Remembering December 7th, 1941

[Rusthenia]

Yeah the whole Interment Camps were incredibly oppressive and fascist like. I guess it just goes to show that WW2 was not black and white more of a ugly grey area.

While the internment camps were incredibly awful and unnecessary, I don't think they are very comparable to how oppressive fascists were or compared to war crimes committed abroad.

Japanese War Crimes and german Camps /=\ Interment Camps

[Andsed]

Yeah the whole Interment Camps were incredibly oppressive and fascist like. I guess it just goes to show that WW2 was not black and white more of a ugly grey area.

While the internment camps were incredibly awful and unnecessary, I don't think they are very comparable to how oppressive fascists were or compared to war crimes committed abroad.

I mean yeah they were no where near as bad as what the Nazis and their allies did. But I do protest the idea of good guys and bad guys. I think of the Allies being ¨morally superior¨ to the Axis.

[The Untied Federation of Russia]

I feel like historians don't talk about the Interment Camps that much they always seem to focus on what happen in Europe and Asia and not discuss the human right violations of putting Japanese-Americans into camps.

As a Japanese-American citizen I do think it was harsh to put them into Interment Camps. But then again the U.S. was now dragged into a war against Japan and Germany after the events of Pearl Harbor.

So this led to the people and Government to be scared of spies in the country which is why Japanese-American citizens suffered racist attacks.

Racism towards Japanese immigrants mostly happened on the West Coast of the United Statea.

California being the main source.

[Novus America]

Operation Meetinghouse was the deadliest single air attack, more so than either nuclear bomb.
Had the nukes not been used the continuation of conventional air attacks would have killed more as you point out.

Certainly to get the peace the allies wanted. I believe that Japan had been willing to surrender, just not on the terms that the allies wanted however. So I don't think that more conventional attacks were necessary. I do believe that the emphasis on using nuclear weapons on Japan and the de-emphasis of Japan's war crimes were part of a strategy to bring Japan into the American fold against the Soviet Union and communism.

Japan was only in theory willing to surrender, because Japan did not have single individual powerful enough to make a decision and was too divided on what terms, if any they would find acceptable. Parts of the Army still tried to launch a coup even after the nukes.

So the Japanese government would still have sat around dithering and arguing while the country starved to death. Still millions die.

Certainly we did wish to preserve Japan as a functioning entity for strategic purposes.
We had the ability to utterly destroy it forever but that would have benefited no one.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Certainly to get the peace the allies wanted. I believe that Japan had been willing to surrender, just not on the terms that the allies wanted however. So I don't think that more conventional attacks were necessary. I do believe that the emphasis on using nuclear weapons on Japan and the de-emphasis of Japan's war crimes were part of a strategy to bring Japan into the American fold against the Soviet Union and communism.

Japan was only in theory willing to surrender, because Japan did not have single individual powerful enough to make a decision and was too divided on what terms, if any they would find acceptable. Parts of the Army still tried to launch a coup even after the nukes.

So the Japanese government would still have sat around dithering and arguing while the country starved to death. Still millions die.

Certainly we did wish to preserve Japan as a functioning entity for strategic purposes.
We had the ability to utterly destroy it forever but that would have benefited no one.

They wanted to try and use the USSR as a mediator but then the Soviets invaded Manchuria and that plan went out the window.

[Solorni]

Certainly to get the peace the allies wanted. I believe that Japan had been willing to surrender, just not on the terms that the allies wanted however. So I don't think that more conventional attacks were necessary. I do believe that the emphasis on using nuclear weapons on Japan and the de-emphasis of Japan's war crimes were part of a strategy to bring Japan into the American fold against the Soviet Union and communism.

Japan was only in theory willing to surrender, because Japan did not have single individual powerful enough to make a decision and was too divided on what terms, if any they would find acceptable. Parts of the Army still tried to launch a coup even after the nukes.

So the Japanese government would still have sat around dithering and arguing while the country starved to death. Still millions die.

Certainly we did wish to preserve Japan as a functioning entity for strategic purposes.
We had the ability to utterly destroy it forever but that would have benefited no one.

I'm pretty certain that they were going to surrender, simply not unconditionally. But the Americans wanted it to be unconditionally.

They wanted to try and use the USSR as a mediator but then the Soviets invaded Manchuria and that plan went out the window.

To be fair, the Soviets entering the war was based on an agreement with Roosevelt. This led to a lot of problems later on because Truman and other American Presidents were far less friendly to the Soviets and resented their influence, particularly in Korea.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Horrible unwarranted attack.



...someone should have told that to the CIA before they supported the Mujahideen.

That is a completely different issue and the contention Mujahideen = Al Qaeda just because a few who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan later joined Al Queda or the Taliban is false. Many Mujahideen also fought AGAINST Al Queda.

