The issues with Japan were many. And as had been learned after World War I, unless the surrender is unconditional, the same problems will continue or get worse, and you will have an even worse war in the future. The society of Japan was very different then that it is today. And the closest modern comparison I can think of is Fanatical Fundamental Islam. Remember, this was a nation where the Emperor was not only the Emperor, he was a God. And the national religion of Shinto was Emperor Worship. To die in the service of the Emperor was the ultimate honor for anybody, civilian or warrior. So you had the vast majority of a society willing to die for the Emperor. And the sad part is, the Emperor at this time had no power. Kind of like modern UK, the Emperor "Reigned, but did not rule". He was essentially a figurehead that was called upon by the real leaders for inspiration. The real control of Japan was in reality the "Taisei Yokusankai", or "Imperial Rule Assistance Association". This was essentially a Fascist cabal of high political, military and industrial leaders who actually ran the country at that time. They are the ones that planned, orchestrated, and eventually started the war. Since the Emperor did not rule, this was the group that actually ran the country. And it really was a Japanese version of European Fascism. Even to the point that all youth organizations were absorbed into the national "Yokusan Sonendan", or "Imperial Rule Assistance Young Men's Corps". And much like the fall of Berlin, the members of this group recieved military training, including the use of anti-tank weapons, mortars, and small arms to assist in the defense of Japan to the last man. During most of the war they worked closely with the Kempeitai (essentially the Japanese Gestapo) to find "subersives" and "defeatists", even encouraged to turn in their own family members if they thought the war was lost. And at the end, the Imperial Rule Assistance Young Men's Corps was disbanded and absorbed into the Volunteer Fighting Corps, for the final defense of the homeland. Just like part of the German Surrender had to be unconditional to root out the Nazi Party, the surrender of Japan had to be unconditional to root out the Taisei Yokusankai. Because this is the real (little known) organization that planned and executed the War in the Pacific. And it was the leader of the nation, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki that in response to the Potsdam Declaration, refused any form of surrender. In fact, his words were that the declaration should be "killed with silence". And that through the backchannel talks with other nations like the Soviets, that they were only willing to accept a status quo ante bellum. This is why unconditional surrender was required. Because anything else would have left the ruling power in place, and only accomplish superficial change.
Thanks for the nod Herk. It is hard for modern "Westerners" to really understand Japan. The 2 closest things I can suggest is to think like a Klingon, and to watch "Lost In Translation". This is a culture that honour is everything. To this day, thousands of students commit suicide if they can't get into the college they want. Where the owners of failed businesses regularly commit suicide over the disgrace. Where special barriers have been placed at certain points along rail lines, because they had become prefered suicide points (like at the base of Mount Fuji). And where suicide was such a tradition, that meticulous rites like Seppuku evolved. To be performed properly, the individual needs an assistant. First, they would dress in white robes, then eat a final meal with their sword on the plate. Then they would compose their death poem. One I have seen myself is still visible, written into the wall of the command bunker of Minoru Ōta on Okinawa: How could we rejoice over our birth But to die an honorable death under the Emperor's flag Then they would use their sword to cut their belly open, and if they have the strength to pull their entrals out. And before they die, they are supposed to nod to their assistant and lean forward. The assistant then mostly decapitates them with their own sword, trying to leave the head still attached with a small connection of skin at the throat. And a large number of Officers comitted suicide this way either before the end of battles, or after the Emperor announced the surrender. And people often still use this manner of death. The most recent documented act of Seppuku was done by Isao Inokuma, gold medal winner for Judo in the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. He also authored several prominent books and manuals relating to judo, contributing to the sport's development. He became the CEO of the Tokai company in 1993, but committed suicide in 2001 by means of seppuku, possibly due to the financial losses suffered by his company. He was 63 years old. http://divespell.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html I love Japan, and feel fortunate that I was able to live there for over a year. But I have also seen what is required for them to have a significant change in their culture. It really is a nation of extreams. They can follow their leaders almost blindly, but when that leadership is proven faulty (and with the Emperor's permission) they also turn around and grasp Democracy. And even that acceptance of Democracy is part of Bushido. In most ways, Bushido can essentially be boiled down to "Might makes right". Almost nothing is prohibited, as long as you have the will and power to make it so. And by the Emperor accepting the defeat without suicide, this gave permission to the rest of the nation to do the same. And since Japan was defeated by a Democracy, then obviously that was a superior form of government then their old way, so was easily accepted.
Well, lots of good responses here. Thanks! I can only digress from any WWII US-Japan opinionating and reiterate the point that war leads to nastiness, and every person on this little planet should work to avoid it. Don't let it start in the first place, and don't go gung-ho in favor of it if one does start. The military industrial complex should not be rewarded with repeat business.
