Was Hiroshima Necessary?

[alecgraham]

There were even internment camps we created for Japanese-Americans. They were alarmingly similar to Hitler's concentration camps for the Jews.

Not really. The Jews were thrown into ovens or killed with poison Zyklon B gas. Hitler's camps were death camps.
About the only thing they had in common with internment camps was the word "camps."

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Not all German concentration camps for Jews were death camps. In fact, originally there were no death camps. Those came later. At the time Americans were rounding up Japanese, the Germans were rounding up Jews in much the same way and in the same conditions. Its just that for the Jews, it all got a lot worse later.

 

[alecgraham]

While it's true that "concentration camp" originally met something like internment camp, and while it's true that concentration camps came first, the Jews who didn't leave Germany on their own basically went to death camps or extermination camps. There were not Jews hanging out in Germany who were later released by the Nazis to go back to their homes; they went in the ground.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Well, there is no doubt that had the Nazis not lost the war, that is way it would have been. But the only reason the Japanese were let out of their internment camps was for the war ending.

Being better than Satan does not make one a Saint.

Yeah, the Nazis really were that bad. But America is and was pretty bad too, just not quite that bad.

 

[Majestic]

Sorry Zorro, the Japanese were let out of the internment camps in early 1945 because a court order (Ex parte Endo) decided that loyal citizens could not be detained without cause. This led to Henry Pratt issuing Public Proclamation 21, saying that Japanese Americans could return home. This would not have happened in Nazi Germany because the Jews had no access to the court system. In fact, they had no rights whatsoever, and were treated as untermenschen not only in Germany but in all conquered territories as well. The jews were not merely enemies of the state to be incarcerated. Rather, they were sub-human, verminlike, Christ-killers, and they had no recourse to the court system. They were seen as the cause of all of Germany's problems throughout history. Their very existence was in the process of being negated, but only after they were subjected to forced labor, medical experimentation, rape, and other depredations. Extermination of the Japanese was never state policy of the US, and even internment was not universally applied. There is no moral equivalence between Manzanar and Bergen-Belsen, even if we acknowledge similarities.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Ah, yes, they were finally released in January 1945, or at least, allowed to leave. Of course by then there was clearly no more threat of attack on the American mainland. So it seems all rather a show to me.

As for access to the courts, what a joke! A case went to the Supreme Court on behalf of one Japanese-Ameirican guy, but actually filed and defended by a white guy. And that Japanese guy did not appear in court. After arrest he made bail and was promptly shipped out to a camp where he had to live in a horse stall with one light bulb.

They were not even told what was happening and were shipped out to freezing cold Wyoming with nothing but their summer clothes on. Camps were surrounded by barbed wire. Did you know people who tried to leave were shot?

My position is that it was nearly as bad as the situation BEFORE the final solution. It must be accepted that conditions changed over time even in Nazi Germany.

Even after the war they had legal restrictions on where they could live. And their stolen properties were not returned. The compensation they received was a joke almost as bad as the court case. All for show.

Had the war gone badly for America like it did for Germany, who knows what would have happened to them?

 

[Majestic]

Everything you said demonstrates the deep difference between the German treatment of the Jews and the US treatment of the Japanese.
You insinuate that the Japanese were only released after the threat to the mainland had waned. Fair enough, but you must recognize the difference between incarcerating a military threat, and exterminating a Jew because the state has deemed him sub-human. That the Japanese had any access, even grudging, limited access, to the courts during the height of anti-Japanese hysteria shows how far the chasm extends between the Nazis and the US. And your claims that the situation in Manzanar or Topaz was nearly as bad as, say, Dachau with its "Standing Cells", medical experiments, etc... even before the Final Solution, leaves me struggling for words.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Fair enough, but you must recognize the difference between incarcerating a military threat, and exterminating a Jew because the state has deemed him sub-human.

Of course I do, but you are overlooking a key point. I am not equating extermination camps with concentration camps. I am equating concentration camps with concentration camps. The distinction between concentration camp and extermination camp is vast. Germany started to have concentration camps for Jews etc in 1934. Then extermination camps from 1939.

The early concentration camps were similar enough to each other. If America had three more years with those Japanese-Americans imprisoned, who knows what would have happened?

And anyway, military threat? That's ridiculous. Both groups were imprisoned on the basis of hysteria alone. Originally Dachau was set up especially for Communists, whose threat was equivalent to the Japanese-Americans, which is to say, mostly hysteria.

And your claims that the situation in Manzanar or Topaz was nearly as bad as, say, Dachau with its "Standing Cells", medical experiments, etc...

