MacAurthur
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Really strange
Hi, The Japanese (and for a time the Germans) thought themselves to be ahead of the US in research and development!!! They thought thay had a several year (40-41) headstart. There was an article (Atlanta Constituion) where a Japanese Naval Officer claimed to have been in charge of security for Japans first testing of an atomic explosive device off the coast of Korea in late 44 early 45 I don't recall. I don't believe they have anyother 'eyewittness' to such an event. What is scary to me is the remaining records from the 2 separte groups reveal they had each made progress or breakthroughs in areas the other had not. They did not share their research so each spent time on problems the other had already solved. No evidence survived the attack on Hirosima in AUG 45 but diary from someone working in that city hint that there was a working reactor (very small one) The US built a working reactor during the War using parts from distillery equipmet! The Japanese certainly could have done the same. (North Korea has also built one using this idea) (I am skeptical concerning this matter but the basic theroy was well known prior to the out break of war. ) I would quess there were people working along these lines in many countries with various degrees of progress.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Originally posted by mdiehl
"the war crimes against the people being held this very day at the US base in Cuba"
????
It's really amusing hearing you defend Japan's WW2 record on treatment of POWs while at the same accusing the US of "war crimes" for housing Taliban/Al Qaida prisoners in Cuba in sanitary conditions with light, running water, shelter from the elements, excellent medical care, and meals politically sensitized to their religious customs.
Please read this carefully and slowly:
I am not defending the Japanese as you accuse me.
Note the use of the negative.
My position is actually slightly more complex than the two-value moral values you seem only able to cope with. I... oh, forget it.
tohoku
YMMV
I'm very skeptical about any claims of how close the Germans or the Japanese might have been to a working a-bomb, in the light of the present day.
Its been been 57 years, give or take, from Hiroshima/Nagasaki and yet there are still only a handful of nations with confirmed working nuclear devices at present. (US, China, USSR, GB, France, India, Pakistan | Highly probable; Israel, South Afrika | Suspect; Iran, North Korea)
Common sense would seem to dictate that any nation who wanted too could develop nuclear capability, yet this is not the case, even after 57 years.
This leads me to conclude that if nations that are not being bombed, short of resources and basically fighting for their very survival can not, in 57 years, develop nuclear capability then it is very unlikely that nations who were(Germany and Japan) could.
Which brings some actual legitimate questions to mind for this WITP forum;
1. Are nuclear weapons being modeled for WITP?
2. If so, only for the US or can either side attempt to develop them?
Its been been 57 years, give or take, from Hiroshima/Nagasaki and yet there are still only a handful of nations with confirmed working nuclear devices at present. (US, China, USSR, GB, France, India, Pakistan | Highly probable; Israel, South Afrika | Suspect; Iran, North Korea)
Common sense would seem to dictate that any nation who wanted too could develop nuclear capability, yet this is not the case, even after 57 years.
This leads me to conclude that if nations that are not being bombed, short of resources and basically fighting for their very survival can not, in 57 years, develop nuclear capability then it is very unlikely that nations who were(Germany and Japan) could.
Which brings some actual legitimate questions to mind for this WITP forum;
1. Are nuclear weapons being modeled for WITP?
2. If so, only for the US or can either side attempt to develop them?
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"
Clan [GOAT]
Clan [GOAT]
Originally posted by TIMJOT
I think it much more plausible that Japan could have fielded biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction before it could have successfully developed an A-bomb.
Does anyone else out there really hate the use of the term 'weapons of mass destruction'?
Does anybody out there think it is *anything* other than an emotive term for political spin doctors and politicians, used in order to justify whatever scheme they've recently hatched to boost themselves another two points on the polls?
tohoku
YMMV
I can't say I understand your point about the politicians, but there does need to be some term in our lexicon that describes a single weapon that is designed to kill thousands or millions of people with one use. "Weapon of Mass Destruction" fits the bill pretty well. The "destruction" part isn't necessarily accurate, given radiological, chemical, and biologic weapons that actually don't destroy anything other than lives.
What is your problem with the term, Tohoku?
What is your problem with the term, Tohoku?