Humans don't need war to be nasty, I know lot of nasty little turds I would love to give a good smack to right now.
I think you will see more angry men now more than ever as a result of the "feminization" of men in this country. Gone are the days of having an argument, fighting it out then having a beer after. Now you aren't just separated after a fight, you are arrested.
This is true. We're left to work out frustration in other ways. The sad fact is that fighting is a very real part of our psychology.
Hello Folks, I thought the following would make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Proposition: Under the circumstances of the war in the Pacific in 1945 the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally justified. If the U.S. Military had invaded the Japanese home islands in 1945 America would have suffered tens of thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers. Nobody disagrees with the "tens of thousands" projections and all historical traditionalists (as opposed to the liberal historical revisionists) put the numbers far higher. "Most of our own military leaders thought that our casualities would reach the hundreds of thousands", says Charles D. McGrath, and "Secretary of War Henry Stimson told Truman that our casualties could approach one million." "In June of 1945, General Korechuka Anami, Japan's minister of war,said, 'When the enemy invades, we will destroy 25% of them while they are still at sea, 25% more will be killed on the beaches, the remaining 50% will be killed as they move inland.'" Was this just bold talk for home consumption as well as a strong pep talk for the Japanese military ? The evidence strongly suggests otherwise. "At the time the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan had a two million man army intact in China, and another million men or more scattered across Southeast Asia and on islands we had leap-frogged in the Pacfic. To these men, steeped in bushido~the code of the warrior~surrender was unthinkable." "This deternimed attitude of no surrender held true in the Japanese civilian population as well, where millions of Japanese would come to the army's aid, should an invasion occur. After Paul Tibbets dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, Japan did not surrender. After Charles Sweeney dropped the bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, Japan did not surrender. Several more days passed...before Hirohito and the Supreme Council...decided to surrender. When the Japanese militarists learned of the decesion, they attempted a coup that very nearly succeeded." The to-the-death fighting spirit of the Japanese militarists was by no means diminished. "As astounding as that might seem, the reasoning of the militarists was perfectly rational within their philosophical framework" Their intelligence told them America had no more than one or two atomic bombs remaining, and not understanding the effects of radiation at that time in history, they reasoned that the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was no worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo five months earlier." "Reckoning that Japan could survive one or two more hits, they would then mobilize every man, woman, and youth to contest an American invasion. This was carefully planned under Operation Ketsu-Go. Except for the very young and the very old, all Japanese civilians were organized into a national militia." "The Japanese fortified Kyushu our intended landing site in Operation Olympie, with concrete bunkers and tunnels, and 900,000 troops. Thousands of boys as young as 12 and 13 were practicing running with bombs strapped to their backs. They would hurl themselves at American troops and tanks and gain immortality as earthbound kamikaze." "Japan also had thousands of kamikaze pilots champing at the bit and 13,000 airplanes at the ready. The Navy had more than 3000 small suicide boats packed with 500 pounds of explosives in their bows. There were also some 4,000 Fukuryu, suicide frogmen who would detonate underwater charges as landing craft approached. And considering what had happened on Okinawa, an island that was then not particularly Japanese and had only recently been incorporated into the Japanese Empire, this was no empty boast." Harry Truman was not a "war criminal" in spite of what some of the squishy liberal/progressive revisionist weak-sisters have said. Truman was an American patriot who saved the lives of American soldiers. Japan started the war and Harry Truman finished it." Jack Note: Everything in quotes above is from an article titled "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Roger D. McGrath published in Chronicles Magazine July 2009 I typed the McGrath quotes in by hand. (No link available for the McGrath quotes, you have to be a Chronicles subscriber to access their archives, and I no longer am a subscriber.) PS Victor Davis Hanson, one of America's most distinguished military historians says: "Truman’s supporters countered that, in fact, a blockade and negotiations had not forced the Japanese generals to surrender unconditionally. In their view, a million American casualties and countless Japanese dead were adverted by not storming the Japanese mainland over the next year in the planned two-pronged assault on the mainland, dubbed Operation Coronet and Olympic. For the immediate future there were only two bombs available. Planners thought that using one for demonstration purposes (assuming that it would have worked) might have left the Americans without enough of the new arsenal to shock and awe the Japanese government should it have ridden out the first attack and then become emboldened by a hiatus, and our inability to follow up the attacks. As it was, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Tojo’s followers capitulated only through the intervention of the emperor. And it was not altogether clear even then that Japanese fanatics would not attack the Americans as they steamed into Tokyo Bay for the surrender ceremonies." http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson080505.html
The nuclear bombing of Japan has been discussed in excurciating detail in countless threads on the forums. At this point, most of us don't even bother responding to the people who drop one-liners about it being unjusitifed because 99% of the time they have little historical understanding of the issue or the conflict. I could probably right out a long rebuttal with ample evidence and just copy and paste it every time someone silly brings this up.
