Right, so the american camps for japenese people were just like the Nazi camps for jews. Except for the fact that they didn't murder a third of the god-damn japense population and 5 million other people for the hell of it. Jesus, comparing the two is real low imo. So they lost their stuff, that sucks, but so did tens of millions of other people in that period of time. Half of london lost their homes, war sucks, no-one said it didn't. The difference is that those people were looked after well for the time, and were alive when it all ended. I agree all sides in WW2 had bad deeds to their names. But compare nazi genocide with british violence against germans in the UK, or the rape of Nanjing with the american japenese camps, and it's obvious which sides did the greater misdeeds. As for the nukes, well I'm kinda unsure myself. On the one hand, it sucks to get nuked I'm sure. On the other, the japnese probably wouldn't have surrendered, and american casualties for a japenese invasion were estimated at 100,000 men. I can understand the US for not wanting to lose 100,000 of their own men when a few hundred thousand of the enemy could die instead. edit: Btw, I'm not trying to just be all down on japenese people, I think japan and it's people rock - it's an absolutely astounding nation. I just don't think a nation can screw with the number of people japan screwed with and then whine because some of its expats are mistrusted.
sorry to say but the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a blessing, if it was not for these events the war would have continued for more years and thousens or milions of lifes would be lost, Japan could even have won the war if they were given more time. Sea Shadow i am not trying to disrespect your family or home nation, but seriously, the needs of the many surpass the needs of a few. edit: and as specofdust said, Japan is a great nation, i would like to visit it sometime soon, i feel very sad each time i remember the stupid amount of people that die in wars.
Did you read the wording of my post? Take note of how the referral of concentration camp and how the Nazi's treated the Jewish people are two seperate sentences. I didn't say it was the US version of the Nazi concentration camp, I said the concentration camp. Then I said the next closest thing is.... Please excuse the spelling error in the original post, and then take the time to read the definitions I have looked up for you, or go look up the definition of the concentration camp on your own. Germany gave the term a whole new meaning, they originally used it to make it look less hostile. Tokyo, Kobe, Dresden, and Hamburg were all bombed in the same manner as London (with the exception of Germany's V1 and V2 rockets). It may be just me, but it appears that you are misaligning events and omitting others to skew the war to conform to your views. Actually I belive the estimated losses were 1 million men, and evidence leans towards that it wasn't the nuclear bombs that ended the war but the constant firebombings of Japan. Actually there was quite a bit of combat following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Except the next closest thing was nothing like what the nazi's did to the jews. The nazi's shipped the jews to camps in poland in cattle trains, thousands died of dehydration in these trains alone. Then when they arrived, they were fed next to nothing, and worked untill they died. That, or they had their heads shaved, were shuffled into gas chambers, and murdered by the roomfull. The nazi concentration camps were nothing like what the US camps for japenese people were like. The next closest thing would be allied POW camps, or prisons maybe. Never said they weren't, I was using london just as a quick name since everyones familiar with the blitz. My point there was that many lives were lost, and millions more people lost everything they owned. That's what happens when half the world goes to war. The point is that just living through that period was something of an accomplishment for many people, so for japense americans to complain about losing them when so many others did, is a bit pointless and whiney. Ok, well, find me things the US or UK forces did that actually compare with the holocaust and the rape of nanjing and I'll retract my statements then. That's something we'll never know. But Japan did surrender, so the Americans achieved their aim, of ending the war without an invasion of japan. I'm not defending either sides actions there, I dislike the fact that nukes were used, but I'm not convinced that an invasion of japan could have been avoided if they hadn't been used, so I can understand the american motivations for their use.
Not really, POW were citizens of another country, where as the vast majority of those held at the Japanese American camps were American Citizens. They were stripped of their rights and were given NONE of the libertys that other American citizens enjoyed at that time. These were people who were loyal to the the USA and yet the country that claimed everyone had certain unalienable rights was taking away all that they had. Hence why I say the next closest thing was Germany's camps. While the only thing that compares to the holocaust is Stalin's handywork, the Rape of Nanking resulted in some 300,000 estimated deaths over a 6 week period. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in some 210,000 deaths with 150,000 of that taking place within the 3 day period of both bombings. Then there was the battle of Okinawa which resulted in 150,000 civilian casualties in addition to over 100,000 Japanese and 12,000 American soldiers killed. The firebombing of Tokyo alone caused 100,000 deaths. The firebombing of Hamburg resulted in some 40,000 deaths.
I don't want to get in the way of this little flame fest, but I thought that the civilian casualties in Okinawa were mainly due to their own propaganda. Didn't whole families jump off of cliffs rather than be taken prisoner? Again, didn't whole families charge American soldiers and get slaughtered because of the false expectation of rape and other atrocities? I do agree about the firebombing of Tokyo though. That was as deadly and unnecessary as Dresden. But either way, you can't compare those figures with the wanton murder that took place in Nanjing. WWII was full of new and inventive ways for humans to kill each other and themselves. The sooner people realize that it was over a generation ago and none of it actually impacts anyone's daily lives anymore, the better.
