Sense of fairness seems lost.

[Undefined]

The spies you are talking about were in Hawaii, not the US - they were farther away from the US than Berlin is. Few of them were Japanese Americans. But at least you admit they committed no sabotage, did not supply Tojo with oil and steel and military gear for the invasions of China et al, did not infiltrate the US government and install agents in major war industries and research operations, and in general were much less of a hazard (despite the buildup of hostilities in the Pacific, with the US supporting China and the whole theater on a war footing) than the large factions of Nazi and Soviet sympathizers among other US ethnic groups - who were none of them interned, despite overt opposition and undermining of the war efforts.

Hawaii is also the US. And geographical distances meant nothing when collaboration over the radio and secret codes was commonplace. You seem to have a curiously restricted view of the actual global spread of fear and wartime activities by that time, iceaura.

Like I said, the war with Japan was started by an 'unfair' attack on Pearl Harbor, which suddenly STARTED the Pacific US-Japanese war. So the Japanese spies didn't want to start anything BEFORE then, or they would have given their game away and the possibility of such an attack would have been expected/treated by the US more seriously rather than discounted as it was until it was too late.

That is false. Many German, Mexican, Irish, Austrian, Swiss, Spanish, Italian, and other ethnic Americans were ardent Nazi supporters and sympathizers, and they were much more active in their support than the few Japanese Americans who may have supported Tojo in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor.
The enormity of the atrocities the US committed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki should never be downplayed or minimized - if that is your point, then I accept correction.

Yes, that I already mentioned. That was not the point; the point was that they and their intentions/usefulness to counter-actions were already well assessed precisely BECAUSE there had been plenty of time to assess. Like I already said also, in the case of the Japanese-americans, there had only been assessments of those in embassies etc who may have had direct usefulness for the Japanese Intelligence. The rest were UNKNOWNS in the community, and since THEY had not undergone a similar period of open and public self-declarations that the European-americans had while they were still neutral and the Nazi-British conflict was most desperate, the US had no idea of who was for or against US in the general Japanese-american community. The Pacific War started UNEXPECTEDLY for the general Japanese-american community as it did for the rest of the American community. That was not the case for the European war and the European-american community. That was my point; that the circumstances were different for the two communities. Hence the different treatment, unfair as it was for those who would have fought for/supported the US in such a war (but they had no chance/time to make their intentions clear, and those actual/potential spies/saboteurs would have been easily hidden in the Japanese-american communities IF they had not ALL been interned where the local threat was considered greatest.

The point I was making was that the decision to commit them was not forced - the situation was not desperate, the US was in no immediate danger, the war was won, there was plenty of time to think and plan and weigh the several favorable alternatives for forcing surrender. The US incinerated those cities deliberately, with advance planning, and after carefully forestalling all other possibilities including any hope of ending the war earlier.

Wow, easy for you to sit there comfortably while the commanders in the field saw their men dying in the thousands against those Japanese defenders on those islands. You would have been satisfied to allow many more thousands to die UNFAIRLY while the conventional 'mopping up' operations continued all the way to mainland Japan islands and the final conventional bloodbath on both sides there?

Mate, unless you lived it you'll never understand it. There were THREE reasons for the A-bombings:

- they became available to the commander in chief just at that time;

- they were a means to end the conventional slaughter which was still unfolding in the Pacific and was getting more desperate as the Japanese main islands were approached;

- they were a way to DISCOURAGE the SOVIET threat to continue war in Europe over their plans to occupy all of germany and finally threaten western countries through their communist agendas.

These unfair decisions are sometimes FORCED on commanders who have ALL the information/picture 'on the ground' at the time. You sitting there now and making all sorts of 'value judgements', which do NOT take all the information and immediate circumstances in the heat of battle, deaths and threat of horrific proportions, strikes me as being somewhat callous and disregarding of what SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES will do for such awful decisions UNDER DURESS of the awful WWII experiences still fresh and ongoing for those whose RESPONSIBILITIES were the ending of hostilities asap and the best way to achieve this with less not more loss of life and 'unfairness'.

The GREATER 'unfairness' would have been to allow the conventional war to grind on and on, and also allow Soviets to make further war to gain more territory/revenge against Germany, Japan etc. So you can thank the 'fairness' of the Yanks decision to use the A-bomb in those circumstances; thus saving many more Germans, Japanese and other nationalities which would have been BUTCHERED if the Soviets were not scared off by the A-bombs the US had and used to END the Pacific conflict and even more deaths from conventional/invasion fighting. If you will thank them for that 'fairness' now, I'm sure they would graciously say: "You're welcome....and no hard feelings!"

Didn't. Not even close. And that's obvious, actually.

Glad to hear it.

So far we have from you a litany of historical errors - that the US government had not investigated the Japanese community to create a list of dangerous people prior to Pearl Harbor, as it had the German and other ethnic groups (the government had compiled a list of politically dangerous Japanese starting in 1939, along with its list of Germans, Italians, etc), that the internments of Japanese were based on reasonable suspicion of possible disloyalty and spying etc (note that orphaned children with 1/16th Japanese ancestry were interned on the West Coast, while in Hawaii almost no Japanese were interned - the exact opposite of what a fear of spying and sabotage would recommend, much more consistent with simple racism), that European Americans were all - or even mostly - strongly opposed to Hitler and no risk of undermining a war effort against the Axis, and so forth.

I was only presenting additional considerations which your own 'facts list' obviously did not have room for. I was providing background for the overall response, not the localized decisions/circumstances. The overall response was obviously affected/effected on the local level by many officials with many personal agendas/fears/unfairness, including children being interned with their many relatives of many generations. That was never at issue with me. ok?

Fear and practicality competed for resources/actions at the time, depending on local situation and the most immediate threats were identified/followed; so you could not know who or why was interned or not, for operational reasons as well as insufficient resources. The Hawaiian Islands were a good way to allow Japanese agents to operate so that the US intelligence services (who by that time had BROKEN THE JAPANESE CODES) could gather intelligence and use it against them. If they had cracked down on the Hawaiian Japanese-american community it would have denied the Yanks the source of much of the counter-espionage 'gold' which the US used against the Japanese when the time came. You are obviously not conversant with the exigencies and necessary strategies/decisions during a WAR OF ANNIHILATION that raged then. You would be the first to be 'unfairly' culled as NAIVE and TRUSTING of the 'fairness' of anyone, let alone the enemy at the gate. Luck you were not there, or you would have been a 'puppet' or 'a 'victim' without a clue as to what was going on (living as you apparently do, in an 'ideal world on another planet', judging by some of your 'black and white' perspectives on 'fairness').