You are talking about things not present, to my knowledge, until several years after the foundation of the camps. Dachau was originally just a forced labor camp.

Another thing to point out is that Americans practically invented the concentration camp. They were used to house Native Americans. And is it not fitting that Americas concentration camps were set up on Indian reservations, where the prisoner's could be in a legal limbo like is currently done at Guantanamo?

And another thing: America won the war. Everything got whitewashed and American soldiers and guards were never put on trial like German soldiers and guards. If they were, who knows what would have been turned up.

An easy and obvious result of winning the war is that our history books don't call them concentration camps. It calls them internment camps. What a crock of $#!T.

Again, I do admit that the concentration camps were better in general in America, but not that much (comparing the first two years of either). But America certainly did a better job of showmanship. Seems you still believe that little vacillating court case has some real merit. I don't buy it. In two years in went 180 degrees. It was a farce.

My general feelings on this and a lot of topics is this: Factoring in all good and evil, America and Americans were generally better than any other group of people I know, not by leaps and bounds, but by a few baby steps. I am not sure if that even holds today. Maybe one baby step. Thus I find it hard to sing America's praises. I am cautious. I am proud to be American, but I don't wave the flag like a nutter.

 

[Majestic]

At the time Americans were rounding up Japanese, the Germans were rounding up Jews in much the same way and in the same conditions.

Again, I do admit that the concentration camps were better in general in America

Well, its a kind of progress, I guess. Zorro, my argument is with the ridiculous assertion that the Japanese concentration camps (I have no problem with this description. Its an accurate description), were similar to German concentration camps. Its an argument that both you and Jeremy Andrews are pushing in this thread, and one you are now desperately trying to defend (I think). Even after pressing, it seems you only reluctantly admit that the Japanese concentration camps were slightly better than German concentration camps. Its a position I would be embarrassed to have to defend.

Dachau was originally just a forced labor camp

I can't even imagine having to use a sentence like this in defense.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Even after pressing, it seems you only reluctantly admit that the Japanese concentration camps were slightly better than German concentration camps. Its a position I would be embarrassed to have to defend.
I can't even imagine having to use a sentence like this in defense.

Its always sad when people cannot keep up with the details and qualifiers because there are too many for them to deal with at one time. In response you get the usual sentiments. Oh well, at least I did not get the usual accusation of trying to trick anybody for failing to hold a position that relies on gross oversimplification that "sounds good" and is at least "emotionally pleasing".

That last bit about "emotionally pleasing" reminded me that William Overstreet Jr. was buried today. He is known for flying his P-51 under the Eiffel tower. Of course everyone willfully forgets he did it second. First was a German pilot whose name I cannot even find. And that pilot did it in a damaged plane, damaged by none other than William Overstreet Jr. who was shooting the hell out of him. Why can't we salute the German's cunning? It was a ploy that might have worked on most any other pursuing pilot, who most likely would have dodged, letting the German get away. No, we cannot salute the German. Two pilots is too much information, and its not emotionally appealing to recognize the skill of the enemy. No, no. Much more rewarding to inflate the deeds of our hero and leave it at that. It seems to take only the number of active brain cells most people have available.

 

[alecgraham]

Z, let's say you had to travel back in time and stay in one of these camps for 100 days. You could either be a Japanese prisoner in an American camp or a communist in Dachau when it was just, you know, a concentration camp. Which one will you choose?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Z, let's say you had to travel back in time and stay in one of these camps for 100 days. You could either be a Japanese prisoner in an American camp or a communist in Dachau when it was just, you know, a concentration camp. Which one will you choose?

Its a tough question. I am lazy so the forced labor seems very unappealing. On the other hand, I hate being cold, so being in Wyoming in winter without proper clothes is also very unappealing.

I guess the clincher is that I speak English and Japanese but I don't speak German or Polish, and I might be able to score a Japanese girl to keep me warm at night in a Japanese-American concentration camp in 1942.

Other than that, there are a lot fine details I am not privy to. What were they fed for example. Also, how would I arrive? What camp in America? There were many.

But at those periods of time, I see basically the same thing. You are merely attempting to induce me to mix different points of time together.

 

[alecgraham]

I wasn't trying to induce anything, except perhaps a little clarity. If you're asking what food is going to be served, I think I failed.

 

[nahadef]

Holy ****. I don't know what else to say that wouldn't be even more censored. Zorro makes stubbornness a fine art. An ugly fine art, but he has perfected it.

