Charles Gray <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> On 21 Dec 2003 22:39:38 -0800,
[email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
>
> >"Linda Terrell" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-7PgD6QdS3d3F@dialup-
> >67.31.204.131.Dial1.Tampa1.Level3.net>...
> >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:32:03 UTC,
[email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?
> >> >
>
> >> > 2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States
> >> > really need Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender
> >> > at all? If invasion of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it
> >> > entailed the used of nuclear bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a
> >> > conditional surrender? Or, a cease-fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and
> >> > destroyed? Why was unconditional surrender so important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan
> >> > started the war and bombed Pearl Harbor. But, if revenge is the issue, United States
> >> > avenged itself 10,000 fold prior to Hirosaki bombing. If you look at the casualty ratio
> >> > among American/Japanese soldiers, it was comparable to cowboys and Indians.
> >>
> >>
> >> Part of Japan's copnditions was to keep their army in China. You let a defeated enemy keep an
> >> army to come back at you? To go after others and build itself up?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> The PC had us make that mistake in the First Gulf War. Not again.
> >>
> >> LT
> >
> >You make a valid point but Japan's conditions for surrender; however, Americans refused to
> >consider anything other than unconditional surrender. Some historians argue that Japanese would
> >have agreed to a conditional surrender as long as Hirohito was free from prosecution. The irony
> >is US refused that condition, nuked Japan, won the won, and then maintained that Hirohito was
> >utterly blameless for the war.
> >
> >Also, the notion that Japanese empire could survive under any condition is ridiculous. Imperial
> >troops were sinking into the vast Asian continent and even if US didn't press for surrender of
> >any kind, Japanese empire was finished. They were surrounded by hostile natives, losing ground to
> >Allied troops, and isolated from the mother country after the American military having virtually
> >destroyed Japanese air force, navy, and transport ships.
> >
> >Japan had nothing left to go on. They had no fuel, no raw material, nothing at the end. Even if
> >America had decided to stop attacking Japan, America could have easily concentrated on Imperial
> >troops on the Asian mainland and have destroyed them mercilessly which was what was happening in
> >places like Philippines. The ratio of US/Japanese death was like 1,000 to 30,000.
>
>
> But you're also missing the information context-- this was long before "multiculturalism" was a
> common word, and long before asian studies departments were fixtures at most universities. Much
> of the work on Japan, pre-war by western authorities (the ones who would be consulted), were
> well.... inaccuarte. For one thing, this led to a great deal of ambiguity in western minds
> about the place of the emperor, arguably theone thing where a change in western stance might
> have led to a quick end of the war.
The hell with muliticulturalism and other leftist buffoonery. I'm not making a left vs right or people-of-
color vs white argument. I'm saying there are limits to everything if into fighting in WWII? Yes.
Were we on the right side? Yes. Did we have the moral right to break Japan's back and destroy its
empire? Yes. Did we have the right to indiscrimately destroy entire civilian populations? No. Your
argument is US uber alles. Do you ever think US made wrong decisions during WWII against Germans or
Japan? Or, is your position simply that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING USA did was good because what we do
is good, period. This is the sort of mentality that brought Germany and Japan to aggression, this
inability to reflect, to self-criticize, to justify anything they did. We don't need a US IS ALWAYS
BAD vs US IS ALWAYS GOOD dichotomy. We can believe in American values, justify American strategy,
while criticizing when Americans have failed in areas of tactics. We can justify the American cause
in WWII without apologizing for EVERYTHING Americans did. If we say Americans were completely
blameless in WWII, then we're playing God, not thinking humans.
> But, OTH, to the west, especially people who don't speak japanese, who don't know japanese
> cultuer, and have seen them acting as they did in Nanking, or Manilla, saying you're going
> to spare the emperor is the first step to "terms" and everyone knew how terms had played out
> in WWI.
What? Japan was on the Allied side in WWI. If you mean Germany, the problem was the Allies pushed
for far too harsh measures against Germany which surrendered unconditionally. The German emperor
lost his throne and Germany became a full democracy following WWI. What 'terms'? You mean ******?
That was a matter of spineless diplomacy on the part of the West; it didn't flow out of letting
Germans off easy following WWI. If anything, Germans were punished unduly, blamed for everything
when in fact other Europeans were in many ways almost as guilty for fanning the flames of war in the
first place.
> Maybe it wasn't correct, but I would point out that to this day, Japan has done everything they
> can to dodge responsibility for a flat out war of aggression and genocide against China, and that
> after complete surrender and occuaption.
