure that Japan would surrendor unconditionally to the US and not Russia which in turn became a democratic free market state much like west Germany a prospreous and free people. One only has to look at the former eastern block and Korea to find out what laid in store of the Japanese if the Russians were to get involved in the process.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The bombs definitely played a part, but the second bomb was totally unnecessary, and (since the Soviet invasion was totally unprepared for and likely to trigger surrender anyway) the first bomb was likely unnecessary too.

The bombs had a dual function. To strike the hammer blow in the Pacific war and to let Stalin think twice in case he wanted to march his 300 divisions onwards towards the Atlantic in Europe.

KyussBishop · 03-01-2014 11:14AM

jank wrote: »

Yes, they were debating the terms of surrender but have not formally concluded the surrender officially or indeed indicated to the Allies that they were going to surrender via any official means or channels.
Again, you stated that the decision to surrender was already taken before Nagasaki, this is not true as it was still under debate..... hence your claim is false.

Also of course there is evidence that the US had other A-bombs on hand to bomb them again and again… only two bombs were dropped. Once word of surrender came through no more action was taken. If an official notice of surrender came through and the US decided to bomb them anyway then I would agree that would have been over the top but this is not what happened.

Personally I don’t see the problem with dropping either bombs as it speeded up the process and in the long run saved more lives on both side. Also, it made sure that Japan would surrendor unconditionally to the US and not Russia which in turn became a democratic free market state much like west Germany a prospreous and free people. One only has to look at the former eastern block and Korea to find out what laid in store of the Japanese if the Russians were to get involved in the process.

The bombs had a dual function. To strike the hammer blow in the Pacific war and to let Stalin think twice in case he wanted to march his 300 divisions onwards towards the Atlantic in Europe.

All 6 in the debate were on the side of surrender (as was the Emperor), only differing on the terms of surrender - that's not a question of if they would surrender, only on what terms.

old hippy · 03-01-2014 11:26AM

jank wrote: »

No, it doesn't happen all over the world. Do the German government engage in this behaviour for example.
What evidence do you have that Churchill is a war criminal? More revisionism?
I am not even going to debate Cromwell because it is impossible to have a rational debate about him with anyone Irish.

Churchill sent the black & tans into Cork. He wanted to gas the Kurds in Iraq. He had his men open fire on miners. He authorised Dresden.

The man was a bastard, jank. No revisionism there, just the truth.

As for Cromwell, he brought mass murder to Ireland. I'm not even a Republican & I'm as rational as the next person.

Potatoeman · 03-01-2014 12:24PM

jank wrote: »

Yes, they were debating the terms of surrender but have not formally concluded the surrender officially or indeed indicated to the Allies that they were going to surrender via any official means or channels.
Again, you stated that the decision to surrender was already taken before Nagasaki, this is not true as it was still under debate..... hence your claim is false.

Also of course there is evidence that the US had other A-bombs on hand to bomb them again and again… only two bombs were dropped. Once word of surrender came through no more action was taken. If an official notice of surrender came through and the US decided to bomb them anyway then I would agree that would have been over the top but this is not what happened.

Personally I don’t see the problem with dropping either bombs as it speeded up the process and in the long run saved more lives on both side. Also, it made sure that Japan would surrendor unconditionally to the US and not Russia which in turn became a democratic free market state much like west Germany a prospreous and free people. One only has to look at the former eastern block and Korea to find out what laid in store of the Japanese if the Russians were to get involved in the process.

The bombs had a dual function. To strike the hammer blow in the Pacific war and to let Stalin think twice in case he wanted to march his 300 divisions onwards towards the Atlantic in Europe.

Trumans attitude was reported to have changed once they had the bomb. The alliance with Russia began showing cracks as the allies reneighed on agreed deals. Trumans handling of the whole situation kicked off the cold war.

The point you make is the issue many have with the second bomb. That it was a powerplay and not necessary.

jank · 03-01-2014 12:35PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

All 6 in the debate were on the side of surrender (as was the Emperor), only differing on the terms of surrender - that's not a question of if they would surrender, only on what terms.

Yes, but still have not formally or officially communicated this to the Allies. Debating the terms of surrender is not unconditional surrender. Therefore the war was to continue as before….

jank · 03-01-2014 12:40PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Trumans attitude was reported to have changed once they had the bomb. The alliance with Russia began showing cracks as the allies reneighed on agreed deals. Trumans handling of the whole situation kicked off the cold war.

The point you make is the issue many have with the second bomb. That it was a powerplay and not necessary.

Not true at all. The Russians were determined to draw up a large area of influence regardless of what the west did or did not do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain

The first recorded occasion on which Churchill used the term "iron curtain" was in a 12 May 1945 telegram he sent to U.S. President Harry S. Truman regarding his concern about Soviet actions, stating "[a]n iron curtain is drawn down upon their front. We do not know what is going on behind."[18] He was further concerned about "another immense flight of the German population westward as this enormous Muscovite advance towards the centre of Europe."[18] Churchill concluded "then the curtain will descend again to a very large extent, if not entirely. Thus a broad land of many hundreds of miles of Russian-occupied territory will isolate us from Poland."[18][19]
Churchill repeated the words in a further telegram to President Truman on 4 June 1945, in which he protested against such a U.S. retreat to what was earlier designated as, and ultimately became, the U.S. occupation zone, saying the military withdrawal would bring "Soviet power into the heart of Western Europe and the descent of an iron curtain between us and everything to the eastward."[18]
At the Potsdam Conference, Churchill complained to Stalin about an "iron fence" coming down upon the British Mission in Bucharest.

All this before the A-bomb.

getzls · 03-01-2014 12:57PM

old hippy wrote: »

Churchill sent the black & tans into Cork. He wanted to gas the Kurds in Iraq. He had his men open fire on miners. He authorised Dresden.

The man was a bastard, jank. No revisionism there, just the truth.

.

He may have been in some ways, but he saved Ireland from Nazi rule as well as the rest of Europe.

old hippy · 03-01-2014 12:59PM

getzls wrote: »

He may have been in some ways, but he saved Ireland from Nazi rule as well as the rest of Europe.

He was an ogre. There were a lot of them about in those days. I hope we never have to rely on monsters again.

getzls · 03-01-2014 01:21PM

old hippy wrote: »

He was an ogre. There were a lot of them about in those days. I hope we never have to rely on monsters again.

Would the IRA of the time (who were great lovers of a real monster, Hitler)
have saved Ireland from German rule?

karma_ · 03-01-2014 01:26PM

getzls wrote: »

Would the IRA of the time (who were great lovers of a real monster, Hitler)
have saved Ireland from German rule?

Would Stalin have?

marienbad · 03-01-2014 01:27PM

karma_ wrote: »

Would Stalin have?

I think he did to a great extent

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

Comments