A broad decentralized movement having a variety of factions gets rather complicated, especially when said factions are fighting amongst themselves.

However, Osama Bin Laden was indeed in the Mujahideen at the time. And wasn't too happy about the CIA not giving them money for roads and schools after the soviets pulled out.

If the CIA just let the USSR have that one, not only would it have not affected when the USSR collapsed, but It would have most likely have prevented 9/11.

If we where lucky, Afghanistan would have turned into a Polish/East Germany like state where they wanted nothing but to be a democratic capitalist society.

[Novus America]

Japan was only in theory willing to surrender, because Japan did not have single individual powerful enough to make a decision and was too divided on what terms, if any they would find acceptable. Parts of the Army still tried to launch a coup even after the nukes.

So the Japanese government would still have sat around dithering and arguing while the country starved to death. Still millions die.

Certainly we did wish to preserve Japan as a functioning entity for strategic purposes.
We had the ability to utterly destroy it forever but that would have benefited no one.

They wanted to try and use the USSR as a mediator but then the Soviets invaded Manchuria and that plan went out the window.

Yeah, bad as you pointed out that was a plan doomed to fail. And even then it is likely they would fail to agree on how the mediation was to be done or whether or not the Army and others would accept the results of the mediation.

That was a vague plan that never had any hope of actually getting anywhere.

Japan had clearly lost after the Marianas, they knew it, and still could not agree on how to end it in a way the US could conceivably find acceptable.
The US public was certainly not going to accept anything going easy on Japan.
Japan has pissed off way too many people and done way to many horrible things to get out of it easily.

[Novus America]

Japan was only in theory willing to surrender, because Japan did not have single individual powerful enough to make a decision and was too divided on what terms, if any they would find acceptable. Parts of the Army still tried to launch a coup even after the nukes.

So the Japanese government would still have sat around dithering and arguing while the country starved to death. Still millions die.

Certainly we did wish to preserve Japan as a functioning entity for strategic purposes.
We had the ability to utterly destroy it forever but that would have benefited no one.

I'm pretty certain that they were going to surrender, simply not unconditionally. But the Americans wanted it to be unconditionally.

They wanted to try and use the USSR as a mediator but then the Soviets invaded Manchuria and that plan went out the window.

To be fair, the Soviets entering the war was based on an agreement with Roosevelt. This led to a lot of problems later on because Truman and other American Presidents were far less friendly to the Soviets and resented their influence, particularly in Korea.

The US actually did accept some conditions in the end.

Before the nukes many in the Japanese government wanted to end the war true, (though many wanted it to continue) but they never agreed on what conditions to even offer the US, let alone ones the US could accept given just how angry people were.

Japan has been just too brutal to get out easily.

[Novus America]

That is a completely different issue and the contention Mujahideen = Al Qaeda just because a few who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan later joined Al Queda or the Taliban is false. Many Mujahideen also fought AGAINST Al Queda.

A broad decentralized movement having a variety of factions gets rather complicated, especially when said factions are fighting amongst themselves.

However, Osama Bin Laden was indeed in the Mujahideen at the time. And wasn't too happy about the CIA not giving them money for roads and schools after the soviets pulled out.

If the CIA just let the USSR have that one, not only would it have not affected when the USSR collapsed, but It would have most likely have prevented 9/11.

If we where lucky, Afghanistan would have turned into a Polish/East Germany like state where they wanted nothing but to be a democratic capitalist society.

Bin Laden hated the US because of the US government’s support for Saudi Arabia and Israel.
It was not about the US ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell. Bin Laden never cared about infrastructure for Afghanistan and was only a very minor player during the Soviet occupation.

No, because the Soviet controlled Afghan government was never a properly functioning one.
Had the US done nothing Afghanistan still would still have collapsed into civil war, Pakistan would still support the extreme factions in said war, and we still would be in the same place.
Maybe worse because the US supported more moderate factions. Leaving things entirely to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and China would not have helped.

Afghanistan was completely different than Poland or East Germany. It still would be an ethically divided mess with a huge number of Pashtun Islamist extremists.
It still would not have had enough people actually wanting liberal democracy and agreeing how to implement it.

It is not like the US involvement significantly altered social attitudes there.
Though this is off topic.

[Monsa]

While the internment camps were incredibly awful and unnecessary, I don't think they are very comparable to how oppressive fascists were or compared to war crimes committed abroad.

Japanese War Crimes and german Camps /=\ Interment Camps

I mean Interment Camp were for Japaneese-Americans.

[Vrolondia]

Japan attacked the US because the UN, led by US advances, internationally condemned their actions in the second Sino - Japanese war.

Further influencing the attack was the US decision to embargo machine and air plane parts, then later oil, to Japan essentially crippling the fleet while they were poised to conquer French and British territory in the east, forcing them to target the oil rich Dutch East Indies in order to continue the war.