Now it hadn't deteriorated into a flame fest yet, just a heated debate. We hadn't started insulting each others extended family You do have a point with the propoganda at Okinawa. Yes they did convince much of the populace that the Americans were barbarians and that they should not let themselfs fall into their hands. Also with Japan being a highly nationalistic and honour based society the civilians were willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child. As such I retract my statement about Okinawa If I recall correctly wasn't alot of the agression towards the Chinese due to the public helping many of the Doolitle raiders escape Japanese Custody? If that was a seperate event from Nanjing then that is another 250,000 innocent lives lost.
Dude – I am sorry to say you are in some serious denial. Brace yourself, this is going to hurt, but you are completely wrong. As an American of Anglo-Saxon decent, my ancestors have at least in part cursed me with the burden of slavery in the US. Probably the low point of British history were the Opium Wars. Definitely for Japan it was Hirohito’s government. There is absolutely no humane, justifiable reason to defend Hirohito’s government and it’s brutal behavior. It had a blatant disregard for all human life. Japan went to war with the sole expressed purpose of indiscriminately killing Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Malaysian etc people to facilitate stealing their land and any other resources available. Stalin is only blamed for killing about 20 million people. Hitler is credited for killing 26 million people. Between 1931 and 1945 Hirohito’s government slaughtered as many as 30 million. You should look into the history of Unit 731. This is the most famous of a dozen or more Imperial Japanese Army units that conducted biological warfare tests on live humans, mainly Chinese. They did the same things usually only credited to Nazi’s: mainly giving people a disease on purpose and then studying them as they die. Unfortunately Japanese culture made their entire population susceptible to en-mass brainwashing. I have been to the actual “Suicide Cliffs” in Okinawa. They are a testament to the power Hirohito’s government had over every single Japanese citizen who was pledged to die rather than fail in their support for Hirohito (he was thought of as a living god). This is mildly ironic in that Hirohito’s government did not care at all for the people themselves. As evidence for this I put forth that first of all, there was never a need for Japan to go to war in the first place except as an excuse to kill their neighbors and steal their resources. Additionally, 6 months after Pearl Harbor (at the battle of Midway), Japan’s navy was rendered useless and the war was no longer winnable or even sustainable. Every person that died in the Pacific after June 1942 died for a single reason: to “protect” the “honor” of Hirohito’s government (or to dethrone the evil empire). There simply was no other viable objective. But did Hirohito’s government surrender or resign to save its people from being slaughtered without reason or purpose? No – rather they encouraged Japanese mothers to sacrifice their sons as kamikazes so the government could continue to kill and steal as much as possible from its neighbors and retain its “honor” as long as possible. The governments of the UK and the USA went to war reluctantly. The Governments of Germany and Japan went to war on purpose with complete disregard for any other humans. If taken out of context, sure it may seem like they were all equally “evil”. However, Japan and Germany were killing for the fun of it. The UK and the USA were killing people in order to stop Japan and Germany from having the fun of killing innocent people. There is a big difference. It’s sad but true that every Japanese citizen in the Empire had already agreed to forfeit their lives to support their Emperor. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of them had to die, simply so that the government could no longer function. Why should it be that a single innocent Chinese, Korean, or even American have to die – the citizen’s of the Empire had already pledged their life down to the last woman and child – why not let them fulfill their pledge? As for the interment camps in the USA, it certainly is another travesty, but you are certainly comparing apples to oranges. I don’t agree with the idea of these camps, but at least there was a logical, rational reason for them. There really were Japanese spies and saboteurs and this was a crude but effective way to deal with that problem. There was no reasonable rational for the camps and slaughters conducted by Stalin, Hitler or Hirohito’s government. The only rational was – “we are superior and can kill whoever we want and take their things.” As for your grandfather , from what you have said, I salute him. As for Hirohito’s government, there is no defense. You just have to accept its part of your past, but don’t ignore it or dismiss it. It was a terrible thing that maybe you can learn from. Just keep in mind we are all human so we all have some big crap like this in our past. Maybe we can use them and the knowledge of the crap we are capable of to bring us together and keep it from happeneing in the future.
Well it's always way as in war there is no winners, only losers. Only dead, hatred, stress, social problems etc The only people that benefit from war are the people who make arms and oil. The actions of a few reflect on the many, like in Iseral atm where they sent in a single commando unit = WHOLE of Iseral = bad in the eyes of the media and various propaganda machines in the middle east. Ive been to a war museum in hong kong and talk about chinocentric portrail of the events of old against Japan and Mongolia. But having said that about Pearl Harbour above too: I bet your history reflects your struggle and "win" against the aggressive Japanese by dropping two nuclear bombs on a countrys civilians. How wonderfully noble. So then you can argue by that point people get pissed off and start doing malicious things like pick on other countries civilians, lock em all up or strap bombs to themselves which is what human nature tends to justify.
