NationStates Jolt Archive

This is more of a what if topic, given that except for some very silly idiots out there (AKA, Malkin), no one supports the interment now-a-days. But let us say that it is early 1942, you know only what FDR knew, would you support it or not?

And why?

I'm gonna get torn into for being a naive pansy leftie, but no, I wouldn't have done it. I don't believe in "Sippenhaft".
Having a family of crooks doesn't automatically make you a criminal, and belonging to a certain ethnicity doesn't automatically make you disloyal in case of war. If it did, surely all the ethnic Germans would have to have been imprisoned as well?

no, because the security risk posed by Asians was less than Germans and Italians who happened to have avoided the whole "your guilty" affair

but considering the attitude at the time caused by Japanese citizens being generally more productive and successful I'm surprised there wasn't lynching

Having a family of crooks doesn't automatically make you a criminal

I'd be rather careful with that, its already been suggested that children of criminals should be taken into some sort of Prison system due to the increased risk of committing crime (they even had an episode about this on some show a few years ago)

I'd be rather careful with that, its already been suggested that children of criminals should be taken into some sort of Prison system due to the increased risk of committing crime (they even had an episode about this on some show a few years ago)

I've no doubt that there is an increased possibility. And I'm pretty sure there was an increased possibility for American Japanese to side with Japan rather than the US during WW II.
But a possibility does not equal a fact. Being more likely to be a criminal or a traitor or a lottery winner doesn't make you one. ;)

but considering the attitude at the time caused by Japanese citizens being generally more productive and successful I'm surprised there wasn't lynching

And before that, it was the Chinese who were useful laborers, but subhuman as far as equal rights and justice was concerned.

Meh, the internment was just another incident in a long list of racism and bigotry turned into law with a convenient unreason so that "Americans", apparently of European descent, can plunge another dagger into "equality for all."

That being said, no, I wouldn't have implemented the camps.

no, because the security risk posed by Asians was less than Germans and Italians who happened to have avoided the whole "your guilty" affair

but considering the attitude at the time caused by Japanese citizens being generally more productive and successful I'm surprised there wasn't lynching

Well there were beatings and riots in the early 1900's (pre 1910) on the West Coast so whatever went on wasn't new, by any manner of means. I'm insuficiently versed in that level of detail of American history to pass much comment, however.

I've no doubt that there is an increased possibility. And I'm pretty sure there was an increased possibility for American Japanese to side with Japan rather than the US during WW II.
But a possibility does not equal a fact. Being more likely to be a criminal or a traitor or a lottery winner doesn't make you one. ;)

Of course you can be sure. It had already happened; some Japanese Americans DID side with Japan. So it is not a what-if scenario, it was a known fact.

But its easy to sound moral, when your own life isn't on the line. When countless lives are at stake and times are desperate, possibility is enough to go on. I visited an alternate universe where FDR decided not to put the Japanese Americans in the camps. It seems that intelligence gained from Japanese Americans loyal to Japan was enough to balance the intelligence advantage Americans had due to code breaking. Tokyo was informed of American ship movements through a network of loyal agents, and the United States lost the battle of Midway, badly. After that, the US was unable to operate in the Pacific beyond the air cover of the west coast. Nothing prevented the eventual capitulation of Australia. The Japanese had no real need to divert resources to defend against the American onslaught, and the Chinese were badly divided. so the Japanese were able to hold on China, eventually installing provincial governments loyal to Japan.

Of course the United States still helped defeat Naziism in Europe, but without a strong carrier force the United States simply could not cross the Pacific. The US government refused to sign a peace treaty, and long after the successful conclusion of the European War, the Pacific War was a long, slow burn.

The Japanese really couldn't hold onto an Empire in East Asia many times its size and population, but how they tried. While the US pursued the atomic bomb, Japan developed chemical and biological weapons. Chinese and Korean insurrections, and later Philipino and Indonesian, were dealt with by means of almost unimaginable horror. In this alternate universe, the defining image of the horror of war that came out of WWII wasn't Auschwitz, it was Shanghai, which was so much worse. Across Asia, Japanese biological weapons spread plagues that turned cities into necropolises.

It took until 1953 for the allies to defeat Japan. During this time, there were well over a hundred and fifty million dead in China, in part due to the famine and disease which the Japanese saw as useful auxilliary weapons. Eleven Japanese cities were struck by nuclear weapons before Japan surrendered. While in our universe, East Asia was full of strong, rising economies by the late 20th century, here, they continued to lag, thanks to the ruin of that war. China was partitioned by occupying powers, and well, we know what that led up to, in the late 1980's.

In the United States, the rights of Japanese Americans remained secure. Post war, some spy rings were discovered, but the members were allowed to emigrate to Japan as part of the surrender agreements. Twelve years of warfare with Japan, however, had hardened most Americans towards the Japanese, and most found the USA an increasingly uncomfortable place to live. Many resettled in Japan, and contributed to the reconstruction. Inthe US and other nations, millions had endured hellish conditions, risked and sacrificed life and limb to bring an end that war, but living in camps for a few years- that was too much to ask of the Japanese Americans. Years later, some historians pondered- what would have happened if the US had taken aggressive, and yes, oppressive steps toward the Japanese Americans, and shut down most of the Japanese espionage efforts that way?

No, no way I would do this to people that happened to share a few genes with my enemies, no way, no how, sore wo shinai.