Furthermore the attack at Pearl Harbor came a mere 9 months after FDR'S Lend-lease agreement, giving aid to all of Japans enemies, and US threats of war should Japan continue its aggression.

So with Japan condemned imternationally, embargoed from parts, supplies, and oil, then told if they invade the one place the need to fix all that America will attack them they were forced into a corner, and crippling the American Pacific fleet was the only viable option Japan had to continue its wars and diplomatic standing, with the hope America wouldn't be able to respond before Japan was ready, or even be strong armed into not going to war.

Sound an aweful lot like the US interfering with Japanese foreign policy in a war they were supposedly neutral in, then blaming Japan when they treated them the way America was acting.

Eh.

[Andsed]

Japan attacked the US because the UN, led by US advances, internationally condemned their actions in the second Sino - Japanese war.

First off it was the league of nations not UN that condemned Japan. The UN was created after WW2. Also Japan deserved to be condemn for their actions in the second Sino-Japanese war. Their war crime were comparable to the Nazis.

Further influencing the attack was the US decision to embargo machine and air plane parts, then later oil, to Japan essentially crippling the fleet while they were poised to conquer French and British territory in the east, forcing them to target the oil rich Dutch East Indies in order to continue the war.

Furthermore the attack at Pearl Harbor came a mere 9 months after FDR'S Lend-lease agreement, giving aid to all of Japans enemies, and US threats of war should Japan continue its aggression.

Yes how dare the US helps it´s allies.

That being said Japan was forced into a corner, and crippling the American Pacific fleet was the only viable option Japan had to continue its wars and diplomatic standing.

Or maybe you know stop committing war crimes and leave the wars and trade for resources.

Sound an aweful lot like the US interfering with Japanese foreign policy in a war they were supposedly neutral in, then blaming Japan when they treated them the way America was acting.

It seems a lot like your trying to justify Japan´s attack on the US.

[NERVUN]

Japan attacked the US because the UN, led by US advances, internationally condemned their actions in the second Sino - Japanese war.

Further influencing the attack was the US decision to embargo machine and air plane parts, then later oil, to Japan essentially crippling the fleet while they were poised to conquer French and British territory in the east, forcing them to target the oil rich Dutch East Indies in order to continue the war.

Furthermore the attack at Pearl Harbor came a mere 9 months after FDR'S Lend-lease agreement, giving aid to all of Japans enemies, and US threats of war should Japan continue its aggression.

That being said Japan was forced into a corner, and crippling the American Pacific fleet was the only viable option Japan had to continue its wars and diplomatic standing.

Sound an aweful lot like the US interfering with Japanese foreign policy in a war they were supposedly neutral in, then blaming Japan when they treated them the way America was acting.

Eh.

Of course. It's America's fault that Japan decided to invade China. *nods*

The Yasukuni view works ONLY if you accept the notion that Japan was in the right to provoke and invade China in the first place. Otherwise, it falls apart rather rapidly.

Pearl was a decent attack that, in the end, failed. It missed the carriers, didn't really do much except annoy the US, and relied way too heavily on the notion of replaying Tsushima. The problem is that while Japan was very proud of Tsushima, it failed to properly learn the lessons of Tsushima. Tsushima worked because the Tsar was weak and ineffectual. Russia was weaker than it appeared... The US was neither.

[The New California Republic]

Japan attacked the US because the UN, led by US advances, internationally condemned their actions in the second Sino - Japanese war.

Further influencing the attack was the US decision to embargo machine and air plane parts, then later oil, to Japan essentially crippling the fleet while they were poised to conquer French and British territory in the east, forcing them to target the oil rich Dutch East Indies in order to continue the war.

Furthermore the attack at Pearl Harbor came a mere 9 months after FDR'S Lend-lease agreement, giving aid to all of Japans enemies, and US threats of war should Japan continue its aggression.

That being said Japan was forced into a corner, and crippling the American Pacific fleet was the only viable option Japan had to continue its wars and diplomatic standing.

Sound an aweful lot like the US interfering with Japanese foreign policy in a war they were supposedly neutral in, then blaming Japan when they treated them the way America was acting.

Eh.

Of course. It's America's fault that Japan decided to invade China. *nods*

The Yasukuni view works ONLY if you accept the notion that Japan was in the right to provoke and invade China in the first place. Otherwise, it falls apart rather rapidly.

Pearl was a decent attack that, in the end, failed. It missed the carriers, didn't really do much except annoy the US, and relied way too heavily on the notion of replaying Tsushima. The problem is that while Japan was very proud of Tsushima, it failed to properly learn the lessons of Tsushima. Tsushima worked because the Tsar was weak and ineffectual. Russia was weaker than it appeared... The US was neither.

