Jump to content

Hiroshima 1945 - The British Atomic Attack


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We were talking about this some months ago. They were discussing it on 'We have ways' podcast some months ago, there was a unit with jet black painted lancasters operating from an airfield near Oxford that did nothing but train time and distance attacks, and do it incessently, for no apparent reason. They didnt even have unit markings.

 

Whether that is evidence enough for planning for a British atomic attack, im not sure. I think if we were doing it, (and I want to see some official documents to that effect) it was almost certainly in mind with dropping one on Berlin rather than Japan.

 

There is an interesting bit in the TV movie on the Hiroshima attack, where they discuss with Truman that the Lancaster was about the only aircraft that could carry the bomb, and Tibbets pipes up the B29 could do it as well. Truman says that relations with the British are difficult and it would be better if they did it all themselves, or something to the effect. Whether this was based on actual minutes of a meeting, or someone was exercising their fertile imagination, ive no idea.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to slightly derail the thread but this book looks pretty interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/books/review/unconditional-marc-gallicchio.html

 

According to the author, most US people in favor of seeking a conditional surrender were conservative (Japan as bulwark against Russia etc) whereas the unconditional fans were liberals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The surrender conditions were not only up to the US to determine. The Soviets and British had to be satisfied too, and to a lesser extent, the other Allies. There was also the example of 1919 Germany to consider. There was no interest in a twenty year armistice as Foch presciently described Versailles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article by one of the best historians on the matter, about popular misconceptions about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2020/06/09/what-journalists-should-know-about-the-atomic-bombings/

 

Some snippets:

 

 

There was no “decision to use the bomb”
The biggest and most important thing that one ought to know is that there was no “decision to use the atomic bomb” in the sense that the phrase implies. Truman did not weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using the atomic bomb, nor did he see it as a choice between invasion or bombing. This particular “decision” narrative, in which Truman unilaterally decides that the bombing was the lesser of two evils, is a postwar fabrication, developed by the people who used the atomic bomb (notably General Groves and Secretary of War Stimson, but encouraged by Truman himself later) as a way of rationalizing and justifying the bombings in the face of growing unease and criticism about them.
What did happen was far more complicated, multifaceted, and at times chaotic — like most real history. The idea that the bomb would be used was assumed by nearly everyone who was involved in its production at a high level, which did not include Truman (who was excluded until after Roosevelt’s death). There were a few voices against its use, but there were far more people who assumed that it was built to be used. There were many reasons why people wanted it to be used, including ending the war as soon as possible, and very few reasons not to use it. Saving Japanese lives was just not a goal — it was never an elaborate moral calculus of that sort. Rather than one big “decision,” the atomic bombings were the product of a multitude of many smaller decisions and assumptions that stretched back into late 1942, when the Manhattan Project really got started.
It was never a question of “bomb or invade”
Part of the “decision” narrative above is the idea that there were only two choices: use the atomic bombs, or have a bloody land-invasion of Japan. This is another one of those clever rhetorical traps created in the postwar to justify the atomic bombings, and if you accept its framing then you will have a hard time concluding that the atomic bombings were a good idea or not. And maybe that’s how you feel about the bombings — it’s certainly a position one can take — but let’s be clear: this framing is not how the planners at the time saw the issue.
The plan was to bomb and to invade, and to have the Soviet invade, and to blockade, and so on. It was an “everything and the kitchen sink” approach to ending the war with Japan, though there were a few things missing from the “everything,” like modifying the unconditional surrender requirements that the Americans knew (through intercepted communications) were causing the Japanese considerable difficulty in accepting surrender. I’ve written about the possible alternatives to the atomic bombings before, so I won’t go into them in any detail, but I think it’s important to recognize that the way the bombings were done (two atomic bombs on two cities within three days of each other) was not according to some grand plan at all, but because of choices, some very “small scale” (local personnel working on Tinian, with no consultation with the President or cabinet members at all), made by people who could not predict the future.
Link to post
Share on other sites

They also knew from intercepted communications that the claims that Japan was willing to surrender before Nagasaki so long as they had a guarantee the Emperor would not be deposed is false. If any promises to that effect were made after that, they weren't recorded and kept very secret. As far as the record shows, the Allies just didn't say that they would abolish the monarchy.