Of course you can be sure. It had already happened; some Japanese Americans DID side with Japan. So it is not a what-if scenario, it was a known fact.

But its easy to sound moral, when your own life isn't on the line. When countless lives are at stake and times are desperate, possibility is enough to go on. I visited an alternate universe where FDR decided not to put the Japanese Americans in the camps. It seems that intelligence gained from Japanese Americans loyal to Japan was enough to balance the intelligence advantage Americans had due to code breaking. Tokyo was informed of American ship movements through a network of loyal agents, and the United States lost the battle of Midway, badly. After that, the US was unable to operate in the Pacific beyond the air cover of the west coast. Nothing prevented the eventual capitulation of Australia. The Japanese had no real need to divert resources to defend against the American onslaught, and the Chinese were badly divided. so the Japanese were able to hold on China, eventually installing provincial governments loyal to Japan.

Of course the United States still helped defeat Naziism in Europe, but without a strong carrier force the United States simply could not cross the Pacific. The US government refused to sign a peace treaty, and long after the successful conclusion of the European War, the Pacific War was a long, slow burn.

The Japanese really couldn't hold onto an Empire in East Asia many times its size and population, but how they tried. While the US pursued the atomic bomb, Japan developed chemical and biological weapons. Chinese and Korean insurrections, and later Philipino and Indonesian, were dealt with by means of almost unimaginable horror. In this alternate universe, the defining image of the horror of war that came out of WWII wasn't Auschwitz, it was Shanghai, which was so much worse. Across Asia, Japanese biological weapons spread plagues that turned cities into necropolises.

It took until 1953 for the allies to defeat Japan. During this time, there were well over a hundred and fifty million dead in China, in part due to the famine and disease which the Japanese saw as useful auxilliary weapons. Eleven Japanese cities were struck by nuclear weapons before Japan surrendered. While in our universe, East Asia was full of strong, rising economies by the late 20th century, here, they continued to lag, thanks to the ruin of that war. China was partitioned by occupying powers, and well, we know what that led up to, in the late 1980's.

In the United States, the rights of Japanese Americans remained secure. Post war, some spy rings were discovered, but the members were allowed to emigrate to Japan as part of the surrender agreements. Twelve years of warfare with Japan, however, had hardened most Americans towards the Japanese, and most found the USA an increasingly uncomfortable place to live. Many resettled in Japan, and contributed to the reconstruction. Inthe US and other nations, millions had endured hellish conditions, risked and sacrificed life and limb to bring an end that war, but living in camps for a few years- that was too much to ask of the Japanese Americans. Years later, some historians pondered- what would have happened if the US had taken aggressive, and yes, oppressive steps toward the Japanese Americans, and shut down most of the Japanese espionage efforts that way?

You might work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say "what if", I said "I'm pretty sure that".

So essentially, Japanese spies would most certainly have cost the US the war, yet German and Italian spies did not? You sure have to hand it to those Japanese...

I think that we can often say 'of course we wouldn't do that' when we have the benefit of hindsight, but when you're actually in that position things can be quite different.

If I was frightened and told by the government that it was needed, then, in all honesty, I probably would have gone along with it. Who among us hasn't been fooled by something the government has promised us to be true?

Of course you can be sure. It had already happened; some Japanese Americans DID side with Japan. So it is not a what-if scenario, it was a known fact.

and what about the detained Americans who grew up in America and who's ancestors slaved away to make the united states?

But its easy to sound moral, when your own life isn't on the line. When countless lives are at stake and times are desperate, possibility is enough to go on.

so why didn't the Germans and Italians get rounded up? oh right because the cost of moving whole communities was too great for the security benefits

I visited an alternate universe where FDR decided not to put the Japanese Americans in the camps.

why can't you go to exciting places with your magical machine of mystery? I say a visit to a brutal world where fun is enforced by law and deep fried chocolate is healthy:)

I visited an alternate universe where FDR decided not to put the Japanese Americans in the camps.

I stopped reading at this point.

***7th Flush***

In case you didn't notice, American lives are currently on the line with the issue of terrorism.

In case you didn't notice, Muslims and Arabs are not being taken into concentration camps.

In case you didn't notice, this did not harm any effort against the terrorists.

In case you didn't notice, it's, thus, perfectly possible to wage a war decently without selling your soul for it.

In case you didn't notice, resources spent keeping Japanese-Americans in concentration camps could have been spent IN the actual war.

In case you didn't notice, the very Japanese-Americans kept in said camps could have been useful in the war.

In case you didn't notice, making claims about "alternate situations" is a fallacy. Because I can write about anything of a "what if".

...your hand, sir?

I think most people today would at least question such a policy; I'd certainly hold myself to the standard of requiring a good reason for it, and why German and Italian citizens and residents weren't being held to the same standards.

But the people of 1941 were not children of the modern age. Theirs was an era both more innocent and less cynical, and a culture not merely forgiving of racism, but actively promoting it.

We are all products of our pasts. To hold people of 1941 to modern standards is just as wrong as applying 1941 standards to our modern era.

In case you didn't notice, the very Japanese-Americans kept in said camps could have been useful in the war.


Just a nit to pick, but Japanese Americans were recruited to go to fight in WWII. I don't know what the turnout was, but I'm sure it was greater than zero...

