(my bold)
They were interred only if they were dead first. The word you want is interned.
I still don’t understand what your point is.
Funny, but by mid-1945 we almost completely controlled Japanese airspace. A squadron of P-51s or P-38s could have easily defended a bomber.
It just would have been a useless demonstration, easily dismissed as a trick or non-repeatable.
It was a case of one of the most chilling sentences I’ve ever read: “This was war, and men died for a lot of reasons.”
Ah the dreaded auto-correct. But why hijack the thread to point this out?
Were there any spies for Japan among those interned? Does that need any additional historical context or explanation?
If nothing else, it goes straight to the question in this thread about what Japan may have known about the bomb.
That’s the question, not the point of the question. If you concede the internment wasn’t justified, then the answer makes no difference, and is hence pointless.
The question has been asked, and the answer is evidently yes. So what?
We also have to remember that to Truman and the Americans, the Atomic Bomb was “just another weapon”, like the 22000lb Dam Buster or fire bombing etc. Why NOT use it?
Yes, to us, after 60 years of propaganda drummed into us that “Nukes are teh evil” (and with good reason once a Nuclear war could destroy humankind) they are different. But to them, the Atomic bomb had almost no moral issues, no more than firebombing large cities of civilians.
Good Lord! How long did this war drag on for?
“Also, we’ve found a way to bring back all our most Badass Presidents back from the dead. (We’re gonna dig up Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant, and George Washington next week.) Surrender before we unleash our army of Unstoppable Zombie Presidents!”
As the moderator has created his own straw man and whacked me with it, I’ll just drop the point. Yes, point.
There was one unsupported answer to the affirmative. I guess that’s just good enough and let’s all drop this uncomfortable topic now… surely the suffering of the internees completely moots the question.
FWIW, I’m from Northern California, lived atop the bones of a relocation camp and have discussed this matter with former internees. None were offended. Many were curious about the answer themselves but had no data.
Another factor is that at the time the Allies, with good reason, considered the Japanese to be racially insane. The suicide attacks, the suicides before surrender, the utter cruelty to anyone who was not Japanese, Banzai attacks, and late in the war Kamakazi attacks. This was simply not normal behavior for any country at the time Other Asian peoples showed no such antics.
If the US had a 3rd, or even 4th bomb odds are they would have been used before the Emperor could take a stand and evade the Palace coup. As it was the bomb that was being delivered would have been used as soon as the weather was good.
The answer to the OP boils down to “Why?” There is absolutely zero advantage to doing such a demonstration, and overwhelming advantages to erasing a Japanese city. Besides, they’re Japanese (in the mindset of the time).
I’m posting here as a poster, not a moderator, and I didn’t create any straw men. But I agree to drop the subject.
The fanaticism with which Japanese troops fought at Iwo Jima and even more so Okinawa convinced the US that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be horrifically costly. The Japanese wouldn’t be intimidated into surrendering without a fight except by the most extreme measure available - which was the A-bomb.
What is a “banzai attack”?
Banzai charge. Human wave attacks by troops shouting “Banzai!”
Another alternative to the Bomb would have been the message: “we won’t be invading Japan ourselves, but we will be ferrying and supplying millions of Chinese. They’re really pissed off, and looking forward to their new province.”
I definitely think that it’s wrong to phrase the debate as one between nuking Japanese cities and launching a conventional invasion. The nuclear show-of-force option seems very logical and ethical to me. But even more fundamentally, there was the option of just recognizing the simple fact that by August 1945 the Empire of Japan was no longer a significant military threat to the Allied nations. There wasn’t any hurry. We should have just stayed offshore with our massively superior fleets, sunk the last pitiful remnants of the Japanese navy, and blockaded them until they came to their senses.
Also, we should have clarified our foolish demand for “unconditional surrender” by explicitly letting the Japanese know that the monarchy would be permitted to continue. Which was what ended up actually happening, of course. But we did a very bad job of communicating it.
Because it was war. In war you don’t waste half your arsenal on warning shots.
Or millions starved to death.