"My position is actually slightly more complex than the two-value moral values you seem only able to cope with. I... oh, forget it."
One last cheap shot for the road?
Re: "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does seem to liguistically sanitize hell-on-earth. A while ago, everybody called them NBCs (nuclear-biological-chemical).
One last cheap shot for the road?
Re: "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does seem to liguistically sanitize hell-on-earth. A while ago, everybody called them NBCs (nuclear-biological-chemical).
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
another book to recommend
tohoku - I enjoy reading your posts and hope you will continue to comment on this and other subjects.
I am currently reading "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan"
by Herbert P. Bix and it provides some insight into the China Incident and the war plans leading to PH.
I am currently reading "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan"
by Herbert P. Bix and it provides some insight into the China Incident and the war plans leading to PH.
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
Originally posted by byron13
I can't say I understand your point about the politicians, but there does need to be some term in our lexicon that describes a single weapon that is designed to kill thousands or millions of people with one use. "Weapon of Mass Destruction" fits the bill pretty well. The "destruction" part isn't necessarily accurate, given radiological, chemical, and biologic weapons that actually don't destroy anything other than lives.
What is your problem with the term, Tohoku?
I think it's inaccurate, or at the least, misleading. The older term when lumping these weapons together, as someone else said, was simply "NBC" - Nuclear, Biological ad Chemical.
My main objection is the uses to which the term is put. It isn't accurate (most chemical or biological weapons are pretty inefficient and very localised in effect), and the term is almost always used in a manner that means the user of the term and their listeners don't have to think anything through - use the term, automatically 'justify' whatever it is you're wanting to justify; look at Bush and Blair and how they're dropping the term into statements in order to condition the public for military action against Iraq)).
It's a very '1984-esque' public management/manipulation phrase, IMO. It makes for a good sound bite, but nothing else.
tohoku
YMMV
Originally posted by mdiehl
"My position is actually slightly more complex than the two-value moral values you seem only able to cope with. I... oh, forget it."
One last cheap shot for the road?
No, I honestly think, from what I've read of yours here, that you really do have trouble coping with anything other than two value moral systems. I apologies if I phrased it badly.
I also can't be bothered longer struggling with the English to try and explain this when so many people here either mis-read me or deliberately mis-represent me (ranger75 springs to mind here). I know full well that my English is pretty reasonable (unless I'm tired!) most of the time, so it's not simply that my writing is difficult to read.
I'm not expecting people to agree with me, but it would be nice if they at least had the intellectual curiosity to explore other positions.
As I have said several times, I think history is made up of facts and motivations. It is important, when making pronouncments about history, to seperate the facts from the motivations. IMO, history is *mostly* about exploring motivations. As such, and given imperfect knowledge of motivations, mulitple interpretations are often equally valid. History isn't interesting because "Japan attacked the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour." History is interesting because of questions like "*Why* did Japan attack the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour?"
I'm just waiting for somebody to start throwing the 'revisionist' label about... ;-(
tohoku
YMMV
I still don't get it. I think the term weapon of mass destruction is used to encompass all three NBC components and could also be used, without modification, to incorporate other weapons with similar effects if and when they are developed. I also think the term is used when either all three are intended or when it doesn't matter which combination of the three you intend to cover. When dealing with the public, the term is probably better because it's something the public understands better than, say, a chemical weapon or, prior to 911, a biological weapon. I don't think it's used to create an enlarged sense of capacity to destroy or to create hysteria.
I also believe the term is effective because it denotes that one weapon, system, or whatever can kill a large number of people. These weapons are not like a bomb, bullet, grenade, or similar weapon where the lethal radius is limited to yards of the impact. A grenade or C-4 packet goes boom, and anyone within a certain radius is dead, and there's nothing you can do about it. But weapons of mass destruction can have a kill radius of miles and, with biological weapons, the kill radius is unlimited. Another difference, at least with chemical and biological weapons, some steps can be taken to reduce its affect after the weapon has been discharged. I see a big difference between the killing capacity of a suitcase full of C4 and a suitcase with a nuclear device, or a suitcase sized container of chemical or biological agents "detonated" at altitude.