I visited an alternate universe where FDR decided not to put the Japanese Americans in the camps.

And I visited an alternate universe where the average American used their brains, dealt with facts, weren't selfish ultra nationalist nuts, and didn't buy into that whole emotionally charged "equal rights only for white Americans" or "It's not a crime when we do it" bullshit.

It was Utopian.


If I was frightened and told by the government that it was needed, then, in all honesty, I probably would have gone along with it. Who among us hasn't been fooled by something the government has promised us to be true?

The OP states you know what the FDR knew. Presumably, it would also put you in his shoes.

And being frightened by the government? When they're trying to sell you abuses? It only lasts until the naivety fades. Then you look at everything with a healthy dose of skepticism.

McCarthyism should have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but clearly you can't stamp out fear mongering among the sheep. No surprise since so few people actually bother to learn from history.

We are all products of our pasts. To hold people of 1941 to modern standards is just as wrong as applying 1941 standards to our modern era.

Do you really think those standards have gone away? Replaced by more enlightened ones?

Do you really think those standards have gone away? Replaced by more enlightened ones?

I doubt it. But that's no reason to abandon enlightenment.

Just a nit to pick, but Japanese Americans were recruited to go to fight in WWII. I don't know what the turnout was, but I'm sure it was greater than zero...

True, but arguably the number would be that much higher were it not for the internments, no? Indeed you're actually helping my point: If Japanese-Americans actually did fight for the US in the war, or otherwise help, does that not mean more could?

Plus, since we're nitpicking, I DID say "Japanese-Americans kept in said camps", and the ones kept in the camps weren't able to go to war or otherwise help. ;)

Just a nit to pick, but Japanese Americans were recruited to go to fight in WWII. I don't know what the turnout was, but I'm sure it was greater than zero...

it was actually rather large much like all American groups however I think your missing out civilian work that could of been done by Japanese families along with the businesses that happened to be destroyed when they received little notice of their detention

in particular Asian Americans where noted as dominating agriculture something which would of been useful

I'm gonna get torn into for being a naive pansy leftie, but no, I wouldn't have done it. I don't believe in "Sippenhaft".
Having a family of crooks doesn't automatically make you a criminal, and belonging to a certain ethnicity doesn't automatically make you disloyal in case of war. If it did, surely all the ethnic Germans would have to have been imprisoned as well?

Or the Italians, the Romanians, the French whose families hailed from the southern part of France (Vichy), the Finns...

What point winning, if you sell your soul to do it? The beauty of the US constitution, the bill of rights, etc, gets tarnished every time crap like this happens.

What point winning, if you sell your soul to do it? The beauty of the US constitution, the bill of rights, etc, gets tarnished every time crap like this happens.

Especially considering the fact that one can win WITHOUT selling their soul.

This is more of a what if topic, given that except for some very silly idiots out there (AKA, Malkin), no one supports the interment now-a-days. But let us say that it is early 1942, you know only what FDR knew, would you support it or not?

And why?

Ummm. I am not sure who Malkin is but the idea of supporting the internment is exactly what you are asking people to do. The question of supporting the internment of Japanese Americans is not to be determined in hindsight.

The religious devotion to the Emperor makes the Japanese Americans different from the other folks who had ancestral ties to the other Axis powers.

I do not support internment camps for American citizens unless they are only for disease quarantine purposes.

Ummm. I am not sure who Malkin is but the idea of supporting the internment is exactly what you are asking people to do. The question of supporting the internment of Japanese Americans is not to be determined in hindsight.

It doesn't have to be done in hindsight. Every single time you sacrifice principle and everything you stand for in the name of "security" or "threat management" or "manifest destiny", you make it easier to throw it away again, and again, at need. Eventually, you won't have anything but a shell of a principle, a rubber stamp to legitimize any number of abuses you want, a twisted mockery of your founding goals while trying to claim that your hands are still not bloodstained.

This is more of a what if topic, given that except for some very silly idiots out there (AKA, Malkin), no one supports the interment now-a-days. But let us say that it is early 1942, you know only what FDR knew, would you support it or not?

And why?

hard to say since we can only speculate what FDR knew.

Some say he knew that the Japanese would attack due to intelligence gathered and intercepted communications to spies on US Soil.

some say that during interrogations/questioning of Japanese nationals living in America, they didn't understand the questions and that made them seem guilty.

Some say that after the attack, the majority of Americans were scared and a visible show that the government was doing something was needed.

but one FACT is that as a Japanese American, If I were in FDR's cabinet, I would excuse myself from my posistion because I would know that Suspicion would fall on me after Pearl Harbor. I would be cooperative, but I would also be investigated. So wether or not I support the internment camps would be moot because one of them would most likely be my address.

I'm gonna get torn into for being a naive pansy leftie, but no, I wouldn't have done it. I don't believe in "Sippenhaft".
Having a family of crooks doesn't automatically make you a criminal, and belonging to a certain ethnicity doesn't automatically make you disloyal in case of war. If it did, surely all the ethnic Germans would have to have been imprisoned as well?

to be honest... (http://www.foitimes.com/)

Or the Italians, the Romanians, the French whose families hailed from the southern part of France (Vichy), the Finns...
you know, about those Italians... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American_internment)

and... (http://www.foitimes.com/internment/S1354.htm)
I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II.