I feel that I must interject here. Before we are justifying Allied actions by how evil Japan and Germany were, we ought to consider the post WW II Allied prisoner of war camps in Europe, in which German soldiers were held and died in circumstances not unlike those found in concentration camps (The POW camps based in the U.S. were, by contrast, very humane and civilised). And Riluve, although I agree with almost all of your points, the reasons why Japan attacked the U.S. were more to do with the U.S. (and the U.K.) competing for the same resources (Asia) rather than Japan being on an ego-trip and the U. S. and U.K. coming to the world's rescue. We can look at what those countries had been up to in the Philippines or India for example. Now let's look at the Japanese American internment. Roosevelt's executive order 9066 signed on February 19, 1942 was fueled by anti-Japanese sentiment among farmers who competed against Japanese labour, politicians who sided with anti-Japanese constituencies, and the general public, whose frenzy was heightened by the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor. The evacuation order commenced the round-up of 120,000 Americans of Japanese heritage to one of 10 internment camps—officially called "relocation centers" (although it must be noted that several official documents of that time refer to "concentration camps") —in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas. More than 2/3 of the Japanese who were interned in the spring of 1942 were citizens of the United States (I like you to dwell on this for a second: they were U.S. citizens). In Canada, similar evacuation orders were established. Nearly 23,000 Nikkei, or Canadians of Japanese descent, were sent to camps in British Columbia. Though families were generally kept together in the United States, Canada sent male evacuees to work in road camps or on sugar beet projects. According to a 1943 War Relocation Authority report, internees were housed in "tar paper-covered barracks of simple frame construction without plumbing or cooking facilities of any kind." The Heart Mountain War Relocation Center in northwestern Wyoming for instance was a barbed-wire-surrounded enclave with unpartioned toilets, cots for beds, and a budget of 45 cents daily per capita for food rations. Because most internees were evacuated from their West Coast homes on short notice and not told of their destination, many failed to pack appropriate clothing for Wyoming winters which often reached temperatures below zero Fahrenheit (minus 18 Celsius). Many families were forced to simply take the "clothes on their backs." Most internees suffered significant property losses. Upon evacuation, the Japanese American internees were told that they could bring only as many articles of clothing, toiletries, and other personal effects as they could carry. Merchants and business men were forced to sell their businesses with most suffering losses. Japanese American farmers had to sell their property in a matter of days, usually with great financial loss. In these cases, the land speculators who bought the land made huge profits. Remember that this was largely about eliminating the business competition: despite the fact that the Japanese comprised only one percent of California’s population, for instance, they controlled almost fifty percent of that state’s commercial truck crops. Their agricultural skills had enabled them to produce an improved farm product and to bring down the price of farm goods. Much of the fertile and rich growing farm acreage of California, although held in the names of citizen American Japanese, belonged to the noncitizen Japanese immigrants. Denied the right to become American citizens and unable to purchase land in their own name the Japanese immigrants purchased the land in the names of their citizen offsprings. They were able to purchase, before Pearl Harbor, low priced land that the white population considered worthless—usually swampland and desert areas. Utilizing their agricultural skills the Japanese immigrants were able to turn this land into fertile high producing agricultural fields. When the government circulated a questionnaire seeking army volunteers from among the internees, 94% of military-aged male respondents said they would not serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of those who refused, adding however that they were willing to fight if they were restored their rights as American citizens. How, they asked, could any government dare ask them to fight for freedoms for others, freedoms which that same government had taken away from them? However, a sizable number did volunteer to serve from the camps, including in the famed and highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team which operated in Europe. This unit was the most highly decorated in United States military history. Some compensation for property losses was paid in 1948, but most internees were unable to fully recover their losses. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan officially apologized for the internment, on behalf of the U.S. government. The official apology said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership", and beginning in 1990, the government paid reparations to surviving internees. Despite all this, it must be noted that the FBI had no documented proof of espionage or sabotage by any Japanese American or Japanese national in the United States, except for a small group of ineffective Japanese nationals who were arrested long before Pearl Harbor and were deported (the Tachibana ring). "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible ... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness." --George Orwell Just because we opposed the Bad Guys, does not automatically make us the Good Guys.
Damn straght. No country on this planet has clean hands by any means. Everyone has blood staind hands as i remember my Dad saying that England killed more than 500,000 Indians during their period of English rule in India.
