Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2002 4:37 am
by Sabre21
Hi all..I guess it's time to add my 2 cents worth:)

Pasternakski brings up very good points about seeing history thru the eyes of those that lived it. It's hard for us today to imagine that the Japanese could really have threatened the US..especially by conducting a west coast invasion. But the people in those days believed it was a reality. My mom too tells me of what it was like on the west coast during the war and how everyone feared the Japs were gonna attack. This attitude was pretty predominant in the beginning, I'm sure by 44 that the invasion paranoia had passed though. Also, if you look at the pacific war movies that were made during that time, by today's standards, they were very racsist, almost to the point of being comical...but again...that was the prevailing mentality of the time. The "kill or be killed" attitude was the norm.

My dad fought as an infantryman with the 24 ID during the war and was at PH when the Japs bombed it, fought in the latter stages of the N Guinea operation and on into the Philipines and then as occupational forces in Japan till 48. He adored Mac Arthur, according to him, there was nothing that guy couldn't do wrong, and for me to mention otherwise would cause him to roll over in his grave:) He had a very good diary he kept of his days overseas, and it's interesting to see what life was like thru his eyes. He mentions how prisoners were never taken by either side and how no quarter was given or expected during the fighting (We know pow's were taken by both sides at times, but these are his experiences). He goes on to say how on several occasions they came across buddies of theirs that had been hacked to pieces after they had been taken, in one case the front half of their feet cut off and then forced to run thru the jungle, things like this can definitly harden your attitude. His outlook then versus what it was like during the occupation was in sharp contrast to one another. You would almost think it was a different person doing the writing. As I grew up, even though my dad was a very prejudicial person, he never once spoke ill of the Japanese, he had even stated on many occasions how he liked the Japanese people a lot and wished he could go back there. It's pretty obvious that his exposure to the Japanese civilian post war population had changed his outlook compared to his experience during the jungle fighting.

As for dropping the atomic bombs, they were used to stop the war...to try and knock some sense into the Japanese leadership on the folly of continuing the war. Even then it took two of them to do this...fortunately for us, that was all we had at the time, but the Japanese didn't know that. Sure they were intended to kill people...but war kills people..and the bombs were but a tool to accomplish that task. But in the bigger picture, it was a political statement to stop the war now or face complete destruction. Heck, the fire bombings caused many more casualties than the Atomic bombs ever did, and the Japanese were determined to continue the war despite this. The psychological effect of a single weapon doing so much damage stopped the war and saved probably millions of casualties that an invasion would have caused.

Ok...so you got a nickel's worth:)

Andy

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2002 6:06 am
by Ranger-75
Originally posted by U2


Hi

Actually Japan's post war economic succes was due to its military industrial complex which had allready build the foundation. It was just a simple matter of restarting it for civilian use after the war. For sure the American presence and the Korean War helped but it just does not explain everything. For the best post war Japan book, according to me, read John W. Dower's Embracing Defeat

There are two fields of study in this matter and one I have just explained and the other is the "because of USA" explenation. That one is just way too simple and is somewhat racist since it takes away credit from the Japanese.

Dan
That and the fact that the last official act of the wartime japanese gov't was to authorize payments in the billions of yen to the large indusrtrial comglomerates which ensured their survival in the coming occupation.

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2002 6:42 am
by Jeremy Pritchard
Inchon could very well have been another Market Garden. However, the sign of a good commander is their willingness to take risks. MacArthur was a good tactical and strategic commander at times, such as Inchon, and developing Island hopping tactics. However, when he went wrong, he really went wrong. He became too political, which was his ruin. He confused loyalty to the United States from his (an appointed military leader) impression of what was good for the nation, and what the President (an elected official) thought was good for the nation as two different things. He made the Korean war last way longer than it should have by getting China involved, and could have very well started WW3 through his recklessness.

Basically, you have to determine his total worth through comparing his good and bad points and deciding wich better represents his character.