Contrary to what you say, I don't feel either chemical or biological weapons are ineffective or necessarily localized. Nonpersistent chemicals are localized but, if used properly can still kill hundreds. Persistent chemicals are localized as far as the world turning, but can be delivered over an area with an effective radius of, what?, a hundred yards or so? In a large city that could be hundreds or thousands of lives initially and then more as rescue units arrive on the scene oblivious to the problem. Biological weapons are effectively unlimited in their radius. You may not buy into the Smallpox problem, but I do. Given a long enough latency period, and it is extremely difficult to arrest. And no question what effect a nuclear device would have.
Let's not confuse the amatuerish attempts of groups like Aum Shin Rikyo puncturing a bag with an umbrella or the limited delivery of the fall 2001 anthrax attacks with the capacity of Russia, the United States, and other countries to prepare high grade, functional delivery systems optimized after testing to be as effective as possible. If the anthrax attacker had not used such a limited delivery system (a high-tech envelope?) and the U.S. had not been on the lookout for anthrax, he/she probably could have killed at least a hundred people.
So, I still don't see what the problem is. It is necessarily a generic term, but is used when it is appropriate. All three have the potential to kill more people over a wider area than a conventional weapon. That's a weapon of mass destruction. Tell me there is a hand grenade set to go off in my city in one hour, and I'm not too worried. Tell me there's a weapon of mass destruction set to go off in my city, and it doesn't matter to me which of the NBC trio it is, I'm very worried.
If you think Bush has thought things through better or is more justified in attacking Iraq if he says that they have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capability, fine. It doesn't change the equation for me. At the levels of government that matter, they distinguish between the weapons. At the public level, you cannot convince me that anyone cares or should care.
I also believe the term is effective because it denotes that one weapon, system, or whatever can kill a large number of people. These weapons are not like a bomb, bullet, grenade, or similar weapon where the lethal radius is limited to yards of the impact. A grenade or C-4 packet goes boom, and anyone within a certain radius is dead, and there's nothing you can do about it. But weapons of mass destruction can have a kill radius of miles and, with biological weapons, the kill radius is unlimited. Another difference, at least with chemical and biological weapons, some steps can be taken to reduce its affect after the weapon has been discharged. I see a big difference between the killing capacity of a suitcase full of C4 and a suitcase with a nuclear device, or a suitcase sized container of chemical or biological agents "detonated" at altitude.
Contrary to what you say, I don't feel either chemical or biological weapons are ineffective or necessarily localized. Nonpersistent chemicals are localized but, if used properly can still kill hundreds. Persistent chemicals are localized as far as the world turning, but can be delivered over an area with an effective radius of, what?, a hundred yards or so? In a large city that could be hundreds or thousands of lives initially and then more as rescue units arrive on the scene oblivious to the problem. Biological weapons are effectively unlimited in their radius. You may not buy into the Smallpox problem, but I do. Given a long enough latency period, and it is extremely difficult to arrest. And no question what effect a nuclear device would have.
Let's not confuse the amatuerish attempts of groups like Aum Shin Rikyo puncturing a bag with an umbrella or the limited delivery of the fall 2001 anthrax attacks with the capacity of Russia, the United States, and other countries to prepare high grade, functional delivery systems optimized after testing to be as effective as possible. If the anthrax attacker had not used such a limited delivery system (a high-tech envelope?) and the U.S. had not been on the lookout for anthrax, he/she probably could have killed at least a hundred people.
So, I still don't see what the problem is. It is necessarily a generic term, but is used when it is appropriate. All three have the potential to kill more people over a wider area than a conventional weapon. That's a weapon of mass destruction. Tell me there is a hand grenade set to go off in my city in one hour, and I'm not too worried. Tell me there's a weapon of mass destruction set to go off in my city, and it doesn't matter to me which of the NBC trio it is, I'm very worried.
If you think Bush has thought things through better or is more justified in attacking Iraq if he says that they have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capability, fine. It doesn't change the equation for me. At the levels of government that matter, they distinguish between the weapons. At the public level, you cannot convince me that anyone cares or should care.