You are coming to illustrate the OP here - no sense of fairness, no honest attempt to address issues, just a bunch of bs and rant in the service of what looks more and more like a bad conscience. It's not your fault the US interned its Japanese ethnics and no others, it's not your fault the US carefully prevented the Japanese from finding out about the Bomb or negotiating surrender until it had a chance to drop two of them of different designs, incinerating whole cities full of women and children and old folks. But the US will never be able to protect itself from making such moral errors in the future, if it refuses to recognize them in its past.

And this amnesiac, ahistorical approach to evaluation of alternatives may be a clue as to why and how the fair fight norm eroded away - the sense of accountability over time, of building a reputation in a community, of guarding one's honor, is probably important to the fair fight norm.

It's not me who omits to consider all the facts surrounding the action/decisions 'on the ground' at the time. Your 'takes' and comments are obviously made from the comfort of your computer chair and complacent safety/security which was ALSO BOUGHT FOR YOU AND ME WITH THE BLOOD of all those who perished along those island chains leading to Japan at the time. You apparently would have shed even more of their blood just to say "using the a-bomb was an unforced error". Tell that to those who would have died if not for that, as well as to those who died ELSEWHERE in TOTAL WAR scenarios across the globe.

Mate, I have said all I am going to say on this SPECIFIC aspect which was the subject of my initial post to Fraggle. I have said it for your benefit as well as for the sake of balanced consideration of all the accompanying circumstances regarding the decisions/actions and their 'fairness' or otherwise given the circumstances which I have tried to apprise you of, and which obviously your reading of history did not uncover, thus making your own opinions somewhat less than 'authoritative' when it comes to assessing the 'fairness' or otherwise of this SPECIFIC subject matter. The general issue of fairness/unfairness as a legacy of those WWII and cold war times is still up for discussion.

About which general issue I will just venture to say that BOTH unfairness AND fairness are evident in the current global community/actions/intents. And it is our generations responsibility that the unfairnss is eventually outweighed by the fairness, and by as large a margin as is possible to achieve HUMANELY and not blindedly by purely subjective opinion/religion/ideology means whose legacies will not endure unless tempered by reality and the human condition as it is and has always been. Learn from our mistakes and from history's legacies on all 'sides'. Good will and good luck to us all! Stay safe, and be fair as you humanly can, everyone.

 

[iceaura]

Mate, unless you lived it you'll never understand it. There were THREE reasons for the A-bombings:

None of them required incinerating two civilian populations without warning. The US had several choices for announcing the end of the war due to overwhelming weapon superiority, and some of these were debated at the time - they are not hindsight ideas nobody thought of then.

The US could have, for example, invited Japanese negotiators to witness Trinity, or even informed them of the progress of the bomb's construction in May or June - thereby possibly ending the war months earlier and saving many American lives - instead of cutting off all negotiations back in the spring as soon as Oppenheimer informed the military of the fact of the bomb (apparently to avoid any chance of an early end to the war, before the bomb could be dropped).

Hawaii is also the US.

When the US entered the Pacific War, Hawaii was no more part of the US than the Philippine Islands.

Like I already said also, in the case of the Japanese-americans, there had only been assessments of those in embassies etc who may have had direct usefulness for the Japanese Intelligence.

That is false. The US had been monitoring the political allegiances of the Japanese American community for several years, due to the growing involvement of America against Japan in the Pacific theater wars being fought through the 1930s - when hot war erupted in Europe in '39, intelligence reports including lists of likely hostiles were compiled for the Japanese community right along with the German and Italian communities (and the Jewish community, of course - anyone thought to harbor unAmerican views).

The GREATER 'unfairness' would have been to allow the conventional war to grind on and on,

That was never a possibility, once the bomb was developed - from April or May of that year, the US government and military knew the conventional war was over. The decision to be made then - in May or around then - was how best to inform and convince the Japanese of the new situation, and manage their surrender. The means chosen was to make sure the blockade and war kept grinding on at whatever cost to both sides for several more months while different designs of bomb were built in secret, and then launch the surprise incineration of two helpless and indefensible cities, together with all the people living in them - men, women, children. Compare the Rape of Nanking - which was worse?

You continue to make obvious and easily corrected errors of fact - why?

The overall response was obviously affected/effected on the local level by many officials with many personal agendas/fears/unfairness, including children being interned with their many relatives of many generations.

To repeat: in California orphans with 1/16 Japanese ancestry were taken away from their many white relatives and interned with Japanese strangers (a racial "one-drop" rule similar to the Jim Crow laws then in force in the southern States), while in Hawaii (the military center of the Pacific War, with the highest risk of damage from sabotage and spying) even first generation immigrant fullblooded and culturally Japanese adult non-citizens who did not speak English were not interned. In both places the US had already compiled lists of suspect spies and hostiles among the Japanese community, just as they had among the German and Swiss and Spanish and Italian communities, and these people were not interned with the regular civilians - there were other, more secure facilities for them.

And perhaps in consequence - certainly in noticeable correlation with the similarly treated Reds and Blacks in America - the "fair fight" cultural norm has not been part of Japanese American culture since that time.

 

[Undefined]

None of them required incinerating two civilian populations without warning. The US had several choices for announcing the end of the war due to overwhelming weapon superiority, and some of these were debated at the time - they are not hindsight ideas nobody thought of then.

The US could have, for example, invited Japanese negotiators to witness Trinity, or even informed them of the progress of the bomb's construction in May or June - thereby possibly ending the war months earlier and saving many American lives - instead of cutting off all negotiations back in the spring as soon as Oppenheimer informed the military of the fact of the bomb (apparently to avoid any chance of an early end to the war, before the bomb could be dropped).