Perhaps you would like to respond to this rebuttal then? http://www.politicalforum.com/terrorism/250144-war-3.html#post1061325289
Not only that, often times it is sadly nessicary. When you have so many that place no value on human life that they will round them up and slaughter them wholesale simply because of their religion, colour, or place of birth, there is no way to stop them other then war.
Actually, I would never-ever-ever make that kind of clame. Period. Morally justified? No, that is never the case. However, it was the moral choice since failing to do so would have either left the political infrastructure intact and more then likely led to another war 20 or so years down the line, or cause the lives of over 7 million individuals if a land invasion had been done. Because an acceptable peace treaty with Japan would have left them in control of at least 1/3 of China, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, and many other areas. Instead of making cars and trucks, Mitsubishi would have continued to make war planes, tanks, and ships like the Yamato and Musashi. And Kawasaki would continue to make missiles. And NEC would still be making bomb sights and military radios.
The thing is such incidents are quite low, and fortunately people will jump to war more quickly than other, moral solutions.
That is not a rebuttal, this is yet another long winded copy and paste, which is more political then factual.
"Jump to war"? Yea, I guess we should have just taken Pearl Harbor and 9/11, and just shrugged, saying "we deserved it".
There is a difference between avoiding war for prudence and mortality and avoiding it out of cowardice.
Mushroom, By my "morally justified" I meant your "the moral choice" in light of my "Under the circumstances of the war in the Pacific in 1945" .../Big Grin I do not see a significient difference between an action being: (1) the best moral choice under the circumstances and (2) being morally justified. 'Course, spliting hairs is cool, tis good practice for future lawyers, theologians, philosophers, and keyboard pounders ... /grin In light of your "the moral choice" and the rest of what you wrote, I don't think we have any serious disagreement on the point. You hold that vaporizing many of the people living within Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "the moral choice" in light of the historical reasons you gave.
It's a matter of avoiding the deaths of people who aren't even responsible for instigating the conflict. Modern warfare means some belligerents start a conflict, and suddenly thousands are dying for the cause, often propagandised (=misinformed) into supporting the conflict. Others just sadly get in the way of today's very destructive weapons and other dangers. It's not cowardly to try and avoid all that death, suffering and destruction. It is the human thing to do, and I must reiterate that it is everyone's responsibility. Do not let your leaders start a war. I know that situations come up, though, where war may in fact appear to be the only solution. 9/11, for instance, was very nasty business and deserved a response that would prevent such violence from being repeated. I suppose we're even succeeding at that, so that's good. This is of course assuming that there were no conspiracies on our side or by other, unknown parties to bring that attack about and lay the blame on others who were not responsible for it, and that's a safe assumption right now. Not that 9/11 justified the Iraq invasion. Nothing justified it, in fact, but it remains a "mistake" that we're to believe was a war for "liberation." Then there's talk that it was to have US influence next door to Iran.. People are dying for politics - same old story. How many innocents have had to suffer and die for the violent foolishness of a few? I just want people to work to avoid this.
South-East US. Germany. Turkey. Serbia. Cambodia. Rwanda. Soviet Union. Iraq. Somalia. Sudan. Do I need to go on? I mean, really, do I need to go on? I would hardly call that "quite low".
That is actually a great concept taken directly from Marxist ideology. There it got the term of "Mystification". When individuals become blinded by Patriotism and Ideology, or persue money as opposed to World SOcialism, they are said to be "Mystified". The citizens that cheered as Russia joined the Allies in World War I and joined the Army were said to be "mystified". And the same claim was made by the International Socialists when the National Socialists did the same thing in Germany for WWII. Actually, only a fraction of any nation is actually in uniform. And most others work for the state for a great variety of reasons. Patriotism, family, money, hatred, nationalism, political, the list is almost endless. But most in a nation fight and work for their nation from simple patriotism or survival. A person working in a munitions plant most often wants to produce bombs to attack the enemy, so hopefully they will not be able to shoot at them personally. And that goes for a worker in England, Germany, Japan, or the US. And "propaganda" is a very blury word. For example, let me go back to earlier examples. In 1941 and 2001, the US was attacked. What should the reaction have been? Because all you really have is attack or do nothing. Yea, we tried a third option at first: Turn over OBL and disavow AQ, but that option was refused. And what should the individuals in Kuwait have done when Iraq attacked them without warning? What should the individuals in Iran have done when Iraq attacked without warning? What should the individuals in Israel done when almost every neighbor within 1,000 miles attacked them? What should Poland have done when Germany attacked them? Yes, such statements as you said sound appealing, but it is not reality. It is only a fantasy.