I agree with you here.....some people are unwilling to even explore the "flip-side", which is a pity...but as you know, even after reading what you have to say, I don't agree with all of the possitions that you are putting forward....but at least I will consider first before rejecting out of hand. What a poor and boring place this would be if we all agreed with each other!Originally posted by tohoku
I'm not expecting people to agree with me, but it would be nice if they at least had the intellectual curiosity to explore other positions.
As I have said several times, I think history is made up of facts and motivations. It is important, when making pronouncments about history, to seperate the facts from the motivations. IMO, history is *mostly* about exploring motivations. As such, and given imperfect knowledge of motivations, mulitple interpretations are often equally valid. History isn't interesting because "Japan attacked the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour." History is interesting because of questions like "*Why* did Japan attack the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour?"
I'm just waiting for somebody to start throwing the 'revisionist' label about... ;-(
And another way of saying this is that there is "no such thing as an absolute truth".
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Tohoku, friend, I think you're going to get a earful on your last post. Motivation is interesting, but facts are reality. You picked the best example possible: Pearl Harbor. I personally don't have much trouble with that attack (nor does Raverdave, it appears), and I'm sure you can justify why the attack occurred.
The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes. In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank. The act itself is the culpable thing as it the result (regardless of motivation) injures society or, as we've been discussing, humanity.
Likewise: Why did Japan rape Nanking? Why did Japan use Korean comfort women? The motivation simply cannot justify the result, and I don't see where there is an "equally valid interpretation." But, I don't really want to argue this one; I'll let someone else light you up.
The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes. In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank. The act itself is the culpable thing as it the result (regardless of motivation) injures society or, as we've been discussing, humanity.
Likewise: Why did Japan rape Nanking? Why did Japan use Korean comfort women? The motivation simply cannot justify the result, and I don't see where there is an "equally valid interpretation." But, I don't really want to argue this one; I'll let someone else light you up.
Originally posted by byron13
The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes. In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank. The act itself is the culpable thing as it the result (regardless of motivation) injures society or, as we've been discussing, humanity.
I'm not sure that is the case. I'm certain it isn't the actual case in many places - considerations of why *do* feature in judgements. Mitigating aspects do, IMO, matter, both morally and, in any sane country, legally.
The example I think I posted earlier in the thread (of not being responsible for failing to jump into a river and save a drowning child if you yourself can't swim) makes that point, I think. Where the problem comes in is that some people seem to be jumping from "I think it is wrong" to "It's a war crime" and then refusing to reconsider the second statement when presented with new or contrary evidence. They end up replying, "But X doesn't matter, because Y is a war crime", when X is actually appealling to the *first* step in the process. And I'm sure I could have said that more clearly.
Perhaps my position comes down to the idea that I don't think rules should *ever* be absolute. Absolute rules invariably lead to gross injustices, reduction in freedom and tyranny IMO.
Ah, perhaps I *was* unclear in my explanation: I wasn't trying to suggest that it is *always* the case that motivation explains or absolves. Just that it bears looking into to see if it is relevant *in that instance*.Likewise: Why did Japan rape Nanking? Why did Japan use Korean comfort women? The motivation simply cannot justify the result, and I don't see where there is an "equally valid interpretation." But, I don't really want to argue this one; I'll let someone else light you up.
The Nanking Incident is where I would agree with you Japan*does* bear responsibility for what happened. But, to pick another example, I don't think, say, beheading is anything to get upset over. (Before anybody starts, I'm talking about the act, not the reason for the act (oh, I just *know* I'm asking for trouble mentioning this... (I find beheading a lot less distasteful than hanging or (speaking of torture) electrocuting them))).
I think I'll stop this post right here.
tohoku
YMMV
-
bradfordkay
- Posts: 8686
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
"The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes.In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank."
Yeah, but if you did it as part of a fraternity prank, daddy's money is probably going to keep you out of prison.
Yeah, but if you did it as part of a fraternity prank, daddy's money is probably going to keep you out of prison.
