DoctorIvey wrote:We may have forced Japan into attacking, lied about how they did it, put innocent Americans into internment camps after stripping them of their land and businesses, and nuked thousands of innocent women and children, but [i]at least we were prepared to do what it took to win a war[/i]. Nowadays they would have mopped the floor with us, given how divided a nation we've become.
This is one of the dumbest posts I've seen on any forum.
The US did not force the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor. The critical resource that led to war was oil, after the US embargo Japan was left with enough to operate their fleet for about 6 months, and perhaps less. The oil Japan coveted was in the Dutch East Indies. The head of the General Staff of the Japanese Navy (Admiral Nagano) wanted to grab that oil while leaving the Americans alone, calculating that Roosevelt would find it difficult to persuade America to go to war for Dutch colonies. Admiral Yamamoto forced the Pearl Harbor operation on the reluctant general staff, a move that would have been impossible in the US but under Japan's disfunctional military junior officers had influence beyond their rank. So no, Japan was not forced to attack the US. Besides, the US embargo (today it would be called "sanctions" and is considered a preferable tactic to war) was in response to Japanese aggression in China and South East Asia. Why should the US be "forced" to sell strategic materials to an aggressor nation? What a ridiculous thing to believe.
How did the US "lie about how they did it"? Roosevelt, in his "Day of Infamy" speech, claimed the US was "suddenly and deliberately attacked by air and naval forces of the Empire of Japan". Is that not true?
The morality of the nuclear bombs falls under the wider subject of "strategic bombing" which included the deliberate targeting of cities. There is no easy answer for this debate, but under the concept of total industrial war civilian workers were legitimate targets, and besides, Japan's war industry was decentralized, with much work being done in small shops in population centers. To attack Japan's ability to wage war, you attack Japanese cities. Don't forget, either, that Japan could have surrendered at any time, sparing their own people the horror. It was not the responsibility of the US to protect Japan, that falls on Japan's wartime leadership.
The internment camps are certainly a blot on American honor, but even here, if we consider the historical context, it was relatively mild. I don't mean to make light of the suffering, but the Japanese/Americans were not killed or worked to death, unlike the unfortunate people who fell under Japanese control. Further, the camps were controversial even then, and many spoke up about the injustice. At least here you have a point.
Japan "mop the floor" with the US? Yeah, I remember after 9/11 how divided the US was. This point is just idiotic.
Edit: Somehow I failed to comment on the part in bold, in which you seem to think that a country should not do what it takes to win a war. It's nice that some people value all human life equally, always, regardless of circumstances. For your part, you should realize that it is also nice to have people who "do what it takes", when everything
is on the line. In the Spring/Summer of 1945, I wouldn't have traded one American for 100,000 Japanese. The human cost of US policy is well known, and terrible for the relative innocents involved. It resulted, however, in the utter disgrace of the brutal leadership that had led Japan down such a destructive path. They bear the blame for the horror, for they started it, and insisted on continuing long after the outcome was decided. Had they accepted Potsdam, none of the subsequent deaths would have occurred.