WWII was a rough time for everyone. :(

It doesn't have to be done in hindsight. Every single time you sacrifice principle and everything you stand for in the name of "security" or "threat management" or "manifest destiny", you make it easier to throw it away again, and again, at need. Eventually, you won't have anything but a shell of a principle, a rubber stamp to legitimize any number of abuses you want, a twisted mockery of your founding goals while trying to claim that your hands are still not bloodstained.

No. The President has duties and powers in wartime that are different from peacetime. Clearly, what he did was absolutely Constitutional. I believe that the case on the question was Kobiyashi v. US. However, I am not sure that it was the right choice. I believe that it was a legitimate choice but I do not like the idea of rounding up innocent American citizens and placing them in internment camps unless it is for legitimate public health matters.

I also have no problem with voluntary placement in internment camps that are operated under martial law in an emergency situation but I do not agree with involuntary internment. An example might be a camp used to benefit the survivors of a disaster set up and run by the Army.

hard to say since we can only speculate what FDR knew.

Some say he knew that the Japanese would attack due to intelligence gathered and intercepted communications to spies on US Soil.

some say that during interrogations/questioning of Japanese nationals living in America, they didn't understand the questions and that made them seem guilty.

Some say that after the attack, the majority of Americans were scared and a visible show that the government was doing something was needed.

but one FACT is that as a Japanese American, If I were in FDR's cabinet, I would excuse myself from my posistion because I would know that Suspicion would fall on me after Pearl Harbor. I would be cooperative, but I would also be investigated. So wether or not I support the internment camps would be moot because one of them would most likely be my address.

You're Japanese-American?

*DOESN'T intern JuNii* :p

I also have no problem with voluntary placement in internment camps that are operated under martial law in an emergency situation but I do not agree with involuntary internment. An example might be a camp used to benefit the survivors of a disaster set up and run by the Army.
... or perhaps a camp/area to seperate those that might be targetted for hate crimes because of the war?

You're Japanese-American?

*DOESN'T intern JuNii* :p
yep. the only reason why my parents and Grandparents were NOT interrered is because they were living in HAWAII. where a sizable chunk of the population was Japanese.

yep. the only reason why my parents and Grandparents were NOT interrered is because they were living in HAWAII. where a sizable chunk of the population was Japanese.

Uhm... Sorry about the joke. Hope I didn't offend. Gomen.

Uhm... Sorry about the joke. Hope I didn't offend. Gomen.

no offense taken. :cool:

after all, the 442nd shown brightly during WWII. :cool:

no offense taken.

after all, the 442nd shown brightly during WWII. :cool:

Lolwut?

... or perhaps a camp/area to seperate those that might be targetted for hate crimes because of the war?

A fair idea, except for the fact that it wasn't voluntary. One would think that if it was set up for the safety of those people, that it would be up to them to enter and leave it.

A fair idea, except for the fact that it wasn't voluntary. One would think that if it was set up for the safety of those people, that it would be up to them to enter and leave it.

There has to be something against internment without due process, too, no?

Lolwut?

the 442nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Combat_Team). :cool:

the 442nd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Combat_Team). :cool:

Sugoi!

(In the good sense of the word...)

A fair idea, except for the fact that it wasn't voluntary. One would think that if it was set up for the safety of those people, that it would be up to them to enter and leave it.

just building on his idea of voluntary interrnment... but then it wouldn't be called interrnment if it was voluntary... :p

just building on his idea of voluntary interrnment... but then it wouldn't be called interrnment if it was voluntary... :p

I think internment means putting something inside of something. An intern employee is someone who is inside the company but not necessarily paid as much as the other or anything. I do not think that internment is necessarily involuntary.

But the people of 1941 were not children of the modern age. Theirs was an era both more innocent and less cynical, and a culture not merely forgiving of racism, but actively promoting it.

We are all products of our pasts. To hold people of 1941 to modern standards is just as wrong as applying 1941 standards to our modern era.

Ehm. Might I point out that:
1. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was written and agreed 7 years later.
2. The "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du citoyen" was written and agreed 152 years before.

So, 1941 it's modern era. Completely and absolutely. The US government of that era was acting as its contemporary dictatorships, not as a democratic rule-of-law state, and knew that.

Involuntary internment might be ok if there is strong suspiscion that the individual was interested in aiding the enemy. For example, if I was a member of the Communist party and talked about how I wanted outside communist forces to invade the USA, I would not be a traitor but I would certainly be someone to keep an eye on. In the event that we were invaded by a communist force, I should probably be rounded up and placed in a special camp of some sort.

There has to be something against internment without due process, too, no?

No. Due process is only needed for non-emergency situations. Very little due process rights exist for temporary situations in emergency situations. This is true in peacetime as well.

For example, lets suppose that you came home and found out that your spouse was sharpening an axe and had spray painted all over the house about how your children must be killed because of the voices oh yes the voices.

You may remove the children and file for an emergency custody request and emergency domestic violence protection order that will allow you to keep your spouse away from the children until a hearing is held to investigate the matter. Here the other parent's rights were temporarily removed with no due process.

Also, if your house is in a city that is on fire, and the municipal authority determines that a ring of earth needs to be created around the fire to contain the flames and protect the rest of the city. Your home may be dynamited to accomplish this goal. Ordinarily, you might have some due process rights not to avoid a taking of your property but to come up with reasonable terms for the taking. You lose those rights in an emergency.