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
Beheading vrs hanging
Hi, It's a culture issue, while beheading is likely less painfull (certainly quicker) Westerners would prefer to suffer and keep their head attached.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I must disagree, at least in part, with the venerable Mogami - I'd say it depends on the competence (and intent) of the executioner. A botched beheading, in which the executioner requires several whacks to sever the head, is little faster and no less painful than a botched hanging which results in death by strangulation; a well-executed hanging (pun intended) snaps the neck and kills as quickly as anything.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
My main problem with your analogy is that in this instance (to carry your analogy further) Japan was the one who threw the baby in the river in the first place!:eek:Originally posted by tohoku
I'm not sure that is the case. I'm certain it isn't the actual case in many places - considerations of why *do* feature in judgements. Mitigating aspects do, IMO, matter, both morally and, in any sane country, legally.
The example I think I posted earlier in the thread (of not being responsible for failing to jump into a river and save a drowning child if you yourself can't swim) makes that point, I think. Where the problem comes in is that some people seem to be jumping from "I think it is wrong" to "It's a war crime" and then refusing to reconsider the second statement when presented with new or contrary evidence. They end up replying, "But X doesn't matter, because Y is a war crime", when X is actually appealling to the *first* step in the process. And I'm sure I could have said that more clearly.
Perhaps my position comes down to the idea that I don't think rules should *ever* be absolute. Absolute rules invariably lead to gross injustices, reduction in freedom and tyranny IMO.
tohoku
YMMV
In that case it wouldn't matter if you were Mark Spitz or Natalie Wood. You were still wrong and your swimming ability is irrelavent.
I'm not for absolutes either, but where I come from, of you allow subordinates to commit war crimes, you as the leader can be held responsible for their actions. That's what I've been trying to pound into this discussion. The Japanese government & populace have avoided "owining up" to their actions, regardless of any motivations, for their part in starting the war and the conduct of their forces both overseas and on the home islands. I'm sure everybody is aware that after the 2nd wartime boom after the emprorer practically ordered the cabinet to surrender (in a typically Japanese roundabout way) there was a plot to take over the government and, if necessary, execute Hirohito. They actually killed several senior leaders and were getting set to move on the palace. It was only real quick action from some unusually level headed senior Japanese officers that headed off the attempted coup.
The US JCS & Allied CCS were very concerned that Japanese would ignore the first "real drop". It turns out they were right, several hard liners in the Japanese Army said the US was "bluffing" that they "had no more a-bombs" after the first two were dropped. The US was still months away from completing and delivering the next batch of bombs. So that's why they dropped both on built up areas, after warning that not to surrender would bring "prompt and utter destruction".
I also dislkie the term weapons of mass destruction, especially when they try to make an airliner a "WMD" total bullsh!t.
Nowdays, a school kid can get charged with bringing a "weapon" to school by merely bringing a nail file to class. that's another crock. So you see, I an not the black & white pseron some folks are trying to make me out to be.
to RaverDave:
I've noticed LOTS of Aussies at CENTCOM in recent months. Glad to have your help.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
That's largely my point: some here are making the accusations based, effectively, on the inability to swim, not the throwing it in in the first place. I'd also suggest that it was the case that the US was the one egging Japan to throw it in the first place. Blame goes all round on this on.Originally posted by Ranger-75
My main problem with your analogy is that in this instance (to carry your analogy further) Japan was the one who threw the baby in the river in the first place!:eek:
In that case it wouldn't matter if you were Mark Spitz or Natalie Wood. You were still wrong and your swimming ability is irrelavent.
To return from the analogy, many people here are simply parotting 'the victors version of history' instead of engagaing in discussion when presented with views that threaten their world-view.
"Can" /= "should in all circumstances".I'm not for absolutes either, but where I come from, of you allow subordinates to commit war crimes, you as the leader can be held responsible for their actions. That's what I've been trying to pound into this discussion.
*That's* what you, like some others here, seem unable to grasp or accept. *I'm* saying that attitude cuts both ways. *You* don't seem to like the idea of the US (as a nation) accepting *anything* that might threaten the 'we saved the world and were lily-white pure while doing it' image the US, and some here, likes to think of itself.
You keep saying that as if it is an article of faith!The Japanese government & populace have avoided "owining up" to their actions, regardless of any motivations, for their part in starting the war and the conduct of their forces both overseas and on the home islands.