Uh, did you even read my posts? NOT ONCE have I ever tried to defend their government or their brutal behavoir. I have simply been pointing out that both sides have had their dirty deeds. Yet another atrocity of war, I fail to see what your point is. Though this does remind me of pharmaceutical tests on people and the nasty things that have happened as a result of such (but thats another subject). What would you do if your home country came under attack from a foreign power. Say some nation launched an all out attack against our nation and we were being beaten back at every turn, would you not fight to the death when all you have been taught is that your enemy is a brutal monster who will take no prisoners and will rape your family before torturing them to death. What would you do in that situation? And what would you call the US's treatment of the Native Americans? By your definition that too was just an excuse to kill our neighbors and claim the lands they lived on as our own. Or how about the nations of Europe as they expanded their domains across the globe, forcing their views on everyone they came across and slaughtering entire civilizations in the quest of gold. War is always the result of some political agenda. How were they killing "for the fun of it"? They were killing for the very same reasons our nations were killing for decades and centuries earlier. How is it rational to take citizens of your own country and send them to a concentration camp all the while doubting their loyalty. Those people wanted nothing more than to prove their loyalty and to serve their country. I would like to restate what Nexxo stated. Also I would like to point out that once they were given the chance, they fought with all their strength, and they gave it their all. All of that just to prove that they were just like any other loyal American, and yet they were still treated like they were nothing. I appreciate your respect for him and other veterans of the war. Again I would like to point out that I never defended the government of Japan or their actions. Nor do I try to ignore or dismiss the past of my relatives. Heck my grandfather's cousin took part in the bombing of Pearl Harbor (he was a zero pilot) and they would later meet and compare notes and experiences after the war. This entire time I have just been pointing out the brutality of war on both sides of the conflict. Agreed
Really, that’s an interesting theory, do you have anything to support this idea besides idle speculation? Fact is at that time Japan if anything was dependant upon the US for many of its modern resources. The USA was the main world supplier of nearly any modern raw material – steel, aluminum, oil, etc. I say yes, lets look at the events that led up to Pearl Harbor – lets look at what each country was doing in regards to resources. In the late 20’s, Japan was reliant upon the USA for nearly all of its raw materials and it didn’t like that situation. Japan assassinated Zhang Zuolin and later invaded Manchuria so it could get “its own” supply of steel. These actions were condemned by the League of nations. For many years the USA tried to talk Japan into leaving Manchuria, but instead Japan continued with further invasions (Indonesia) and finally signed a treaty with Italy and Nazi Germany. The USA responded by placing an oil embargo on Japan (80% of its oil was imported from the US) in July 1941. Coincidentally, that’s when Japan started its training exercise for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So yeah you have a valid point, the US should have never asked Japan to stop killing the Chinese and the US should have kept selling Japan oil. Now please educate me on the evils the US was up to in the Philippines. As far as I know it was just a protectorate that the US inherited from the Spanish American war that was in process to becoming independent before Japan invaded that as well. Considering it was granted independence in 1946 after most of the Japanese had been removed, it seems that this is most likely the case. Were there any natural resources in that area that the US would have been “competing” for as you claim was the real cause? The only possible candidate to fulfill your “theory” would be rubber. The British and Dutch had imported rubber plants and set up plantations in South East Asia that fed the worlds need for rubber. I am sure there was plenty of exploitation involved, but also there was great opportunity. In fact, the US and UK had a long and contemptuous affair with each other regarding the rubber market, but the whole affair was settled on December 8th 1941 (the day after pearl harbor) when Japan invaded Malaysia and started willy nilly killing Malaysians. I am sure the Malaysians could hardly tell the difference between the British and the Imperial Japanese occupation. How did the USA deal with this unfair “competition”? Well fortunately FDR was aware that rubber was critical and Japan was belligerent and had set up the Rubber Reserve Company in the middle of 1940. The RRC was responsible for stockpiling rubber and working out the inter-company necessities for the synthetic production of rubber. Ergo within 6 months there simply was no need for natural rubber. It had been completely replaced by a new industry – 4 synthetic rubber factories that produced as much rubber as the entire natural market. So it seems the USA didn’t have all that much “need” to compete with Japan for any South East Asian resources. Japan was simply frustrated that the USA had all the resources it needed and had stopped selling it to them. While we are here talking about it, its important to take note that the only reason Japan needed so much oil and rubber and steel and aluminum was to create a “vast” war machine. In other words, if it hadn’t needed to kill Chinese and Koreans and Malays to get their resources, it wouldn’t have needed the additional resources in the first place. In this light, with the sole exception of Imperial Japanese ego-trip, I do not see any reason that a single one of the 30 million killed by Imperial Japan needed to die. Please explain to me why you are mentioning this. Did I not express the fact that I agree it was not a proper thing to do? You imagine some how that the unfortunate treatment of these Americans justifies the unwarranted murder of 30 million people? If you notice that I agree with you - why in the world would you keep harping on this subject? It can only be as a distraction from the terribly weak position you have taken on the main thrust of this conversation. I mean feel free to enumerate all of the terrible things Americans have ever done, if you have evidence to support them, I will stand right there with you and