No. Due process is only needed for non-emergency situations. Very little due process rights exist for temporary situations in emergency situations. This is true in peacetime as well.

For example, lets suppose that you came home and found out that your spouse was sharpening an axe and had spray painted all over the house about how your children must be killed because of the voices oh yes the voices.

You may remove the children and file for an emergency custody request and emergency domestic violence protection order that will allow you to keep your spouse away from the children until a hearing is held to investigate the matter. Here the other parent's rights were temporarily removed with no due process.

Also, if your house is in a city that is on fire, and the municipal authority determines that a ring of earth needs to be created around the fire to contain the flames and protect the rest of the city. Your home may be dynamited to accomplish this goal. Ordinarily, you might have some due process rights not to avoid a taking of your property but to come up with reasonable terms for the taking. You lose those rights in an emergency.

Two decent examples, but the internment of people that happened to have fathers belonging to a certain nationality isn't such a case.

I think internment means putting something inside of something. An intern employee is someone who is inside the company but not necessarily paid as much as the other or anything. I do not think that internment is necessarily involuntary.

fair enough.

Two decent examples, but the internment of people that happened to have fathers belonging to a certain nationality isn't such a case.

considering the japanese mentality...

it's not far fetched for Japanese Nisei to hold loyalty to their father's/parents beliefs including their loyalty.

Family and personal Honor were big things back then.

considering the japanese mentality...

it's not far fetched for Japanese Nisei to hold loyalty to their father's/parents beliefs including their loyalty.

Family and personal Honor were big things back then.

Even so, it's not the immediate evidence or threat that would warrant such an action...

Even so, it's not the immediate evidence or threat that would warrant such an action...

never said it was. but remember the spy detection techniques back then. add to that what the general public knew of the Japanese lifestyle... such an 'over reaction' is understandable... doesn't make it right, just understandable.

and add to that it wasn't just the Japanese that were interred...

This is more of a what if topic, given that except for some very silly idiots out there (AKA, Malkin), no one supports the interment now-a-days. But let us say that it is early 1942, you know only what FDR knew, would you support it or not?

And why?

No. Even only knowing what FDR knew, I would still understand the importance of diplomacy and showing ourselves to the world as the bigger, better--morally speaking--party, and as such I would most definitely not inter Japanese-Americans. The logic used for it was ridiculous anyway, and the internment, if anything, would have provoked the very thing it was intended to prevent.

This is more of a what if topic, given that except for some very silly idiots out there (AKA, Malkin), no one supports the interment now-a-days. But let us say that it is early 1942, you know only what FDR knew, would you support it or not?

And why?

No. I consider it a greater stain on the country than dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was.

In hindsight and with a modern perspective, absolutely not.

Now if I place myself back to 1942, I just might have supported it. I can imagine how people were pissed off about Pearl Harbor and could get caught up in the hysteria. A day after 9/11, I might have felt the same way about muslims/arabs. But I don't feel that way now, since I've had time to cool off and I've learned about their culture.

That's just how ignorance works.

No. The President has duties and powers in wartime that are different from peacetime. Clearly, what he did was absolutely Constitutional.

And slavery was legal until made specifically unconstitutional. Yet the constitution before that amendment proclaimed equal treatment of all human beings did it not?

Again, that principle thrown away because it's so convenient. A rubber stamp to feel good for any number of abuses.

No. I consider it a greater stain on the country than dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was.

How can you justify that? The internment camps were, at worst, a major disruption in many people's lives. How does that top a nuclear strike?

How can you justify that? The internment camps were, at worst, a major disruption in many people's lives. How does that top a nuclear strike?

I'd say very simply, but this is actually a little complicated.

The nuclear strike was horrendous, yes, but remember, until the first nuclear weapons were used, we--as a species--were unable to truly conceive of their destructive power. As good as we are with our imaginations, we can only imagine so much, and nuclear weapons were so far beyond the destructive capability of any other weapon at the time that the bombers and others who wanted to use it simply didn't--couldn't--understand how horrible it was.

We only have the stigma of the first usage because we were the first inventors. Had someone else gotten to it first, they would have the stigma.

Furthermore, these were the very first nuclear weapons created, so they were the weakest. The ones we have now would make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs look like firecrackers. Plus, no one else had any, so there was no chance of a nuclear war, as there was just a few years later and ever since.

In essence, we as a species needed the lesson that nuclear weapons should not be used for warfare, and as such, while horrible, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught us all a valuable lesson.

On the other hand, the internment did no such thing and was absolutely disgusting, especially since we kept trying to claim the moral high ground on Germany. We still could, technically, but only just, and only because we didn't use the Japanese as forced labour or execute them en masse.

I don't see a point in pondering this. Frankly I don't know and anyone else shouldn't proclaim to know. Of course in hindsight we could say no, but would we? Those who say know would have to assume they would walk talk and think like they do today, which is equally illogical.

Internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII

We Canadians interned plenty of Japanese immigrants during WWII, yet we get no credit? :mad:

We Canadians interned plenty of Japanese immigrants during WWII, yet we get no credit? :mad:

Yeah, well, you guys get away with lots of stuff. I'd be grateful if I were you.

Yeah, well, you guys get away with lots of stuff. I'd be grateful if I were you.

WWII was also the war where we turned away all the Jewish refugees.