It was a time of TOTAL WAR horrors brought by the Nazi-Japanese axis. No amount of diplomacy was going to change the 'warrior' code of the military in charge who still ordered to never surrender but die with honor etc etc to the last man woman and child.

Secrecy was paramount about the A-bomb because of the Soviet threat still hanging over Europe; also the US could not know what the Japanese military still had up their sleeve after the collaboration and sharing of bomb and missile technology by Germany and Japan. Even so, many 'overtures' and unofficial contacts were made with Japanese and other intermediaries making quite clear that US had means to destroy Japan if it wanted to. They would not take heed because of the madness then reigning in Japan military who would rather die than lose face etc. and admit defeat/surrender.

I already mentioned all the other considerations. What more do you want?

When the US entered the Pacific War, Hawaii was no more part of the US than the Philippine Islands.

Hawaii was a "US Territory" then, as were most states before they were granted statehood. It was as much part of the US as most of the other Territories before they officially gained Statehood rights, privileges and responsibilities. That's all. So it was as much US as any other territory or state was.

That is false. The US had been monitoring the political allegiances of the Japanese American community for several years, due to the growing involvement of America against Japan in the Pacific theater wars being fought through the 1930s - when hot war erupted in Europe in '39, intelligence reports including lists of likely hostiles were compiled for the Japanese community right along with the German and Italian communities (and the Jewish community, of course - anyone thought to harbor unAmerican views).

Not to the same extent/effectiveness as the European-americans. The European-americans were all either refugees or people who had relatives suffering the total war blitzkrieg and occupational horrors of Nazis. They has already made clear where they stood publicly. In total contrast: No Japanese-americans were 'escapees' or 'refugees' etc from Japanese homeland/Emperor. They had no reason to rail against Japan or make their intentions as clear as the European-americans had over much time in the then neutral USA. And any intelligence surveillance/assessments for Japanese Embassies and staff extended to any 'known contacts' made with the general Japanese=american communities/organizations. There was precious little known about most of the Japanese-american communities overall, hence the decision to intern wholesale where operationally possible/desirable. The rest of the covert considerations about 'counter-espionage' activities/decisions about certain individuals/communities (especially in Hawaii) I already explained.

To repeat: in California orphans with 1/16 Japanese ancestry were taken away from their many white relatives and interned with Japanese strangers (a racial "one-drop" rule similar to the Jim Crow laws then in force in the southern States), while in Hawaii (the military center of the Pacific War, with the highest risk of damage from sabotage and spying) even first generation immigrant fullblooded and culturally Japanese adult non-citizens who did not speak English were not interned. In both places the US had already compiled lists of suspect spies and hostiles among the Japanese community, just as they had among the German and Swiss and Spanish and Italian communities, and these people were not interned with the regular civilians - there were other, more secure facilities for them.

I already agreed that unfairness of internment involved local mafia/official decisions which also led to internment of children with many generations family etc. I also pointed out that in some localities/neighborhoods where feelings against Japanese ran at fever pitch, the 'unfair internment' may have saved many Japanese-americans from being lynch mobbed.

It was all a mess during emergency desperate times where no time luxury was available to make sure each and every one was assessed. Also operational decisions mixed with civilian contexts made the whole process a 'mixed bag'.

That was never a possibility, once the bomb was developed - from April or May of that year, the US government and military knew the conventional war was over. The decision to be made then - in May or around then - was how best to inform and convince the Japanese of the new situation, and manage their surrender. The means chosen was to make sure the blockade and war kept grinding on at whatever cost to both sides for several more months while different designs of bomb were built in secret, and then launch the surprise incineration of two helpless and indefensible cities, together with all the people living in them - men, women, children. Compare the Rape of Nanking - which was worse?

The uranium concentration rate was limited, and after the tests had to wait for more to be available. They used that time to review the designs, as much for safety and proper delivery considerations as for anything else...as was the usual design-production procedures for developing new weapons. Also, they knew that if Soviets started something in Europe, then the A-bomb had to be demonstrated and also available as effectively-delivered as possible. Hence the A-bombings in Japan as demonstration and practice/tests as well as to end Japanese resistance once and for all despite the continuing military hold over the Emperor at the time. Once the bombs were dropped, no military orders were treated with respect/trust anymore and the Emperor was able to make his decision/order to surrender with the rest of the population behind him and disregarding military orders to fight to the death etc.

And perhaps in consequence - certainly in noticeable correlation with the similarly treated Reds and Blacks in America - the "fair fight" cultural norm has not been part of Japanese American culture since that time.

That is changing over time, and nothing like it was in the free-for-all colonialist days. Takes time for individuals to change attitudes. Education and greater awareness of one's fellow humans rights and needs is slowly changing all that legacy idiocy/stupidity and just plain racism born of ideologies or just plain mercenary/political expediency. It will take another couple of generations for such legacies and stupidities to be bred out of the human psyche, and only as fast as the old legacies of hatred and greed are worn away by enlightenment through education and fairness under democracies can slowly but surely usher forth (hopefully sooner rather than too late!). Good luck to us all.

PS: Sorry, mate, but I am really pressed for time, and will not be able to respond any more on this specific aspect. Thanks for the polite and interesting/informative exchange. Much appreciated. Cheers and best of luck to you and yours (everyone!) in this new year! Stay safe.

 

[iceaura]

No amount of diplomacy was going to change the 'warrior' code of the military in charge who still ordered to never surrender but die with honor etc etc to the last man woman and child.

They surrendered within ten days of finding out the US had developed nuclear weapons, as was expected. The only question at the time was how best to inform them of the new situation. The method chosen was a prolongation of the war by several months, in order to prepare in secret and enact by surprise a horrible atrocity, among the worst in the Pacific theater of WWII (Chiang Kai-Shek's blowing of the dikes on the Yellow River was worse, what else rivals?).

Secrecy was paramount about the A-bomb because of the Soviet threat still hanging over Europe; also the US could not know what the Japanese military still had up their sleeve after the collaboration and sharing of bomb and missile technology by Germany and Japan

Once the bomb was developed - say from May of that year - secrecy regarding its existence had no value except in preventing an early surrender by Japan. The whole value of the bomb was in telling people about it. That was known then, and is even more obvious now since the discovery that the Soviets knew about it all along.