I've suggested repeatedly that they *have* faced up to certain things and are/will, over time, deal with others. Whenever I mention that I only get a chorus of what amounts to, "But we want it done *our* way or not at all!"
Some people here (well, let's be honest: Americans) seem unabale to cope with the idea that Japan, as a non-judeoxtian country with an insular history stretching back several thousand years, just isn't going to act the same way as Germany when it comes to dealing with it's past. Expecting it to bow and scape and what-not in the same way is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance, IMO.
<sigh>I'm sure everybody is aware that after the 2nd wartime boom after the emprorer practically ordered the cabinet to surrender (in a typically Japanese roundabout way) there was a plot to take over the government and, if necessary, execute Hirohito. They actually killed several senior leaders and were getting set to move on the palace. It was only real quick action from some unusually level headed senior Japanese officers that headed off the attempted coup.
Yes, there was a coup attempt. It failed. Why did it fail? Because the majority of those with power were, at that point, doing as they were told and *not* on the side of the plotters.
Even if the attempt had achieved it's immediate aims (take over the organs of government) it would have failed shortly thereafter: the majority of the Navy factions had control of more military forces on the ground (and far more powerful forces, too) in Japan at that point than the plotting Army factions did.
So, yes, you bring up another historical fact (there was a coup attempt in the offing), but you then go on, as I've kept suggesting, to place it out of any context (it was doomed to failure for the reasons I mention above) and/or ascribe motivations or draw conclusions for your argument that simply aren't warrented.
I'm sorry, but I can't make the same leap of faith you do to the conclusion of the Japanese being a nation of suicidal warmongering automotons which is what, essntially, your view requires in order to be plausible. I think things and the multitude of people involved were more complex than that. *That's* why I'm very wary of levelling moral accusations with regards to historical events.
That's one of the most awful peices of rationalisation I've heard in a long time. They were dropped for three reasons. To see what they did to people, to scare the Russians and to prompt the Japanese to surrender. (Hastings makes some interesting comments and quotes original sources in his book on the Korean war on this point)The US JCS & Allied CCS were very concerned that Japanese would ignore the first "real drop". It turns out they were right, several hard liners in the Japanese Army said the US was "bluffing" that they "had no more a-bombs" after the first two were dropped. The US was still months away from completing and delivering the next batch of bombs. So that's why they dropped both on built up areas, after warning that not to surrender would bring "prompt and utter destruction".
Look at the conflicting proposals for targets. At one point the Kwantung Army was going to be targetted - it would serve to demonstrate the power of the weapon, better scare the Russians and avoid civilian casualties. That proposal lost out for the simple reasons that the US wasn't sure the weapons would actually work and they wouldn't be able to check the results as quickly. Ending the war through their use was low on the list of aims.
The Allies could have simply stood back and continued to blockading Japan - no invasion was needed, the country had effectively collapsed.
If the US had not issued the stupid unconditional surrender demand the war would have finished in August 1945 anyway: the Japanese had already asked the Allies (through the Swiss, in July) for a surrender on the sole condition that the Emperor wasn't tried.
But, as I said way back near the start of the thread, the US isn't a country that is willing to acknowledge errors in the way it demands other countries do, is it? Bush is proving that yet again with his equally stupid, "You're either with us or against us" position viz terrorism. The older Bush demonstrated it too with his, "What we say, goes." declaration following the Gulf War.
tohoku
YMMV
...will, over time, deal with others... Expecting (Japan) to bow and scape and what-not... is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance
It's not the Americans you need to convince - it's your Asian neighbors you should be worried about. Until Official Japan does issue a proper apology, the atrocities committed against the subject populations "liberated" into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere during the 1930's and 40's will continue to hang over your every dealing with the rest of Asia - even if you don't realize it, your neighbors do. Expecting them to just shrug it off until you're good and ready to address the issue is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance.
The Allies could have simply stood back and continued to blockading Japan - no invasion was needed, the country had effectively collapsed.