This is an exaggeration but yes, it's true that Japanese conservatives wield great deal of power and
have not been honest about Japanese atrocities. But, who put those conservatives in power in the
first place? US, in its campaign against communism, installed conservatives back into power, made
Hirohito completely blameless, and encouraged Japanese not to dwell on its atrocities in
China(especially after China become communist and US enemy). US policy cocooned Japan from facing up
to injustice. Also, the nukes did a helluva good job of convincing the Japanese that they were among
the primary victims of WWII, that somehow the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki washed them of this
guilt. This argument is crazy but it's no absurd than the one that keeps bringing up Japanese
atrocities in Nanking. Nanking doesn't justify Hiroshima and Hiroshima doesn't absolve crimes
against Nanking. For Americans to say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified because of Japanese
atrocities is as ridiculous as Japanese saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki proves Japan wasn't alone in
perpetrating wholesale massacres. We can and must say both Nanking and Hiroshima were war atrocities
on a massive scale, unjustifiable on any ground. Wholesale, intentional, willful, indiscriminate
mass murder of entire civilian populations are never justified. This still doesn't invalidate the
American cause in WWII just as Japanese suffering doesn't validate their cause.
> And this makes all of the "of course they would have surrenderd" arguements suspect to the
> authorities of the time. Japanese soldiers had fought to the death in nearly every theatre,
> they had fought at Okinawa to the point that nearly 1/3rd of the civilian population had died,
> and there was no reason to believe that they'd either surrender or not fight for Japan.
> Waiting, by all accounts was never even considered by the allies, and invasion would have been
> very dangerous-- I have read some accounts, although I cannot vouch for them or even provide
> cites (this was back in 1986), the claimed that Downfall might have also involved the use of
> chemical weapons, and in any case, a full scale invasion would have killed quite as many as the
> bomb.
This still doesn't justify wholesale massacre of civilian populations. And, we speak with the
benefit of hindsight. We know Japan did surrender. But, Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima. So,
wasn't that a false calculation and estimate? After Nagasaki, Japan did surrender. But, suppose
Japanese were as fanatical and crazy and dedicated to dying to the last person as American experts
had claimed. Suppose Japan hadn't surrendered after Nagasaki? Then we would have great many killed
for no purpose. Then, what's next? Do you keep nuking Japanese cities until everyone's dead or til
the Japanese government finally surrenders? Dropping those nukes was a risk and no guarantee that
Japan would surrender, if indeed, the argument was Japanese were willing to die to the last man and
woman. Why would such people fear the prospect of total annihilation? So, if Japan didn't surrender
after Nagasaki, what would you have done? Drop one on Osaka? If no surrender, then drop another on
Nigata, and so on and so on? Would you ever reach a point where you would consider conditional
surrender or ceasefire or would you nuke every town and city until finally some surviving village
elder surrendered?
>
> And more importantly, if Japan was so flat on their back, why didn't they surrender? The
> prapartions being made were for an all out attack on the allied forces, and the rightests were
> quite open in teir belief that ten million Japanese with bamboo spears and suicide bombs could
> throw us back.
Pride. For the same reason that the Confederates fought long and hard even when it became quite
certain that the Union was going to win. Ever see boxers all beaten up and helpless but still trying
to stand though they don't have a punch left in them? Also, if Japanese resistance to the Allies
amounted to bamboo spears and suicide bombs, then surely invasion should have been the option. Some
resistance! Some village women with a bamboo spear! Americans nuked Japan because American soldiers
were afraid of women and chilren with bamboo spears?
> if the U.S. bears any blame for Hiroshima, what about those officers, who were quite willing
> to throw their entire population onto the fire, long after it was plain to anyone with eyes
> that the war was over, and lost? If you blame the U.S. for killing Japan, you cannot then
> excuse the Japanese Imperial government for sacrificing those self same lives-- we had no
> responsiblity to protect Japanese lives, they did.
Japanese were savage, brutal, and insane. They started the war in Asia and broadened it to US. Japan
deserved to lose its empire and have its military destoryed and be isolated from world community.
All these things could have been accomplished without nukes and unconditional surrender.
In hindsight, US should have sent its main force against Japanese forces in China. US should have
secured China from Japan and then from Communists. US should have left Japan simmering in its
destruction, humiliation, and isolation. Those objectives were met prior to the nuking of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. It sure would have saved US from wars in Korea and Vietnam.