 

Inconditionsl is somewhat inaccurate. The Allies announced their terms at Potsdam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the debate to drop the bomb is a total non starter. You can debate perceived vs probable in retrospect casualties for Olympic or whatever, but basically the mindset at the time was that we were in Total War, had resigned ourselves to bombing civilians for several years and now we just got a super big bomb. It actually seems like most ww2 historians nowadays kind of think the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of the atomic bombs were war crimes.

 

The ratilnality of them not being war crimes hinges on the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war being entirely on the fault of the Japanese, the start of the Pacific War by PH attack was entirely on the fault of the Japanese, that the Japanese were by nature equvilent to intolerable society like the Nazis, and that the US "had to make Japan surrender" on the unconditional terms.

 

All of those points are false.

 

CKS and KMT had made agreement that kept Japan's Manchuria intack. Japanese northern activities in mid 1930s were for reinforcing the Manchuria area. That was the scope of most interests in China. CKS was on the hunt for the chinese commies. But CKS was betrayed by one of his generals and was kidnapped and brought to the Chinese communists so as to make truce and start war with Japan in Dec 1936.

 

Run up to PH attack is full of the US getting itself involved in China matters, we all know this. If the US created definition of "war criminal" was applied in a non-bias way, then FDR would be a war criminal just like Tojo for being racists and key figure in the escalation towards war. Truman for approving the use of the atomic bombs which was the massacre of mass civilians, that being more at fault than "Class A war criminal" Iwane Matsui for being charged with the Nanking massacre. So the carrier USS Truman going about is really named after a war criminal by US definition.

 

From the moralist perspective, the nature of Imperial Japan was no worse than the average of other empires or US. And was better than the SU, KMT, and CCP. The "necessity" to completely eliminate Imperial Japan resulted in the victory of the CCP, the fall of Taiwan to KMT distorship, and the split in Korea with the fat-kim regime in the north and the south taking 4 decades to suppass levels as it was when part of the empire. The korean War was a direct result too. Had the US been any slower, it might have been a full Fat-Kim regime on the peninsula today. Vietnam war as well probably.

 

It took many years and the ability to see very different views on perspectives which was not just various views in Japan but also CCP views which their own propaganda measures so poorly. It's amazing how long it took to realize the obvious once things are known.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of the atomic bombs were war crimes.

 

The ratilnality of them not being war crimes hinges on the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war being entirely on the fault of the Japanese, the start of the Pacific War by PH attack was entirely on the fault of the Japanese, that the Japanese were by nature equvilent to intolerable society like the Nazis, and that the US "had to make Japan surrender" on the unconditional terms.

 

All of those points are false.

 

CKS and KMT had made agreement that kept Japan's Manchuria intack. Japanese northern activities in mid 1930s were for reinforcing the Manchuria area. That was the scope of most interests in China. CKS was on the hunt for the chinese commies. But CKS was betrayed by one of his generals and was kidnapped and brought to the Chinese communists so as to make truce and start war with Japan in Dec 1936.

 

Run up to PH attack is full of the US getting itself involved in China matters, we all know this. If the US created definition of "war criminal" was applied in a non-bias way, then FDR would be a war criminal just like Tojo for being racists and key figure in the escalation towards war. Truman for approving the use of the atomic bombs which was the massacre of mass civilians, that being more at fault than "Class A war criminal" Iwane Matsui for being charged with the Nanking massacre. So the carrier USS Truman going about is really named after a war criminal by US definition.

 

From the moralist perspective, the nature of Imperial Japan was no worse than the average of other empires or US. And was better than the SU, KMT, and CCP. The "necessity" to completely eliminate Imperial Japan resulted in the victory of the CCP, the fall of Taiwan to KMT distorship, and the split in Korea with the fat-kim regime in the north and the south taking 4 decades to suppass levels as it was when part of the empire. The korean War was a direct result too. Had the US been any slower, it might have been a full Fat-Kim regime on the peninsula today. Vietnam war as well probably.

 

It took many years and the ability to see very different views on perspectives which was not just various views in Japan but also CCP views which their own propaganda measures so poorly. It's amazing how long it took to realize the obvious once things are known.