The building of the bomb was far too big a project for any of the Axis powers in the state they were in, and even the Soviets in peacetime afterwards had to throw enormous resources at it despite the US having done most of the research for them (very costly in lives and money, postwar famine and all, but the US was an obviously belligerent and semi-insane threat with that thing - two cities? by surprise? why in hell? The Soviets were placed in an emergency situation of vulnerability, desperate.).

It was as much part of the US as most of the other Territories before they officially gained Statehood rights, privileges and responsibilities.

It was a territory. Like the Philippines (technically a "commonwealth", but one militarily occupied and overseen), Puerto Rico, Guam, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Samoa, and so forth. Not part of the US.

Even so, many 'overtures' and unofficial contacts were made with Japanese and other intermediaries making quite clear that US had means to destroy Japan if it wanted to.

That is false. Not a hint of any such weapon or capability was delivered to the Japanese, and as soon as the US government found out the bomb was designed and would work it refused all Japanese overtures and attempts at unofficial contact.

Not to the same extent/effectiveness as the European-americans.

To a very great extent, nevertheless. Lists of hostiles in the community were compiled, for example, and these people were detained in special camps along with many Germans and Italians and so forth. The internments were another matter altogether.

The European-americans were all either refugees or people who had relatives suffering the total war blitzkrieg and occupational horrors of Nazis. They has already made clear where they stood publicly

Their public stance was often support for the Nazi regime and opposition to US alliance with the British. There were also private, non-public and clandestine supporters of the Axis and/or Soviets. That support extended to active aid and collaboration and illegal commercial dealings with the Axis - there was an actual, operating "fifth column" of Nazi (and Stalinist) supporters among European ethnics in the US, but no concentration camps for them.

I already agreed that unfairness of internment involved local mafia/official decisions which also led to internment of children with many generations family etc.

And I pointed out that there was an official racially based criterion for internment that had nothing to do with local officials or family relations - a "one drop" rule almost identical to the Jim Crow rules in the old Confederacy.

I also pointed out that in some localities/neighborhoods where feelings against Japanese ran at fever pitch, the 'unfair internment' may have saved many Japanese-americans from being lynch mobbed.

You didn't, but if you had I would have agreed - and noted that racial bigotry combined with greed and opportunism (for their possessions) was a far larger factor than any security concerns. Hawaii proves that.

It was all a mess during emergency desperate times where no time luxury was available to make sure each and every one was assessed.

Worse in Hawaii - more desperate, more threatened, more ignorant, more of a mess, more critical to the war effort. But no internments. The racial situation - not the security situation - was different there.

Also, they knew that if Soviets started something in Europe, then the A-bomb had to be demonstrated and also available as effectively-delivered as possible. Hence the A-bombings in Japan as demonstration and practice/tests as well as to end Japanese resistance once and for all despite the continuing military hold over the Emperor at the time.

None of that required the secrecy of existence after the bomb was developed - its usefulness as a looming threat might even have come in handy - and no need for "demonstration" required the incineration of two entire cities - burning alive women, children, hospital patients, the elderly, to "demonstrate" something to the Soviets? "Practice - tests"? This rotting pretzel of justification just gets worse and worse.

Once the bombs were dropped, no military orders were treated with respect/trust anymore and the Emperor was able to make his decision/order to surrender with the rest of the population behind him

You continue this barrage of historical and physical error.

The "rest of the population" had no information and no say - they didn't find out what had happened to Hiroshima until afterwards. The government and sane brass, led by the Emperor, overruled the more fanatical brass based on the existence of the bomb - something that was at least possible several months earlier (the terms of surrender were similar to those offered by Japanese envoys back then, when the US was still willing to negotiate)

 

[Undefined]

They surrendered within ten days of finding out the US had developed nuclear weapons, as was expected. The only question at the time was how best to inform them of the new situation. The method chosen was a prolongation of the war by several months, in order to prepare in secret and enact by surprise a horrible atrocity, among the worst in the Pacific theater of WWII (Chiang Kai-Shek's blowing of the dikes on the Yellow River was worse, what else rivals?).

Once the bomb was developed - say from May of that year - secrecy regarding its existence had no value except in preventing an early surrender by Japan. The whole value of the bomb was in telling people about it. That was known then, and is even more obvious now since the discovery that the Soviets knew about it all along.

The building of the bomb was far too big a project for any of the Axis powers in the state they were in, and even the Soviets in peacetime afterwards had to throw enormous resources at it despite the US having done most of the research for them (very costly in lives and money, postwar famine and all, but the US was an obviously belligerent and semi-insane threat with that thing - two cities? by surprise? why in hell? The Soviets were placed in an emergency situation of vulnerability, desperate.).
It was a territory. Like the Philippines (technically a "commonwealth", but one militarily occupied and overseen), Puerto Rico, Guam, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Samoa, and so forth. Not part of the US.

That is false. Not a hint of any such weapon or capability was delivered to the Japanese, and as soon as the US government found out the bomb was designed and would work it refused all Japanese overtures and attempts at unofficial contact.

To a very great extent, nevertheless. Lists of hostiles in the community were compiled, for example, and these people were detained in special camps along with many Germans and Italians and so forth. The internments were another matter altogether. Their public stance was often support for the Nazi regime and opposition to US alliance with the British. There were also private, non-public and clandestine supporters of the Axis and/or Soviets. That support extended to active aid and collaboration and illegal commercial dealings with the Axis - there was an actual, operating "fifth column" of Nazi (and Stalinist) supporters among European ethnics in the US, but no concentration camps for them.

And I pointed out that there was an official racially based criterion for internment that had nothing to do with local officials or family relations - a "one drop" rule almost identical to the Jim Crow rules in the old Confederacy. You didn't, but if you had I would have agreed - and noted that racial bigotry combined with greed and opportunism (for their possessions) was a far larger factor than any security concerns. Hawaii proves that.

Worse in Hawaii - more desperate, more threatened, more ignorant, more of a mess, more critical to the war effort. But no internments. The racial situation - not the security situation - was different there.