I don't see a point in pondering this. Frankly I don't know and anyone else shouldn't proclaim to know. Of course in hindsight we could say no, but would we? Those who say know would have to assume they would walk talk and think like they do today, which is equally illogical.
^this

Also in the great big list of American atrocities, I consider it rather mild. We've done far worse in less dangerous situations. It doesn't make it right, but I think we should focus on owning up to those things that were far worse.

WWII was also the war where we turned away all the Jewish refugees.

I am constantly amazed at how my image of Canada as a shining beacon of freedom and human rights erodes ever more with each passing day on NSG...

…image of Canada as a shining beacon of freedom and human rights…

Ahahahahahahahahaha…
…
…
…hahahahahaha!

RCMP tasers bedridden 82-year-old hospitalized man (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/08/bc-kamloops-man-taser.html).

We Canadians interned plenty of Japanese immigrants during WWII, yet we get no credit? :mad:
Well, I be American not Canadian so writing about what I know and all that stuff. :p

I think it was wrong. but I adhere to the beliefs that under conditions of war it is better to ask forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. and apology should have been given in September 1945

Ummm. I am not sure who Malkin is but the idea of supporting the internment is exactly what you are asking people to do. The question of supporting the internment of Japanese Americans is not to be determined in hindsight.
Michelle Malkin is a conservative commentator (Think an Asian version of Ann Coulter) who has written a very poorly researched book attempting to justify the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and, by extension, justify racial profiling and internment of Muslims currently.

The religious devotion to the Emperor makes the Japanese Americans different from the other folks who had ancestral ties to the other Axis powers.
Uh... there is no evidence that the Nisei had any religious devotion to the emperor at all. Given that the State Shinto system had been set up in the mid-twenties in Japan and most of the Nisei in question were born in the United States before then...

JuNii may be right in that some of the Nisei nay have felt some attachment to Japan given their families, but from oral history that has been recorded since then and the actions of Japanese-Americans during WWII... it would seem that the vast majority considered their country to be America and not Japan.

Ahahahahahahahahaha…
…
…
…hahahahahaha!

RCMP tasers bedridden 82-year-old hospitalized man (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/08/bc-kamloops-man-taser.html).

I'm serious! I really did have that image once!

Then reality hit me...the world is a dark and lonely place...

We Canadians interned plenty of Japanese immigrants during WWII, yet we get no credit? :mad:

Actually, Canada was worse. The US camps were closed before the end of the war; Canada "repatriated" all but a few of Japanese-Canadian citizens to Japan when the war ended.

Actually, Canada was worse. The US camps were closed before the end of the war; Canada "repatriated" all but a few of Japanese-Canadian citizens to Japan when the war ended.

But… but "repatriation" is such a happy word… not at all like that ugly "deportation".

Edit: Well, some were "repatriated", but most were expelled to provinces other than BC.
I don't know how it worked in the US, but in Canada the interned Japanese-Canadians had their property seized and auctioned off. That's important too.

How can you justify that? The internment camps were, at worst, a major disruption in many people's lives. How does that top a nuclear strike?

The atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an act of war. The appropriateness and necessity of it are still debated. The catastrophic loss of life and lingering aftereffects were a slap in the face for many. But there were no laws, no rules, no precedent for such an act. It was a tragedy. On the other hand, taking into custody close to 200,000 people and holding them against their will without trial, legal recourse, charges or options is a violation of everything the United States stood for at the time and still stands for. It was an obscenity.

Then reality hit me...the world is a dark and lonely place...
Shishi Hōkōdan!



I'm probably going to be the only one who gets that. :D

Shishi Hōkōdan!



I'm probably going to be the only one who gets that. :D

Not a full Shishi Hokodan, huh? Must not be depressed enough...

For example, lets suppose that you came home and found out that your spouse was sharpening an axe and had spray painted all over the house about how your children must be killed because of the voices oh yes the voices.


So you're saying that at the outbreak of Japanese/American hostilities, Japanese Americans everywhere were sharpening axes and talking about killing Americans because of the voices?

Because that's the only way it could compare to putting everyone who came from Japan, regardless how many generations ago, into jail for nothing more than where their ancestors were born.

The atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an act of war. The appropriateness and necessity of it are still debated. The catastrophic loss of life and lingering aftereffects were a slap in the face for many. But there were no laws, no rules, no precedent for such an act. It was a tragedy. On the other hand, taking into custody close to 200,000 people and holding them against their will without trial, legal recourse, charges or options is a violation of everything the United States stood for at the time and still stands for. It was an obscenity.

hold 200,000 people with ties to the enemies nationality was pretty much considered normal in the course of a war back then. As shown with Canada it seems the US had the most modern view of interment.

The atomic bomb on Hiroshima was an act of war.

It was an act of terrorism, there's a difference.

The appropriateness and necessity of it are still debated. The catastrophic loss of life and lingering aftereffects were a slap in the face for many. But there were no laws, no rules, no precedent for such an act.

Even then the rules and precedent for attacking civilian targets was DON'T DO IT. We just violated them repeatedly.

It was an act of terrorism, there's a difference.



Uh, no. No it was not. It was most definitely an act of war, during a war, which was used to end the war. (In a way, as it is commonly debated, that probably ended fewer lives than a traditional invasion would have.)