No Pearl Harbor, no atomic bombs. The end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The use of the atomic bombs were war crimes.

The ratilnality of them not being war crimes hinges on the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war being entirely on the fault of the Japanese, the start of the Pacific War by PH attack was entirely on the fault of the Japanese, that the Japanese were by nature equvilent to intolerable society like the Nazis, and that the US "had to make Japan surrender" on the unconditional terms.

All of those points are false.

CKS and KMT had made agreement that kept Japan's Manchuria intack. Japanese northern activities in mid 1930s were for reinforcing the Manchuria area. That was the scope of most interests in China. CKS was on the hunt for the chinese commies. But CKS was betrayed by one of his generals and was kidnapped and brought to the Chinese communists so as to make truce and start war with Japan in Dec 1936.

Run up to PH attack is full of the US getting itself involved in China matters, we all know this. If the US created definition of "war criminal" was applied in a non-bias way, then FDR would be a war criminal just like Tojo for being racists and key figure in the escalation towards war. Truman for approving the use of the atomic bombs which was the massacre of mass civilians, that being more at fault than "Class A war criminal" Iwane Matsui for being charged with the Nanking massacre. So the carrier USS Truman going about is really named after a war criminal by US definition.

From the moralist perspective, the nature of Imperial Japan was no worse than the average of other empires or US. And was better than the SU, KMT, and CCP. The "necessity" to completely eliminate Imperial Japan resulted in the victory of the CCP, the fall of Taiwan to KMT distorship, and the split in Korea with the fat-kim regime in the north and the south taking 4 decades to suppass levels as it was when part of the empire. The korean War was a direct result too. Had the US been any slower, it might have been a full Fat-Kim regime on the peninsula today. Vietnam war as well probably.

It took many years and the ability to see very different views on perspectives which was not just various views in Japan but also CCP views which their own propaganda measures so poorly. It's amazing how long it took to realize the obvious once things are known.

 

No Pearl Harbor, no atomic bombs. The end.

The shame of westerners to not admit it is reflected in the lying media that circulates the false narrative. They only don't like the false media when it's false about the stuff they like.

 

The US was already ramping up for the Pacific War before PH, things like sending new M3 light tanks to the Philippines by Ocober '41 to gbe deployment of the flying tigers which would have been in theater and ready for operation in IndoChina by December even if there was no PH. All these things, and socialists FDR bopped his head and tone in such of a manner to communicate being shocked and stunned and thus full of resolve at such "surprise" in his date of infamy speech. A real actor that even RR couldn't match if he wanted too.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on my post: The Japanese government had talked themselves into a corner since none of the politicians wanted to be the one to be seen as "advocating surrender" because they were, rightly so, terrified of the right wing cabals who had assassinated Japanese politicians who refused to commit to the Army version of diplomacy and government. When the Potsdam declaration had been delivered, Prime minster Suzuki Kantaro stated that they were going to "mokusatsu" the declaration. Now this is an easily mis translated word which IIRC was translated as treat with silent contempt. Despite the bombing, and more horrifically the fire bombing, the Japanese Government was paralyzed since they were afraid of being labeled as traitors or defeatists.

 

My great uncle Fred flew B-29's and participated in firebombings. He said that he could smell the burning flesh of the people of Tokyo. So the decision to deploy the bombs was a chance to so totally shock the Japanese Government and break it free from the corner in which it had painted itself. The use of the second bomb (along with the Russian invasion of China), cracked the paralysis that the government found itself. Emperor Showa finally stepped in at the request of Prime MInister Suzuki and expressed his views. The intervention of the Emperor forced War Minster Anami to agree to the Emperor's decision. The bombs forced the shock which allowed the Emperor to step into the vacuum that had been created.

 

I find that compared to fire bombing, the use of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less horrific. If they had not been used, then the USAF would have increased the number and amount of firebombing raids, and the naval blockade would have helped create a famine. Uncle Fred said that Japan was one of the most destroyed places he had ever seen when he flew into Tokyo right after the war. He, like so many veterans who fought the Japanese never questioned the morality of the bomb, instead they dreaded the cost that would have been paid for Operation Downfall, on both sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the translation of mokusatsu was the issue the Suzuki suggested it was given the very next sentence was "we will fight to the end".