None of that required the secrecy of existence after the bomb was developed - its usefulness as a looming threat might even have come in handy - and no need for "demonstration" required the incineration of two entire cities - burning alive women, children, hospital patients, the elderly, to "demonstrate" something to the Soviets? "Practice - tests"? This rotting pretzel of justification just gets worse and worse.

You continue this barrage of historical and physical error.

The "rest of the population" had no information and no say - they didn't find out what had happened to Hiroshima until afterwards. The government and sane brass, led by the Emperor, overruled the more fanatical brass based on the existence of the bomb - something that was at least possible several months earlier (the terms of surrender were similar to those offered by Japanese envoys back then, when the US was still willing to negotiate)

They surrendered because the Emperor was empowered by the awful REALITY on the ground (in Hiroshima/Nagasaki, to stand up to the military and sue for surrender terms. Until the reality on the ground, there was no hope of going the surrender route because the populace was still being fed propaganda fears about US slaughter of everyone if they surrendered. Put your mind and facts into the TIME context, and leave the 'hindsight interpretations' alone, mate.

Like I said, the overall thrust of your opinions seem to be based on what we know NOW. You fail to remember that most of what you claim in hindsight today was not known THEN. It was still total war (the most egregious 'unfainess' of all) and the fog of war was as thick as ever. As were the anger and fear and panic and confusion etc.

If the US wanted to they could have done worse, but didn't. That should tell you something about the times and the choices etc. And it was not known at the time that the Soviets had spies feeding them info on the Manhattan Project. Even so, Stalin didn't know that the bomb was operational until he was caught by surprise like everyone else was by the Japan bombings. It was this surprise that scared Stalin into NOT pursuing the European conflict with US and britain for the WHOLE of Germany and other states which could not be stopped because of the Soviet arms/army superiority on the ground in Europe then; hence the bomb was crucial to demonstrate to Stalin that further 'hot' conflict was futile.

Again, only long AFTER the war was it known that Germany/Japan could not have made the bomb. At the time it was the GREATEST FEAR and entirely unknown as to how 'close' they may be. Hence the highest priority/effort for the Manhattan Project at the time. And why the conventional war against Japan CONTINUED in order to also DISRUPT industry/transportation and other infrastructure and populace/worker support/capability etc as much as possible in order to slow/prevent the (suspected) Japan efforts towards A-bomb development (just as Allies previously attacked all Nazi sites/infrastructure etc which could have supported the by then known Nazi efforts towards a-bomb development).

And like I said about Hawaiian non-internments: The community/task would have been too unwieldy for that, so the option of closer counter-espionage efforts instead (which paid off later big time). Local situations, local remedies/decisions and operational considerations as well. You weren't THERE, so your assessments are not quite reflective of the realities faced on the ground in desperate times.

As for the rest, I leave it at what I already pointed out to inform what was the situation in total war times and operational exigencies thrust upon commanders at the time. Your 'armchair' and 'hindsight' based opinions are too far removed from the fog of war and total war decisions being taken by necessity of survival and ending needless slaughter. Good luck in your 'comfortable chair analysis' after the horrible times and facts are over, mate; but spare a thought for those on all sides who were forced to make decisions given the awful horror that the Nazis and the Japanese presented to the world at the time!

Despite the awful history, I hope and trust you and yours will in this New Year again enjoy the freedoms and comforts which all those brave people won for you under pressure of all the desperation/unfairness in the TOTAL WAR fighting/decisions involved.

No more comment. Out of time. I will leave you with the last word, as I won't be coming in again for quite some time. Good luck and good thinking; and see/read you round, mate! Thanks again for your polite, interesting and informative exchange with me on this specific aspect.

 

[iceaura]

They surrendered because the Emperor was empowered by the awful REALITY on the ground (in Hiroshima/Nagasaki, to stand up to the military and sue for surrender terms.

As was predicted - as soon as the reality of the US atom bomb was known, Japan surrendered. The question leading to that was how best to inform the Japanese of this reality, and force surrender. Several methods were available, some of which could have been attempted as early as May of that year - potentially ending the war months earlier, and providing the US with moral authority and political power heretofore unknown on this planet. Incineration of two cities full of civilians, without warning, in a surprise attack months after the the bomb was developed, was the method chosen, for several reasons all inadequate to the enormity of the crime committed. That was a horrible atrocity, OK?

Like I said, the overall thrust of your opinions seem to be based on what we know NOW. You fail to remember that most of what you claim in hindsight today was not known THEN.

Everything I have argued from here was known to everyone involved in deciding how to inform the Japanese of the bomb. Nothing I have argued from here about the decision to incinerate live cities without warning, except the one observation I specifically labeled hindsight (that the Soviets knew about the American bomb), is from hindsight.

The hindsight involved here is in tracing back the influence on US character and integrity that decision seems to have had - the pretzel logic and weasel reasoning, the special pleading, and in particular the revision of history and promulgation of fantasy made necessary by the need to justify that decision in hindsight - and noting the crippling, weakening effect of such influence. Included there is a possible connection to one aspect of the loss of the fair fight norm - the regret of the OP.

It was this surprise that scared Stalin into NOT pursuing the European conflict with US and britain for the WHOLE of Germany and other states which could not be stopped because of the Soviet arms/army superiority on the ground in Europe then;

Stalin had already decided against that, months ago, and accepted the frontiers drawn in Europe, because his country was a wreck and facing famine, and he did not want to risk war with the undamaged, very dangerous, and still ramping up US. The only reason the Brits worried about a Soviet invasion was that the US was transferring its forces toward Japan - an expensive deception of little value except maintaining secrecy about the Bomb, which Truman already knew had made any invasion of Japan unnecessary. All those fears would have been eliminated, and Stalin cowed, by a US announcement of the bomb's development - as they were, when that announcement was eventually made.

Again, only long AFTER the war was it known that Germany/Japan could not have made the bomb. At the time it was the GREATEST FEAR and entirely unknown as to how 'close' they may be

That is false. Germany was known to be some distance from an actual bomb from 1944 on (when the magnitude of the effort required and Germany's weakness had become clear), and after surrender was found to be even farther away than expected - having essentially abandoned the attempt very early on and made little progress. That discovery was made months before Hiroshima. There was no evidence Japan was even as advanced as Germany, and with the country blockaded and about to starve no real fear of their building anything like the US had, or even being able to use one if they had it.