Not a full Shishi Hokodan, huh? Must not be depressed enough...
Naw, the world is just a dark and lonely place. You haven't been to hell yet for the full one. ;)

Uh, no. No it was not. It was most definitely an act of war, during a war, which was used to end the war. (In a way, as it is commonly debated, that probably ended fewer lives than a traditional invasion would have.)

An act of "war" against civilians is a terrorist act any way you cut it.

An act of "war" against civilians is a terrorist act any way you cut it.

Then to be fair, the conventional bombing of German civilian occupied areas by UK Lancasters was also terrorist.

But probably done more somberly.

'Cause, you know how the Brits are...

An act of "war" against civilians is a terrorist act any way you cut it.

War targets/affects civilians there is no way to change that.
would bombing of Nazi factories be an act of terrorism, since after all civilians are working there ?
would the Siege of Breslau during WWII be an act of terrorism since it was largely civilians who starved to death ?

There was a state of War with Japan, and Japan had made it know it was planning to militarize every man, woman, and child who could carry a sharp pointed bamboo stick. the show of force likely saved more women and children then it cost.

In order to be a terrorist act there must not be any military presence of infrastructure in the target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had factories and troops station in them.

Then to be fair, the conventional bombing of German civilian occupied areas by UK Lancasters was also terrorist.


Yes, it was. But the topic I was speaking on was the atomic terrorism at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Naw, the world is just a dark and lonely place. You haven't been to hell yet for the full one. ;)
True enough.
An act of "war" against civilians is a terrorist act any way you cut it.
Incorrect. War, by its very nature, affects all citizens of the warring parties, not just the militaries. After all, the civilian economies are what keep the military going, by supplying it with food, ammunition, weaponry, vehicles, fuel, ect ect and so on and so forth, and thus it would be prudent to disrupt and/or destroy the supply capability of the enemy. That's usually far more effective than attempting to destroy armies/navies outright.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen primarily for their importance in the Japanese war effort, principally the industrial manufacturing capabilities. Massive civilian casualties resulted, yes, but that was resulting from the various bombing efforts by all sides regardless. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs simply did it all at once rather than piecemeal.

True enough.

Incorrect. War, by its very nature, affects all citizens of the warring parties, not just the militaries. After all, the civilian economies are what keep the military going, by supplying it with food, ammunition, weaponry, vehicles, fuel, ect ect and so on and so forth, and thus it would be prudent to disrupt and/or destroy the supply capability of the enemy. That's usually far more effective than attempting to destroy armies/navies outright.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen primarily for their importance in the Japanese war effort, principally the industrial manufacturing capabilities. Massive civilian casualties resulted, yes, but that was resulting from the various bombing efforts by all sides regardless. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs simply did it all at once rather than piecemeal.

All at once or piecemeal, it makes no difference. You're still bombing civilians, you are still the moral equal of those who flew planes into the Twin Towers. Hell, most of these bombings killed MORE civilians than were killed on 9/11 making them WORSE than the terrorists flying the planes.

This is more of a what if topic, given that except for some very silly idiots out there (AKA, Malkin), no one supports the interment now-a-days. But let us say that it is early 1942, you know only what FDR knew, would you support it or not?

And why?

I definitely would not support the internment of Americans during WW II. It is an immoral act to round up Americans (immigrant or naturally born) or their guests (of any specific ethnicity) for an American national cause. Incarceration in the name of liberty is an abomination. But then, it was FDR..what can you expect. The world is still spiraling downward due to some of the actions of his presidency.

An act of "war" against civilians is a terrorist act any way you cut it.

Certainly, but most people seem to have a blind concept of what a civilian truly is. In consideration of war, civilian includes anyone or anyplace which is not contributing to, or supporting of, a nations war machine. That is a major leap from the generally misguided concept of a civilian being anyone that is not directly part of the armed forces. To apply the latter is an exercise in stupidity, unless you're some kind of war monger and seek to perpetuate conflict.

In practice, it is the home front, the financiers, the industry, the makers of bullets, tanks, planes, uniforms, canteens, rations, propaganda, etc., and likewise those portions of infrastructure and persons which deliver said tools of war, these are more important to a war effort than any military could ever be.

Only in an irrational world that savors war, and would perpetuate war into future generations, would those people and places mentioned above be considered civilian.

In practice, it is the home front, the financiers, the industry, the makers of bullets, tanks, planes, uniforms, canteens, rations, propaganda, etc., and likewise those portions of infrastructure and persons which deliver said tools of war, these are more important to a war effort than any military could ever be.

So you're saying that if we had been at war the world trade center would have been a valid military target?

So you're saying that if we had been at war the world trade center would have been a valid military target?

yes but it depends on the means of targeting.

hijacking a civilian airliner and flying it is not a building is not a justified means.
flying your own bomber in and bombing the target is.

yes but it depends on the means of targeting.

hijacking a civilian airliner and flying it is not a building is not a justified means.
flying your own bomber in and bombing the target is.

Or if Keanu sneaks on board a Nazi bomber, and hijacks it and uses it to bomb a V1 rocket station, all while speaking in an English accent and schtupping Kiera Knightley or Helena Bonham Carter in the rear!

Of the airplane.

Not the girl's rear.

I mean, you can imagine it that way, if you want, but the screenplay wouldn't specifically dileneate that.