Perhaps we could have. But how many tens of millions of Japanese would have starved to death before the Suzuki Cabinet admitted that there was going to be no "Decisive Battle," no last chance for Japan to extract better terms by managing one more military victory? Not to mention the >100,000 subjugated "brother Asians" dying each month on the mainland under Japanese rule. Adding in the relatively small numbers of Allied servicemen who would have died enforcing the blockade seems anticlimactic in comparison, though this was, as was proper, the major concern of Allied leaders.
the Japanese had already asked the Allies (through the Swiss, in July) for a surrender
That bit of modern "common knowledge" is simply incorrect. Two military officers in Bern, Switzerland (Fujimura from the Navy and Okamoto from the Army), plus one in Stockholm, Sweden (Onodera, Army) separately made overtures to the Allies on their own initiative, but they all failed to discuss concrete terms and each was quickly reined in by his superiors. The Suzuki government did not offer terms; they were too busy burning up the airwaves with calls for a fight to the end, with the idea that national extinction was preferable to survival if that required surrender. Franks' Downfall, which I believe was previously mentioned in this thread, is a very good source for this period, with extensive use of original sources including MAGIC and ULTRA intercepts of Japanese diplomatic and military radio transmissions.
leap of faith ... to the conclusion of the Japanese being a nation of suicidal warmongering automotons
It's really not so much of a leap. Certainly in 1945 it looked likely enough - at every stage of the Pacific War, Japanese forces refused to surrender and had to be virtually annihilated - POWs amounted to <5% of forces committed. On Saipan, thousands of civilians jumped to their deaths rather than surrender to oncoming US troops. And let's not forget the lovely notion of the Special Attack, including the extensive plans to use Special Attack tactics on land, sea, and in the air against the expected Allied invasion of Kyushu. There is one thing your little litany misses, though; "brainwashed suicidal warmongering automatons" is rather closer to the mark.
It's not the Americans you need to convince - it's your Asian neighbors you should be worried about. Until Official Japan does issue a proper apology, the atrocities committed against the subject populations "liberated" into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere during the 1930's and 40's will continue to hang over your every dealing with the rest of Asia - even if you don't realize it, your neighbors do. Expecting them to just shrug it off until you're good and ready to address the issue is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance.
The Allies could have simply stood back and continued to blockading Japan - no invasion was needed, the country had effectively collapsed.
Perhaps we could have. But how many tens of millions of Japanese would have starved to death before the Suzuki Cabinet admitted that there was going to be no "Decisive Battle," no last chance for Japan to extract better terms by managing one more military victory? Not to mention the >100,000 subjugated "brother Asians" dying each month on the mainland under Japanese rule. Adding in the relatively small numbers of Allied servicemen who would have died enforcing the blockade seems anticlimactic in comparison, though this was, as was proper, the major concern of Allied leaders.
the Japanese had already asked the Allies (through the Swiss, in July) for a surrender
That bit of modern "common knowledge" is simply incorrect. Two military officers in Bern, Switzerland (Fujimura from the Navy and Okamoto from the Army), plus one in Stockholm, Sweden (Onodera, Army) separately made overtures to the Allies on their own initiative, but they all failed to discuss concrete terms and each was quickly reined in by his superiors. The Suzuki government did not offer terms; they were too busy burning up the airwaves with calls for a fight to the end, with the idea that national extinction was preferable to survival if that required surrender. Franks' Downfall, which I believe was previously mentioned in this thread, is a very good source for this period, with extensive use of original sources including MAGIC and ULTRA intercepts of Japanese diplomatic and military radio transmissions.
leap of faith ... to the conclusion of the Japanese being a nation of suicidal warmongering automotons
It's really not so much of a leap. Certainly in 1945 it looked likely enough - at every stage of the Pacific War, Japanese forces refused to surrender and had to be virtually annihilated - POWs amounted to <5% of forces committed. On Saipan, thousands of civilians jumped to their deaths rather than surrender to oncoming US troops. And let's not forget the lovely notion of the Special Attack, including the extensive plans to use Special Attack tactics on land, sea, and in the air against the expected Allied invasion of Kyushu. There is one thing your little litany misses, though; "brainwashed suicidal warmongering automatons" is rather closer to the mark.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.