And why the conventional war against Japan CONTINUED in order to also DISRUPT industry/transportation and other infrastructure and populace/worker support/capability etc as much as possible in order to slow/prevent the (suspected) Japan efforts towards A-bomb development

Dude, the US was not bombing the Japanese railroads and bridges and torpedoing their shipping and cutting off their oil and shooting down their planes and so forth to prevent them from building a Bomb.

And these examples fail to make sense in even your fantasy argument - the more worried the US was about a Soviet assault or a Japanese bomb, the more reason there was to try to end the Pacific war quickly, trump the bomb efforts by revealing US accomplishment in the matter, press for surrender as hard and as fast as possible so the Soviets could not get rolling.

And like I said about Hawaiian non-internments: The community/task would have been too unwieldy for that, so the option of closer counter-espionage efforts instead (which paid off later big time).

A counter-espionage effort already in progress for years in the US, and much easier there. So the option of not abusing and interning actual American citizens, of treating American citizens at least as well as were treated colonized and hostile foreigners in much more vulnerable situations, was obviously available, and the reasons for choosing otherwise were not "security" concerns or such hindsight excuses, but instead come down to racism - thus the one drop rule, the threat of neighborhood mobs, etc.

People abused like that seldom establish the cultural norm of "fair fight", and so the US lost another potential support for that norm. As of 1941, then, reds, blacks, and now yellows, have been made peasants of - the rewards, and thus the virtues, of nobility or full status citizenship put at a distance.

Good luck in your 'comfortable chair analysis' after the horrible times and facts are over, mate;

And we see again the crippling effects of abuse and atrocity, visited on the perpetrators. They can no longer think straight, they have to rewrite history and buy into illogic, they tie themselves in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable, and when they then lose something they valued in their culture - like the "fair fight" norm - they cannot begin to guess why or how. They are beset by stuff that makes no sense, and have to imagine evils and flaws in groups of other people to find any explanation at all of what they have seen.

 

[Undefined]

As was predicted - as soon as the reality of the US atom bomb was known, Japan surrendered. The question leading to that was how best to inform the Japanese of this reality, and force surrender. Several methods were available, some of which could have been attempted as early as May of that year - potentially ending the war months earlier, and providing the US with moral authority and political power heretofore unknown on this planet. Incineration of two cities full of civilians, without warning, in a surprise attack months after the the bomb was developed, was the method chosen, for several reasons all inadequate to the enormity of the crime committed. That was a horrible atrocity, OK?

Everything I have argued from here was known to everyone involved in deciding how to inform the Japanese of the bomb. Nothing I have argued from here about the decision to incinerate live cities without warning, except the one observation I specifically labeled hindsight (that the Soviets knew about the American bomb), is from hindsight.

The hindsight involved here is in tracing back the influence on US character and integrity that decision seems to have had - the pretzel logic and weasel reasoning, the special pleading, and in particular the revision of history and promulgation of fantasy made necessary by the need to justify that decision in hindsight - and noting the crippling, weakening effect of such influence. Included there is a possible connection to one aspect of the loss of the fair fight norm - the regret of the OP.

Stalin had already decided against that, months ago, and accepted the frontiers drawn in Europe, because his country was a wreck and facing famine, and he did not want to risk war with the undamaged, very dangerous, and still ramping up US. The only reason the Brits worried about a Soviet invasion was that the US was transferring its forces toward Japan - an expensive deception of little value except maintaining secrecy about the Bomb, which Truman already knew had made any invasion of Japan unnecessary. All those fears would have been eliminated, and Stalin cowed, by a US announcement of the bomb's development - as they were, when that announcement was eventually made.

That is false. Germany was known to be some distance from an actual bomb from 1944 on (when the magnitude of the effort required and Germany's weakness had become clear), and after surrender was found to be even farther away than expected - having essentially abandoned the attempt very early on and made little progress. That discovery was made months before Hiroshima. There was no evidence Japan was even as advanced as Germany, and with the country blockaded and about to starve no real fear of their building anything like the US had, or even being able to use one if they had it.

Dude, the US was not bombing the Japanese railroads and bridges and torpedoing their shipping and cutting off their oil and shooting down their planes and so forth to prevent them from building a Bomb.

And these examples fail to make sense in even your fantasy argument - the more worried the US was about a Soviet assault or a Japanese bomb, the more reason there was to try to end the Pacific war quickly, trump the bomb efforts by revealing US accomplishment in the matter, press for surrender as hard and as fast as possible so the Soviets could not get rolling.

A counter-espionage effort already in progress for years in the US, and much easier there. So the option of not abusing and interning actual American citizens, of treating American citizens at least as well as were treated colonized and hostile foreigners in much more vulnerable situations, was obviously available, and the reasons for choosing otherwise were not "security" concerns or such hindsight excuses, but instead come down to racism - thus the one drop rule, the threat of neighborhood mobs, etc.

People abused like that seldom establish the cultural norm of "fair fight", and so the US lost another potential support for that norm. As of 1941, then, reds, blacks, and now yellows, have been made peasants of - the rewards, and thus the virtues, of nobility or full status citizenship put at a distance.

And we see again the crippling effects of abuse and atrocity, visited on the perpetrators. They can no longer think straight, they have to rewrite history and buy into illogic, they tie themselves in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable, and when they then lose something they valued in their culture - like the "fair fight" norm - they cannot begin to guess why or how. They are beset by stuff that makes no sense, and have to imagine evils and flaws in groups of other people to find any explanation at all of what they have seen.

Your overall approach to history 'interpretations' seem heavily dependent on you attributing reason and sanity to regimes/times where both reason and sanity was in short supply, given the TOTAL WAR demands applying then. The ultimate 'unfairness' was thrust upon some by the necessities of survival or surrender to merciless regimes. Haven't you got that yet? Why do you persist in 'interpreting' what happened then through your own subjective prejudiced arguments/ideas about 'fairness' now? The two times and circumstances were totally different, can't you tell that by now?