If anything the Pearl Harbor attack galvanized the American public into accepting participation in WWII, as they were overwhelmingly against intervening in what to that point they had seen as a "European problem". The fact that one of the Axis nations attacked the US signalled to the American public that the Axis was actually their problem after all.

[Vrolondia]

Of course. It's America's fault that Japan decided to invade China. *nods*

Of course not. It's America's fault Japan decided to invade the East Indies, China was just an easier target.

[Rusthenia]

Of course. It's America's fault that Japan decided to invade China. *nods*

Of course not. It's America's fault Japan decided to invade the East Indies, China was just an easier target.

how? did America not letting he Japanese go through the panama canal led to Japanese invading the DUTCH east indies?

[The Untied Federation of Russia]

Japan attacked the US because the UN, led by US advances, internationally condemned their actions in the second Sino - Japanese war.

Further influencing the attack was the US decision to embargo machine and air plane parts, then later oil, to Japan essentially crippling the fleet while they were poised to conquer French and British territory in the east, forcing them to target the oil rich Dutch East Indies in order to continue the war.

You do know the only reason why the US did that was because of the war crimes that Japan has caused in China.

Example: The Rape of Nanjing and stabbing babies.

America was pretty much pissed that Japan was doing these kind of things so America HAD to embargo them so Japan will stop with the war crimes.

[Vrolondia]

Of course not. It's America's fault Japan decided to invade the East Indies, China was just an easier target.

how? did America not letting he Japanese go through the panama canal led to Japanese invading the DUTCH east indies?

Oil embargo in 1941, Netherlands surrendered to the Axis in 1940, as did France, but Japan couldn't capitalize on it In the East Indies due to America's threats. And they needed to capitalize on it since upwards of 93% of Japans copper and other precious metals came from a country which just embargoed them.

[Andsed]

how? did America not letting he Japanese go through the panama canal led to Japanese invading the DUTCH east indies?

Oil embargo in 1941, Netherlands surrendered to the Axis in 1940, as did France, but Japan couldn't capitalize on it In the East Indies due to America's threats. And they needed to capitalize on it since upwards of 93% of Japans copper and other precious metals came from a country which just embargoed them.

Okay and how does this make Japan´s aggression America´s fault exactly? Because the Japan deserved that embargo and had no rights to the East Indies so the US threats were entirely just.

[Rusthenia]

how? did America not letting he Japanese go through the panama canal led to Japanese invading the DUTCH east indies?

Oil embargo in 1941, Netherlands surrendered to the Axis in 1940, as did France, but Japan couldn't capitalize on it In the East Indies due to America's threats. And they needed to capitalize on it since upwards of 93% of Japans copper and other precious metals came from a country which just embargoed them.

just the US embargoing japan meant they needed to launch assults on the US and the British-Dutch Asian empires?

[NERVUN]

Of course. It's America's fault that Japan decided to invade China. *nods*

Of course not. It's America's fault Japan decided to invade the East Indies, China was just an easier target.

Um... No. Your timeline is rather messed up.

Japan provoked a war with China (Marco Polo Bridge Incident), which led to some rather horrific acts that caused the US to react (Partially on humanitarian grounds, partially as reprisals due to Japanese actions, and partially in defense of the open door policy). Due to oil being cut off, Japan attempted to attack the East Indies. Due to fighting between the IJA and the IJN, it also decided that going after the Philippines and other colonies would be a good idea as well... thus attacking America.

All of which falls apart as a justification for Japan's actions when you read the bit about provoking the war with China in the first place.

[Vrolondia]

Oil embargo in 1941, Netherlands surrendered to the Axis in 1940, as did France, but Japan couldn't capitalize on it In the East Indies due to America's threats. And they needed to capitalize on it since upwards of 93% of Japans copper and other precious metals came from a country which just embargoed them.

just the US embargoing japan meant they needed to launch assults on the US and the British-Dutch Asian empires?

The East Indies at the time had the most productive oil fields, the exception being China. So yes, when Japans main supply of oil ran out they invaded the Dutch East indies who was an easy target and they were already at war with but unable to invade due to America.

[Andsed]

just the US embargoing japan meant they needed to launch assults on the US and the British-Dutch Asian empires?

The East Indies at the time had the most productive oil fields, the exception being China. So yes, when Japans main supply of oil ran out they invaded the Dutch East indies who was an easy target.

Okay we understand that but that is not America´s fault. Japan through it war crimes and aggression are what put them in that position in the first place so they have no place to claim it was the US´s fault.

[Rusthenia]

just the US embargoing japan meant they needed to launch assults on the US and the British-Dutch Asian empires?

The East Indies at the time had the most productive oil fields, the exception being China. So yes, when Japans main supply of oil ran out they invaded the Dutch East indies who was an easy target.

Provking the British, Americans and Dutch is an Easy target.