condemn them. However, they do not in slightest detract from the purposeful wholesale slaughter of innocents that Japan, Germany, and Stalin perfected which are unrivalled in all of human history. Without question that has to be the most unfounded thing I have heard you say. There is simply no evidence of this and it is preposterous on the face of it. Are you basing your conclusion on the USA’s history of imprisoning business competitors? Wait, maybe there was already a farmer lobby in Washington DC with the sole purpose of imprisoning Japanese nationals before Pearl Harbor? The whole pearl harbor thing was simply coincidental? Are you saying the farmers got together in about 60 days and convinced FDR this was necessary to keep California competitive? No? Without Pearl Harbor would this have even been a serious consideration? If not your theory is preposterous irrelevant propaganda. You should keep in mind that this re-location was limited to the west coast and was not nation wide. You think Japanese business competition was only a concern on the west coast? All the other states in the country went along with this to preserve California’s economy or something? No – obviously this was an overreaction by a racist population (the mainstream US population) who were reacting to a single event they could all relate to – the “sneak attack” of pearl harbor. Nothing else would have unified/polarized the US population into something so dramatic and pathetic. Well the first thing I would say to this is that it specifically is not the job to record or document espionage or sabotage. The post office didn’t have any evidence either. However, this is not relevant. Additionally if you even think about your argument you will realize that it can be used in reverse. The complete lack of any significant espionage on the west coast would server to show the interment program was a success. The fact is though that intercepted and decrypted Imperial Japanese communiqués before the interment did refer to an established west coast espionage ring. The FBI was not privy to this information (only a few dozen people were). As I have mentioned I don’t think this was a viable course of action (the interment camps), I am just saying that it was at least within the realm of understandable “excuses”. Well this may not be true, it might not be reasonable, but at least its close to reasonable. The Japanese and Germans and Stalin, on the other hand have no such alibi. Like committing robbery to feed your hungry children; it’s on the cusp of the reasonable. I am not saying I would do it, but its not complete lunacy. Robbing a bank simply to line your pockets with spending money is lunacy. Yes, I agree, however I charge you with finding a better case of good verses evil. In all of human history of every war to curse our past, find a better example of clearly good (with good intentions and a just cause) verses evil (with evil intentions and a clearly nefarious cause). The only thing I can think of might be the way Lincoln conducted the American Civil War. Other than that, wars simply just don’t come as “clean” as WWII.
OK - I hope this message makes some sense because I was alseep when I wrote it. Well . . . definitely you were minimizing it. Remember when you said the Japanese government didn't really do anything as bad as Stalin? Well, uh yeah they did. The point was to show that unfortunately unlike what you claimed, the Japanese Imperial government was just as horrible as the Nazi government and Stalin. What? Came under attack? The Imperial government went out of its way to start a war on purpose. The first thing I would do is ask questions – wouldn’t you? Unfortunately that’s not the thing to do in Japanese society (especially at that time). I’m really at a loss to understand exactly what you mean here. My definition of what? I was saying the Japanese government did not care about its own people – enmass. They continued to fight a war that could not be won – killing their own people needlessly so they could get resources to kill other people (non-Japanese). Now I am not justifying the murder of native Americans, but it was pretty clear early on that the Europeans would eventually “win-out” in any war. So the argument just doesn’t fit here. I am definitely not for “forcing views” on anyone, but that is hardly the same thing as killing people on site before asking if they want to hear a different view. You are kind of right. Many times though war erupts because resources are too scarce to go around and a war is the result. In this case though there was no scarce resource. Japan and Germany simply want to kill or control other people and they needed a larger resource supply so they could do it. This case I would call just killing for fun. There was no need or justification, just “because”. Sure there are plenty of cases in history but not every case falls into this one. Well its an unfortunate human trait that we can be racist so easily. For the WASPS running the country at the time I am sure they didn’t know the difference between Japanese and Chinese or Korean – how were they going to “penetrate” the American-Japaenese sub-culture and figure out who was really loyal? Oh, they should just expect the disloyal population to just be honest and say oh, we were going to do some sabotage, but now that you asked us, ok we’re caught – sorry. Anyway, it was probably something the country needed to go through (as a whole) in order to mature. Hopefully it was a lesson learned in that at least after 9/11 there were no internment camps for Arabs. Yes, I know there are plenty of Arabs that were and are still unjustly imprisioned but I dare say the percentage of people put in jail ("interned") unjustly, is a dramatically lower this time around. That may be, but it might be something you want to look into further. One advantage the USA and Germany have had is they committed their atrocities on their own soil (in a large part), so it is clear an undeniable except by the most unreasonable people. Japan on the other hand did all of their terrible things in far off lands where there was no easy way for the general public to know about it or have to face it in a very real sense. It seems then that its easier for people still living in Japan to not even know or understand the depth of the topic. Well, OK, that may be, but again its like you are ignoring the unbalance. If I shoot someone in the foot – sure that’s bad, but murdering a dozen people is a different thing all together. It seems that your whole point is to say – well Imperial Japan may have killed 30 million innocent foreigners but at least they cared about their own citizens – well they didn’t care about their own citizens.