For instance, as to reason and sanity, the Japanese already knew when they attacked Pearl Harbor that they could never win a protracted war against the US, hence their barbaric drive to pursue gains in total war as soon as possible so as to make it too costly for US to stop them altogether and so gain terms that would allow Japan to keep conquered territory and its oil/mineral resources in South East Asia/China.

And by the time of the war's closing stages, the firebombed cities an other disruptive attacks made plain that even that goal was lost to Japan. Even then, despite all the much MORE damage from conventional actions was evident, the Japanese military, who had been forcing 'no surrender' orders to troops on lost islands on the way, caused great loss of life needlessly on both sides precisely because the realities were not heeded. So what makes you now claim that such unreasoning madness (when all was already lost but still the military stance of 'every man woman and child should die fighting' all the way, including the mainland islands) would have been persuaded by some threat of bomb which could do NO WORSE THAN CONVENTIONAL/FIREBOMBING of cities had already done? And such attacks on mainland Islands were also designed to disrupt ALL military-capable support/production etc INCLUDING ANY POTENTIAL a-bomb development activities which may have been 'shared' with the Nazis as they shared many other weapons-related 'programs' and technology already.

Anyhow, I observe again that you are patently 'projecting' your own 'morality' and 'sanity' etc onto a military regime which was maddened by failure and was prepared to take every mann woman and child with them (even in conventional bombings/attacks/invasion) rather than lose face and put a lie to all their propaganda and claims of 'victory'.

Don't you get it? There was NO reason or sanity left in the Japanese military by that stage, and death was preferable to defeat and surrender.

As to the unfairness of mass internments, I already pointed out some of the surrounding logistical/operational imperatives/circumstances involved on the ground at that time. I also pointed out how many Japanese-americans owe their lives to such internment from particularly maddened communities who lost loved ones in the Pearl Harbor attack and in China/Europe (being as the Japanese now formed part of the Nazi-Japanese axis).

Please stop projecting onto people/times/events your own subjective morality and 'interpretations' of what went down then. You haven't a clue unless you lived it and were in the minds of the same people on both sides in TOTAL WAR which was then lost by Japan but the military would NOT surrender any islands at all, preferring to doom the defenders to death by futile fighting. Period.

Only once the A-bombs were demonstrated in such a way that the military propaganda was exposed as a lie and futile 'code' etc did the Emperor feel emboldened to contradict all military orders and sue for peace.

If you can't remove yourself and your obvious subjective/moral agenda/biases from observations/interpretations of actual events/situations at the time, then you are not doing any honor to all the brave men and women on both sides of that tragic and unfair total war passage of human history. Better to leave it alone than to twist things to suit your overall hypothesis' about 'fairness' or the lack of it in society since then.

Before again making your subjective response, you might take time out to consider:

- The world of human affairs was NEVER 'fair', so your claim that there is 'unfairness' NOW makes little sense in that historical context stretching back to most ancient societies.

- TOTAL WAR imposed on the Allies/USA was not 'fair', hence the survival response could NOT AFFORD to be 'fair', because in total war 'nice guys finish last/dead'.

- The COLD WAR atrocities and the Terrorism agendas (from whomever 'side') was NEVER FAIR; so any naive comparisons from you with the modern society in democracies NOW under reasonable laws and common law/inalienable rights etc is NOT fair to all those who fought and DIED to give you and yours that stability and right to 'complain' and criticize, however 'unfair' YOU are being while you enjoy the freedom to do that without being 'unfairly' executed as the Japanese/Nazis (and Soviets in cold war) did with both soldiers and civilians.

Again I have to disappear for a couple days, so I will leave you to ponder before making your reply in the context of all I have said above and earlier. No rush, mate; take your time and think where you may be 'projecting' your reason and sanity to people/times where such things had gone out the window under the TOTAL WAR imposed on the allies/USA by Nazis and Japanese. Your 'interpretations' may turn out somewhat different if you did remove yourself from the equation/observation? Good luck and good thinking until we speak again, mate!

 

[paddoboy]

The sense of fairness will return when we finally get over this "new age" crap about corporal punishment and the odd slap or two for disciplinary reasons, being harmful. It is badly needed again, first in the homes by parents, secondly in the schools by responsible teachers.

ps: and the odd boot up the bum by the local crown sergeant also did no harm.
Yes, I copped a couple of them too, for minor misdemeanors.

 

[iceaura]

Don't you get it? There was NO reason or sanity left in the Japanese military by that stage, and death was preferable to defeat and surrender.

The Japanese military and wartime government surrendered as soon as the US revealed to them its possession of nuclear bombs. That was expected - the US government expected surrender to be offered so quickly that there was a concerted push to drop the Trinity design on some city before the Japanese government could react to Hiroshima (within 72 hours, as it turned out, although that meant incinerating a secondary target (Nagasaki) to avoid waiting for the weather to clear over the primary).

So the US expected sanity and reason from the Japanese, and got it at the first opportunity.

The sense of fairness will return when we finally get over this "new age" crap about corporal punishment and the odd slap or two for disciplinary reasons, being harmful. It is badly needed again, first in the homes by parents, secondly in the schools by responsible teachers.

The cultures in the US that have for a while now most clearly demonstrated absence of the fair fight norm (black, Asian, Hispanic) are also characterized by high levels of corporal punishment of their children, and victimization by violent police.

The fair fight norm (and a sense of fairness generally) seems to be found in dominant cultures, among people who regard themselves and are regarded by their society as full citizens with all rights and privileges, and is positively (not negatively) correlated with more permissive and non-violent child raising.

 

[Dinosaur]

Monday morning quarter backing is always easier than making the decisions in the heat of the battle on Saturday.

This is exactly analogous to discussing the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan.

BTW: It is interesting to note that fire-bombing German cities had similar effects on the amount of destruction & the number of casualties.

Similar fire-bombing of Japanese cities might have been as destructive (if not more so) that using the A-Bomb. Japanese cities were more vulnerable to fire than German cities.

For those not familiar with the technique.

First use ordinary bombs to disrupt transportation & fire fighting abilities.

The drop incendiary bombs.

​

In some German cities, the effects were horrific: The fires in were fed by oxygen sucked into the city due to hot air rising & creating lower pressure in the city.