Or if Keanu sneaks on board a Nazi bomber, and hijacks it and uses it to bomb a V1 rocket station, all while speaking in an English accent and schtupping Kiera Knightley or Helena Bonham Carter in the rear!

Of the airplane.

Not the girl's rear.

I mean, you can imagine it that way, if you want, but the screenplay wouldn't specifically dileneate that.

thats is okay because it is a military bomber.

to make the dropping of the atomic bomb the equivalent to the world trade center.
you need to have a hijacked Japanese civilian airliner full of civilians to drop the bomb from. Because it is marked as civilian and full of civilians air defense will hesitate to shoot it down.

Or use a secretly hijacked red cross plane pretending to be on a mission mercy to japan to drop the bomb.

thats is okay because it is a military bomber.

to make the dropping of the atomic bomb the equivalent to the world trade center.
you need to have a hijacked Japanese civilian airliner full of civilians to drop the bomb from. Because it is marked as civilian and full of civilians air defense will hesitate to shoot it down.

Or use a secretly hijacked red cross plane pretending to be on a mission mercy to japan to drop the bomb.

Way to give the bad guy ideas, G&D.

Your character will be played by James Spader.

All at once or piecemeal, it makes no difference. You're still bombing civilians, you are still the moral equal of those who flew planes into the Twin Towers. Hell, most of these bombings killed MORE civilians than were killed on 9/11 making them WORSE than the terrorists flying the planes.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint. I'm arguing from the simple fact that war makes no distinction between soldier or civilian.

And the simple fact is that attacking civilians during a time of war is not terrorism, not exactly. Terrorism is an act by a group trying to resist against a greater power, whereas war is simply that: war.

Now, had the United States not been in a state of war with Japan for the past four and a half years, you might have a point. But they were at war and had been bombing Japanese cities for many months. They simply used a bigger bomb this time. It's not terrorism.

So you're saying that if we had been at war the world trade center would have been a valid military target?

Some foreign power being at war with the US or the global community, certainly. Economy is the #1 strength and weakness (in the sense they tend to be interdependent) of the modern world. So yes, it and any other entity under the WTCA could be a valid target.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint. I'm arguing from the simple fact that war makes no distinction between soldier or civilian.

Hope you aren't commanding any IRL units, dude...I'm not either, but its because I'm incompetent and a coward, not because I don't recognize civilians as noncombatants. The distinction can't always be made in massed aerial bombardment, but I hope at least SOME distinction can be made.


And the simple fact is that attacking civilians during a time of war is not terrorism, not exactly. Terrorism is an act by a group trying to resist against a greater power, whereas war is simply that: war.

So, Terrorism is any group trying to resist against a greater power? That paints with a fairly broad brush...and it doesn't seem to include criteria related to methodology or target algorithms.

I'm telling you, a Voltron.

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint. I'm arguing from the simple fact that war makes no distinction between soldier or civilian.



there are distinctions for instance if I am in the middle of a gun fight as a solider, and i grab a local girl and use her as a human shield thats pretty wrong.

Or if i run in a school and use the school children as cover that again is pretty wrong.

there are distinctions for instance if I am in the middle of a gun fight as a solider, and i grab a local girl and use her as a human shield thats pretty wrong.

Or if i run in a school and use the school children as cover that again is pretty wrong.

That's because women and children are, on average, thinner than men.

If you want a human shield, you want a fat guy.

Hope you aren't commanding any IRL units, dude...I'm not either, but its because I'm incompetent and a coward, not because I don't recognize civilians as noncombatants. The distinction can't always be made in massed aerial bombardment, but I hope at least SOME distinction can be made.
Oh, shush. You know what I meant.



So, Terrorism is any group trying to resist against a greater power? That paints with a fairly broad brush...and it doesn't seem to include criteria related to methodology or target algorithms.

I'm telling you, a Voltron.

Eh, good point. That was pretty broad.

there are distinctions for instance if I am in the middle of a gun fight as a solider, and i grab a local girl and use her as a human shield thats pretty wrong.

Or if i run in a school and use the school children as cover that again is pretty wrong.

But bombing them, their families, their friends, and their neighbor's dog is entirely justified?
You are killing innocents either way.

But bombing them, their families, their friends, and their neighbor's dog is entirely justified?
You are killing innocents either way.

so long as the target is not specifically them but the infrastructure.
WWII time frame it was pretty hard to hit infrastructure with out hitting them as well, as far as bombing goes.

Even today with the smart bomb technology we still end up hurting noncombatants.

so long as the target is not specifically them but the infrastructure.
WWII time frame it was pretty hard to hit infrastructure with out hitting them as well, as far as bombing goes.

Even today with the smart bomb technology we still end up hurting noncombatants.

I wonder if you would be as eager to justify such if your family was killed by a stray bomb...
But using civilians as human shields to achieve military goals (taking out a military target) is justified by that logic, no?

I wonder if you would be as eager to justify such if your family was killed by a stray bomb...
But using civilians as human shields to achieve military goals (taking out a military target) is justified by that logic, no?

wishing wars did not happen does not make them go away.
Nor is it possible to turn them in to duels of gentleman.

wishing wars did not happen does not make them go away.

Practicing terrorism and providing your enemies with propaganda doesn't win them, either. So, yeah, your point?

Way to give the bad guy ideas, G&D.

Your character will be played by James Spader.

Jhahannam, you are an awful person. :(