You are correct on all points, but please do not forget the territorial interests of the US, UK and the Netherlands in Southeast Asia. Their disapproval of Japan's actions was mainly to do with that upstart muscling in on their colonial territory and the threat of it becoming a bigger power in Asia than the Western powers were at the time. I suspect how badly Japan treated the occupied populations had less to do with it, since the Western occupying powers had treated those practically as bad. My point exactly. So moral considerations around Japan as an occupying force were probably not a big concern. Since you ask. In December 1898, without consulting any Filipinos, the US purchased the Philippines and other territories from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of $20 million, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The US planned to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain had already declared their independence on June 12, 1898... So on August 14, 1898, 11,000 American ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines and cure this attack of self-determination. US attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones" (i.e. concentration camps). Many of the civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of US soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to savage reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "n*gg*r killing business". From almost the beginning of the war, soldiers wrote home describing, and usually bragging about, atrocities committed against Filipinos, soldiers and civilians alike. Mark Twain famously opposed the war by using his influence in the press. He felt it betrayed the ideals of American democracy by not allowing the Filipino people to choose their own destiny: I guess we really learned from that in how we deal with Iraq... Sorry, I was unclear and you misunderstood. The WWII comment was directed at your post; the Japanese-American internment was directed at the discussion between specofdust and Sea Shadow, not yourself. The roots of the internment run back to the turn of the 20th century. Tensions between Caucasian and Japanese immigrants in California had begun to increase in the 1890's. Then a series of laws were passed, aimed at discouraging Japanese immigration, prohibiting land ownership by Japanese immigrants and even denying entry to Japanese women seeking to join their husbands in America. During the period of 1939–1941, the FBI compiled the Custodial Detention index ("CDI") on citizens, "enemy" aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous based principally on census records. These definitions of "enemy aliens" did not include German or Italian immigrants. Internment was popular among many white farmers who resented the Japanese American farmers. These individuals saw internment as a convenient means of uprooting their Japanese American competitors. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942: Of course, many politicians went along with internment because they worried about votes (not without reason; governor Ralph Lawrence Carr of Colorado was the only elected official to publicly apologize in 1941 for the internment of American citizens. It cost him re-election). In Order 9066, definitions of "enemy aliens" again did not include those of German and Italian descent. This was due largely to political concerns; the German and Italian communities represented a significant voting block wich had become more assimilated into American culture. The Japanese people represented only a small minority, making internment feasible. Those of German and Italian ancestry were actually praised by President Roosevelt for their "loyalty" as to relieve any anxiety that those groups might also be interned. Not all States went along with it; the vast majority of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents in Hawaii were not interned. Since these individuals comprised over 35% of the territory's population, it was not economically viable to remove them. They were laborers in the sugar cane and pineapple fields and canneries, and also merchants, restaurant owners, etc. In fact, research has shown that government and military officials realized that removing and interning all people of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii would completely destroy the territory's economy. So panic and racism played a role after Pearl Harbor, but economic and political concerns did so long before then. Like 9/11, although Pearl Harbor was unforeseen and caused panic and a backlash amongst the public, when it happened it was effectively exploited by politicians and business alike to accomplish pre-established aims. Business and politics are about exploiting opportunity and the public mood, after all. I disagree. Racism and scapegoating are not a more understandable or tolerable reason than self-interest and lining your pockets (with votes or wit money). Moreover it all comes down to the same thing anyway: self-interest. What is lunacy is depriving your own American citizens of their Constitutional rights as soon as the going gets a little tough. That makes an utter mockery of those lofty democratic ideals and the Constitution. And although I am not an American, I respect the Constitution as the best basis for government known to man (even though it has some flaws), and one that deserves protecting. Otherwise, how are you any different from any old empire or dictatorship, really? Let's not go there... The Civil War is another one of those conflicts that was not as clear-cut good vs evil as people think it is.