The results were referred to as fire storms.

It is likely that the technique would be extremely effective in Japan which had a more inflammable buildings than Germany due to the differences in construction materials.

 

[iceaura]

Monday morning quarter backing is always easier than making the decisions in the heat of the battle on Saturday.

This is exactly analogous to discussing the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan.

I've been discussing that decision without doing any such thing.

For starters, the decision to keep the bomb a secret and reveal its existence by incinerating two cities full of civilians without warning was not made in the heat of battle. It was made by bureaucrats far from the war, safe in their armchairs, with plenty of time to think things over, no real risk, and excellent information.

It was similar, in this sense, to the decision to attack Pearl Harbor - except that of course Pearl Harbor was a military base, the attack was on military personnel and equipment, and it had been provoked (by the US cutting off Japan's oil, aiding China against he Japanese, etc).

The Monday morning quarterbacks here are the people trying to justify the bomb, excuse it, rewrite history to make it a different decision than it was (claiming that the choice was between Hiroshima and Nagasaki or horrific invasion, say) - and you will note the frequency and stridency with which they assert fantasy circumstances and make claims that the facts immediately contradict.

BTW: It is interesting to note that fire-bombing German cities had similar effects on the amount of destruction & the number of casualties.

That didn't make Germany surrender either. The news of the Bomb, not the civilian casualty level, is what was expected to - and did - force surrender.

Similar fire-bombing of Japanese cities might have been as destructive (if not more so) that using the A-Bomb. Japanese cities were more vulnerable to fire than German cities - -
- - - -
In some German cities, the effects were horrific:

It is likely that the technique would be extremely effective in Japan which had a more inflammable buildings than Germany due to the differences in construction materials. [/quote] It was tried several times in several ways, notably in Tokyo. It turns out the Japanese had had hundreds of years of experience with their earthquake - motivated construction (few heavy masonry walls, etc) and had developed what were probably the best civilian fire-fighting organizations on the planet. So although the bombings killed a great many civilians, they did not start firestorms. Not even the chickens dropped with incendiaries on their backs worked - apparently the Japanese just put out the fires, buried their dead, and ate the chickens.

What worked was telling the Japanese about the nuclear bomb - adopting the "fair fight" norm and telling them in advance might have worked even better.

 

[Dinosaur]

IceAura: You made up the following.

Not even the chickens dropped with incendiaries on their backs worked - apparently the Japanese just put out the fires, buried their dead, and ate the chickens.

The WW2 airforce had better ways of dropping incendaries than the above.

 

[Dazz]

If you look closely you will see that not even nature shows fairness...
What to say about human society?

 

[iceaura]

The WW2 airforce had better ways of dropping incendaries than the above.

Of course they did - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo . And they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians that way, starting massive fires especially in Tokyo. None of them worked to start technical "firestorms" as in Dresden, despite repeated and large scale attempts (and despite the descriptive word "firestorm" sometimes used for the big Tokyo raids, which were horrific) - the Jap fire brigades (best in the world) apparently were too well organized, or something was wrong with conditions.

But no loss - the firestorms did not achieve their goals in Germany, either. After-war studies, too late to affect the firebombing of Tokyo et al, found that the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities actually boosted military production and increased German resistance (the production apparently because destroying everything in a person's civilian life frees up their time to go to work and gives them more reasons to show up - with their homes destroyed their only shelter and food is at the quickly rebuilt factory, etc; meanwhile the loss and pain inflicted makes them both eager to hit back any way they can, and more fearful of loss and occupation by the kind of military that would firebomb schools and hospitals and such).

All of this stuff is now forbidden by Treaty - the Geneva Conventions.

The takehome here is that even severe firebombings of civilians - the most lethal air raid in history, of any kind, was "Operation Meetinghouse" against Tokyo - cannot be expected to impose defeat and force surrender. The raids against Germany in WWII - with the Allied forces doing everything they could think of to destroy German morale, including rigging firebombs with delayed explosives to kill rescue workers and firefighters, including actual firestorms created in civilian population centers at night - did not achieve surrender or impose defeat.

And that was recognized by the US command in May of 1945. Simply killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and proving the US could destroy square miles of big cities had not forced surrender. Nevertheless, the knowledge of the Bomb was expected to end the war - it certainly had ended any need for invasion - and it did.

So the withholding of that knowledge until two quick strikes with different bomb designs could be made without warning, including the refusal of all attempts at a negotiated end to the war until both kinds of bomb could be built and deployed against real cities, was a decision made deliberately, made for reasons. This discarding of the "fair fight" norm in a situation open to its possible benefits is not, in my opinion, a cause of the loss of that norm within US society, because the Japanese were outsiders and the norm has been lost within, but the consequences - some visible here - do help illustrate the price of not having such a norm.

 

[wellwisher]

Of course they did - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo . And they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians that way, starting massive fires especially in Tokyo. None of them worked to start technical "firestorms" as in Dresden, despite repeated and large scale attempts (and despite the descriptive word "firestorm" sometimes used for the big Tokyo raids, which were horrific) - the Jap fire brigades (best in the world) apparently were too well organized, or something was wrong with conditions.

One reason for this perception of unfairness is connected to liberal revisionist history taught in liberal public schools. They fail to mention the 25,000,000 Chinese who were killed, including civilians, at the hands of the Japanese during WWII. Since liberalism protects criminals and murderers, they think it is cruel to inflict justice. The mass murderer has more rights than their victims and justice to them means pay to support he mass murderer.

The Germans of WWII were not alter boys either, and killed 25,000,000 Russians, alone, including civilians, plus 10,000,000 Jewish and Catholic noncombatants. I have no problem with a good spanking. If the US and allies had done, an eye for an eye, both Germany and Japan would have been exterminated, but the allies were more merciful then the aggressors during their reigns of terror. In liberal thinking an ax murderer is more important than all his victims. He has rights that he did not grant to his victims. He symbolizes liberalism; lie, cheat, steal and kill and blame someone else.

If we apply this liberal standard to life in America, the true aggressor has more rights with justice considered evil. If we apply the Japan and Germany to gangs in the inner city, one can see who is protected.