 

[user46182]

What conclusion was arrived at about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The first question was resolved to where all participants came to agreement, and you moved on?

 

[alecgraham]

drem, I think it's a question that will never be resolved.

I mean, if 99% of the earth found itself undersea someday, the climate change deniers would have to say "oops." But the pros and cons of the bombings are dug in and most of them will probably die with the opinions with which they began.

 

[user46182]

I was just wondering about the shift to the comparison of those camps, as I saw above.

As far as a matter on this being "resolved" I am afraid it's too late for that, isn't it? It has already happened. Discussion after-the-fact is a different matter, and I am not even sure anyone here is an authority on subjects related to decisions such as those which this event would have involved, so I'm not so sure of the value here, except for the forum owner getting more posts on the site.

Or to put it another way, I would be willing to bet that any nation that feels a need to use nuclear weapons in any sort of future conflict resolution situation won't be too much worried about the use of the similar weapons at the end of World War II.

But what do I know? Diddly squat, that's what. Wait, I think I know one thing -- we shouldn't be allowing members here to be calling other members racists, in my low-status opinion.

 

[alecgraham]

Well, drem, I'm not sure if you understand the point of a forum. Firstly, is history not the discussion of things that have already happened? And how can we not examine the past? We have to remember and examine things that "have already happened", even if we don't all draw the same conclusions from the same events.

Even authorities on the subject disagree on this particular subject, but that's ok. The important thing to know is that forums are for everyday people. If you want an authority's opinion, you can always pick up a book. Sometimes, of course, experts are quoted in a forum.

I would be willing to bet that any nation that feels a need to use nuclear weapons in any sort of future conflict resolution situation won't be too much worried about the use of the similar weapons at the end of World War II.

We're not nations; we're individuals. Even so, I'm not sure which nation you think feels a need to use nukes in the future. Since it's the future, I don't know how you can know or prove that. Even countries that employ a lot of bluster, like North Korea, may not actually want to use nukes, or they would have used them by now. They use them to make threats.

I think I know one thing -- we shouldn't be allowing members here to be calling other members racists,

If someone is a racist, why can't they be called out as one?

 

[Ranny]

It was a decision made to spare american lives.
So it was either war on foot, or atom bomb.

Japanese were militarised back then and very aggresive, so they where not the same as the new generation of Japanese we see today.
Either way, it happend. Well i doubt people will use nuclear war as a mean of winning a war, i mean nobody will repeat historical mistakes like that, there'll probably be radiation and real chaos, not good. Unless they don't learn history of course

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It was a decision made to spare american lives.

Some may have believed that. Many did not, including MacArthur and Nimitz and probably even most of the decision makers who made this claim. I sure as hell don't think Truman believed that, at least not in the sense that it was paramount to his decision or would have saved enough American lives to somehow make up for the number of innocents murdered.. I think the contention of "saving American lives" was a bit of feel-good excuse making to sell the bombs to the American people and little more.

So it was either war on foot, or atom bomb.

Nope. There was also the option of a blockade. The Japanese were so finished.

There was also the option of accepting a conditional surrender, with the Japanese asking for the same condition over and over: preservation of the emperor. Truman could have saved a hell of a lot more American lives by simply accepting that condition months earlier.

 

[JohnGrey]

Being new here, I admit to some hesitation to entering into a debate that evokes obvious passion on both sides of the argument. In fact, a very similar debate on another forum led to my leaving that forum because the discussion veered from a sober evaluation of the facts into pure ad hominem rhetoric. Nonetheless, I do want to respond because the matter is one which has had enormous effect on the cultural and political identity of Japan.

First, it's important to properly evaluate what is meant by necessary. If it is meant in the pure abstract, which is to say whether it was unavoidable in order for the Allies to successfully prosecute war in the Pacific to a final cessation of hostility, then the answer is no. However, one must understand that a mere cessation of hostility was not the only goal of the Allies. It was understood, rightly, that to leave the militant ultranationalist political and military apparatus in Japan intact and still in power would represent a persistent threat that would, in time, be resurrected. That hard lesson was learnt in the case of Germany, between the first and second World War, and it is this fact that colors the charge that peace overtures on the part of the Japanese Empire were callously ignored by the Allies.