While I had no intention of saying anything like that, you did bring up a good point. While the Japanese did some truly horrible and despicable things (which I never denied). They didn't systematically round up and exterminate a race, so as a matter of fact they weren't as bad as the Nazi government, however they were still a very despicable government none the less. Perhaps a better example would be if Iraq had somehow fought our troops back and launched an all out invasion against us. At which point the propogana machines (in our case our media) would launch the civilian population into action. Also even if they had started asking questions when the attacks commenced would it have made a difference? And as the war progressed there were Japanese asking questions (kind of reminds me of US actions in the Middle East and how the public has reacted). Japan was doing the same thing we had been doing centuries earlier. We wanted more resources not for the purpose of killing people, but so that we could become more independant and not have to rely on foreign imports. And the people living in the lands they tried to conquer fought back (imagine that ). I do not approve of how they aimed to achieve such goals, nor do I approve of how we did such, but that is how war and politics go. So are you saying that because it was a win/win situation for the Europeans it was ok? And I belive that it is the same thing as "killing people on site before asking if they want to hear a different view". What would you call the destruction of the Inca and Aztec empires? How about the countless massacres that took place on both sides of Native American conflicts? This seems a bit hypocritical as you yourself said that Japan relied on the US for many of its resources. As I said before they were obtaining resources to become more independant, not for the sake of just killing someone. I would like to point out that the events of September 11th did cause a huge flare up in racisim towards people of middle east decent (or anyone who even looked like them, which resulted in hate directed to many people from the east indes area). It was at this time that a Japanese American spoke up (I do not remember his name nor his position in the government but I do recall his statement) reminding the government and our country of the unjust internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII. As I recall in the early Years of the United States' existience we forced nations off of lands that we had no claim to but we wanted it and we took it, killing those who opposed us. The same could be said of any other country which expanded its borders by taking lands inhabited by others. And I hope that you are not trying to minimise the wrong doings by stating that it was on "their own soil". Now you are twisting my words out of context entirely to make it look like something else. You were claiming that I was trying to deny my past and minimize it, which I did nothing of the sort, my responce was to help affirm the point that I was not denying my past. Lets take a look at the context that was in. That having been said, I have no idea how you pulled your weird twisted idea of my post, but I am going to repeat myself once again I do not condone the atrocious actions of any of these countries, nor am I trying to defend their representative governments or their actions. I am simply pointing out that both sides have had done evil deeds.
I'm not saying its your past, I am saying its the past of Imperial Japan that you were/are ignoring or minimizing and if you want to know where I got that twisted idea, here it is from your own post: So - either you were ignoring the 30 million people imperial Japan slaughtered in a fashion similar to Stalin, or you didn't know about the 30 million murders. The thing is you haven't said, “oh, I didn't know about the 30 million - that makes things different” - which it does. Which means you either were minimizing the 30 million murders before or you are doing so now by not acknowledging that it changes some basic facts that you have based your arguments on. Let me mention again that neither Stalin (20 million) nor Hitler (26 million) matched Imperial Japan (30 million) for their ability to murder innocent people, and point out that you still continue to minimizing the 30 million murders: Your “fact” is mute because there were only 500,000 Jewish people in Germany while there were 80 million Germans. In all of Europe, there were only 9.5 million Jewish people and they were not organized in a fashion where they could defend themselves even in the most meager fashion. In contrast, Japan had a Population of a mere 70 million and they were out to exterminate 500 million organized Chinese, 50 Million organized Koreans, etc. Obviously the Germans ratio of 8:1 unorganized Jewish targets were a wiser choice than the Japanese target with a ratio of about 1:8 organized Asians. I mean, no matter how despicable the Nazi's were, at least they were realistic. You are arguing that because the Germans had a realistic target and killed less people they are more "evil". Sorry, I'm not buying it. It's apparent to me you just want to think the Germans were more evil. You like numbers when they are on your side (210,000 dead from atomic bombs), but ignore numbers when they don't support what you want to think (30 million murders vs. 26 million). Also you only like "context" reasoning when it supports your ideas as well. When atomic bombs actually save lives (1 million probable - 210,000 actual = 790,000 saved lives) you don’t like them. However, you like "context" if it even remotely supports your ideas (26 million murders in official death camps is worse than 30 million murders not in official death camps? BTW I already pointed out that the Japanese did have death camps). The only vein of logic I see in your arguments is that of minimizing exactly how bad the Imperial Japanese government was and that's "my weird twisted idea". Obviously I have other counter points to make when I have sufficient time. However Nexxo, I did notice you did your best to side step my challenge - I'll make it easier for you now: Find any war in human history that is more "just" (more about good vs. evil) than either WWII or the American Civil war. Any single one will do. Until you can do that, I consider your avoidance of the obvious a victory which nullifies every point you have tried to make in this thread. But don’t worry I’ll try to be back in a timely manner to be more specific. ;-)
It is refreshing to hear no-one touting the Gulf War (v1.0 or 2.0) as a "just war" at least. However I think you are buying into two reasoning errors here. First, just because in WWII there was a relatively distinct difference in morality with respect to the reasons for going to war, and the acts committed, doesn't mean that the Allies were motivated by anything more lofty than self-interest. Most countries (e.g. the Netherlands, the US) didn't even get involved in WWII until they were personally dragged into it. Most Western powers were happily mistreating "their" Asian colonies before Japan came in to outdo them (and they continued to do so after WWII for as long as they could manage it). We had the Munich agreement in 1938; we had the Netherlands happily deporting German Jews fleeing extermination back over the German border. We all know about the "voyage of the damned" of the St. Louis in 1939, which was sent back and forth the Atlantic because no country (inc. the US) could be bothered to take a mere 1000 Jews who would face death if they were forced to return to Germany. Genocide? As if anybody cared. Like with the Civil War, personal and political interests and strategic considerations were dressed in a moral jacket for benefit of the population who, after all, actually fought and suffered the war, and because that is how people think in adversarial circumstances (it is difficult to get bombed and shot at and not think of yourself as innocents undeserving of this treatment, and of the guys doing this as evil baddies, like we saw with Lebanon and Israel), but all sides did (and do) that. Of course the Axis was the aggressor, and they were pretty evil, and they needed to be stopped; and the Allies were considerably less evil, and I know who I rather see having won the war. But that does not take away that he Allies basically acted out of pure self-interest rather than moral considerations. Now there is nothing wrong with self-defense, but they went beyond that to acting out of selfish interests. Let's not wave the "Good Guys" banner when whatever good that the Allies did was more a by-product of their self-interests, rather than an explicit aim. They did not go to free Asia from Japanese occupation, but to take it back from them. There is a big difference. Second: the notion that there are many "dirtier" wars with much less moral difference in both motivation and action between opposing sides, doesn't exhonorate the Allies from any misbehaviour or stupidity in WWII. When you commit a crime, the justification that there are people out there doing much worse for much more heinous reasons is not really all that valid. Otherwise we can argue that we should stop giving wife beating drunks a hard time because at least they aren't Ed Gein or something and hey, they're good with the kids. So I'm not getting your argument here (or perhaps I am just misunderstanding it). Perhaps it is you who is side-tracking the issue...
How many times do I have to tell you to stop taking things out of context? You keep on twisting my words out of context entirely to make it look like something else. That quote was a direct response to a challenge by specofdust. I wasn't ignoring anything, nor was I minimising anything, I was just responding to a challenge by specofdust. Did he ask me to tell him about the Japanese atrocities?(not that there is a shortage of such) No, he asked me to "find him things the US or UK forces did that actually compare with the holocaust and the rape of nanjing." I really would like to know where you got your numbers from, all the numbers I can find put the total deaths resulting from World War II somewhere between 52 million and 62 million with roughly 37million of that being civilian, a far cry from your supposed 76 million + allied deaths, this is with the exception of a quote from a single historian Chalmers Johnson where he estimates the deaths at your 26 million and 30 million. Every other source I can find lists numbers a lot lower. Even if they were that high it doesn't change a thing I have said. Never have I tried to minimize the despicable actions of the Japanese, German, US, USSR, UK, or any other government. This entire time my goal was to simply point out that there were atrocities on both sides of the war. How is it a mute point? Germany systematically rounded up people based on race, state of mind, and a few other choice characteristics and then exterminated them to supposedly purify the gene pool. In reality it was all part of a despicable political and economical agenda. Japan killed people that stood in the way of their plans or posed even the most remote threat. Also they would kill anyone who would help allied forces (as I pointed out with the Doolittle raiders). What in the world are you trying to achieve by saying that they were realistic and picked on a population of people a lot smaller than their own? Also where have I ever tried to argue that one was more evil than the other? I never said anything of the sort, in fact I flat out told you what my views are and you keep on trying to say that they are something else, in spite of me repeating my views over and over. Actually what I mean by context is that look at the wording in and around that post, and how it applies to it, also look at the current direction of the thread and how it applies to that post. You seem to miss (or disregard this) many times while quoting me. And did I ever deny that the atomic bomb ultimately saved lives? Nope. With regard to your mention of Japanese death camps, I couldn't find your previous mention of them that you described. Nor could I find any that existed during WWII, while I wouldn't be surprised if there was one or two I simply couldn't find any. However I did find Hell boats by which they transferred POWs and they were pretty much floating conveyors of death as many died in their journey to a POW camp. Also there was a fairly high chance that one would die in a Japanese POW camp, but still no mention of a death camp. Ok then, if you think I keep on trying to minimize "how bad the Imperial Japanese government was" show me where I do such. Where? I don't see any at all. I am guessing that statement was aimed at Nexxo since you referred to him in the previous paragraph, but this last statement was so appalling that I feel that I need to say something. That is the most pathetic statement I have heard throughout this thread, a victory? What are you even doing taking part in this discussion? It seems to me that your posts are more about being on an ego trip and obtaining "victory" rather than discussing war and atrocities that stem from it. I guess that would explain why you have complete disregard for the things people have said in this thread. This would also explain why you are constantly trying to take earlier statements and make them have a whole different meaning than what they were posted for. That was a very poor statement on your part, and I tend to agree with Nexxo's last statement in his previous post.
Chill, dude. Although I understand your frustration, I'm sure Riluve meant that statement to be tongue-in-cheek --hence the smiley , which is meant to be a . Don't take it too seriously. We all appreciate the context in which you made your statements. Let's all not get stuck into "They're less bad because they killed X fewer people" arguments (I mean, really). That's just stupid. And I don't think dropping the A-bomb on Japan was as simple as desperately trying to minimise the loss of lives. There were a lot of other political considerations to the use of this new toy. If these discussions tell us anything, it is that history is not as simple as we'd like to think...