Yes, there had been discussion between the Emperor and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War regarding the inevitability of martial surrender, I do not dispute that, but there are number of considerations that must be weighed when considering both the sincerity and the profitability of that peace. It is a matter of historical record that like overtures of peace were being offered at the very hour that the attack at Pearl Harbor was underway. Yes, Pearl Harbor was a response to the American embargo of crude oil to Japan, but that embargo was in response to militaristic encroachment of territory by Japan through the 1920s and 30s, including the incursions into Western colonial states, the invasion of Manchuria and the establishment of the puppet Manchukuo state in 1932, and culminating in the deplorable Rape of Nanking in 1937 and the occupation of French Indochina in 1940. It was to ensure that the organs of state that had perpetuated these acts of war, and indeed war crimes, would be destroyed that no capitulation other than unconditional surrender was acceptable to the Allied Nations.

We also must not forget either that while the diplomatic half of the Big Six were content with surrender so long as the Imperial Household were maintained, the military half, especially War Minister Anami, were demanding that the disarmament following surrender be voluntary and internally managed, that they would keep territory annexed during the war, and that they would handle the investigation and prosecution of war crimes internally, and situation that no sane individual could imagine as producing anything other than a total whitewash.

In the case of the bombings, and more specifically Nagasaki, these were, I believe, the final straw. The violation of the Neutrality Pact and invasion of Manchukuo by the Soviet Union destroyed any possibility that the latter would serve as mediator to negotiate a more amicable surrender, a stratagem on which the Japanese endgame relied heavily. Even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Admiral Toyoda, as he wrote in his memoirs, stated at the time that he did not believe that the United States had the capability to produce nuclear weapons with sufficient speed to carry out its threat of progressive bombardment. The bombing of Nagasaki, though horrible, quickly disabused him and the rest of the Council of that notion. Despite these events, however, Anami and the other military ministers still demanded their three conditions and the Council remained deadlocked into the morning of 10 August, and at the time that faction was already in preparations with domestic forces to enact martial law and quash any possibility of popular support for surrender. It was only the "sacred decision" of Hirohito that ended that deadlock, and even then an abortive coup (itself centering around the brother-in-law of Minister Anami) was attempted.

Therefore, I would argue that, while the bombings themselves were not strictly necessary, they nonetheless served to force the terms that prompted the maximum post-war stability, and the least loss of life given those requirements that the Allies found martially reasonable. While that will undoubtedly be an unpopular sentiment, I nonetheless argue that history has born out that conclusion with regards to the nation of Japan.

 

[alecgraham]

Nice to hear from someone who has done the research.

 

[JohnGrey]

Nice to hear from someone who has done the research.

Thank you, though I really only skimmed the most salient points. One thing that is important for most Westerners dealing with the question is that the historical revisionism that exists today regarding the bombings did not gain much traction academically until the 1980s and into the early 90s, when it became the predominant view in most collegiate liberal arts settings. I would argue that the primary reason for this is that historians of the period, which had become increasingly anti-militaristic in the face of the escalation of the Cold War and the very real threat of the arms race, found in those events a convenient specter by which they could put a more stark and human face on the horror of a possible nuclear war. Hence, the bombings ceased to have any meaning in the context of prosecuting the war and became merely the first salvo in the emerging ideological conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union.

In my own defense, I want to go on record as saying that I find the actions involved abhorrent on a personal level, as the targeting of non-combatants, and more specifically the indiscriminate destruction of civilian populations, are gross violations of the precepts of just war. I am not, in any fashion, suggesting that the bombings were morally right.

 

[alecgraham]

It was a decision made to spare american lives.

Some may have believed that. Many did not, including MacArthur and Nimitz and probably even most of the decision makers who made this claim.

I don't know your source for this, Zorro, but your use of the word "probably" suggests wishful thinking on your part. Is it?
I won't pretend to know what they believed. I *don't* know. But I did read this in wiki:

Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs.

--Robert Maddox, via wiki

Maddox also wrote, "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions."[61] "That they would have conceded defeat months earlier, before such calamities struck, is far-fetched to say the least."[62]

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

 

[Mark of Zorro]

So I take it you actually believe that saving American lives was high up on the priority list of those behind the A-bombings?

I look at politicians and it seems to me that only the IMAGE of saving lives matters. And so when they say "save lives" you can never be 100 sure that is what they mean. But I feel it safer to err on the side of them just desiring that IMAGE.

I find it especially hard to believe that anyone who would advocate slaughtering women and children really gives two $#!TS about any soldier's life no matter what colors are printed on his sleeve.

Leahy wrote: "Once it had been tested, President Truman faced the decision as to whether to use it. He did not like the idea, but he was persuaded that it would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives. It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons..."

So I think its safe to say Leahy did not believe it either. Or are you going to tell me that that quote does not mean what I think it means because its been cherry picked and banded together by some inventive author?