 

"I have no comment. We will fight to the end" vs "I won't dignify it with a response. We will fight to the end.". Not really much difference.

 

The rest sounds just about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The use of the atomic bombs were war crimes.

 

The ratilnality of them not being war crimes hinges on the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war being entirely on the fault of the Japanese, the start of the Pacific War by PH attack was entirely on the fault of the Japanese, that the Japanese were by nature equvilent to intolerable society like the Nazis, and that the US "had to make Japan surrender" on the unconditional terms.

 

All of those points are false.

 

CKS and KMT had made agreement that kept Japan's Manchuria intack. Japanese northern activities in mid 1930s were for reinforcing the Manchuria area. That was the scope of most interests in China. CKS was on the hunt for the chinese commies. But CKS was betrayed by one of his generals and was kidnapped and brought to the Chinese communists so as to make truce and start war with Japan in Dec 1936.

 

Run up to PH attack is full of the US getting itself involved in China matters, we all know this. If the US created definition of "war criminal" was applied in a non-bias way, then FDR would be a war criminal just like Tojo for being racists and key figure in the escalation towards war. Truman for approving the use of the atomic bombs which was the massacre of mass civilians, that being more at fault than "Class A war criminal" Iwane Matsui for being charged with the Nanking massacre. So the carrier USS Truman going about is really named after a war criminal by US definition.

 

From the moralist perspective, the nature of Imperial Japan was no worse than the average of other empires or US. And was better than the SU, KMT, and CCP. The "necessity" to completely eliminate Imperial Japan resulted in the victory of the CCP, the fall of Taiwan to KMT distorship, and the split in Korea with the fat-kim regime in the north and the south taking 4 decades to suppass levels as it was when part of the empire. The korean War was a direct result too. Had the US been any slower, it might have been a full Fat-Kim regime on the peninsula today. Vietnam war as well probably.

 

It took many years and the ability to see very different views on perspectives which was not just various views in Japan but also CCP views which their own propaganda measures so poorly. It's amazing how long it took to realize the obvious once things are known.

No Pearl Harbor, no atomic bombs. The end.

Sow wind. Reap whirlwind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The use of the atomic bombs were war crimes.

 

The ratilnality of them not being war crimes hinges on the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war being entirely on the fault of the Japanese, the start of the Pacific War by PH attack was entirely on the fault of the Japanese, that the Japanese were by nature equvilent to intolerable society like the Nazis, and that the US "had to make Japan surrender" on the unconditional terms.

 

All of those points are false.

 

CKS and KMT had made agreement that kept Japan's Manchuria intack. Japanese northern activities in mid 1930s were for reinforcing the Manchuria area. That was the scope of most interests in China. CKS was on the hunt for the chinese commies. But CKS was betrayed by one of his generals and was kidnapped and brought to the Chinese communists so as to make truce and start war with Japan in Dec 1936.

 

Run up to PH attack is full of the US getting itself involved in China matters, we all know this. If the US created definition of "war criminal" was applied in a non-bias way, then FDR would be a war criminal just like Tojo for being racists and key figure in the escalation towards war. Truman for approving the use of the atomic bombs which was the massacre of mass civilians, that being more at fault than "Class A war criminal" Iwane Matsui for being charged with the Nanking massacre. So the carrier USS Truman going about is really named after a war criminal by US definition.

 

From the moralist perspective, the nature of Imperial Japan was no worse than the average of other empires or US. And was better than the SU, KMT, and CCP. The "necessity" to completely eliminate Imperial Japan resulted in the victory of the CCP, the fall of Taiwan to KMT distorship, and the split in Korea with the fat-kim regime in the north and the south taking 4 decades to suppass levels as it was when part of the empire. The korean War was a direct result too. Had the US been any slower, it might have been a full Fat-Kim regime on the peninsula today. Vietnam war as well probably.

 

It took many years and the ability to see very different views on perspectives which was not just various views in Japan but also CCP views which their own propaganda measures so poorly. It's amazing how long it took to realize the obvious once things are known.

No Pearl Harbor, no atomic bombs. The end.

Sow wind. Reap whirlwind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on my post: The Japanese government had talked themselves into a corner since none of the politicians wanted to be the one to be seen as "advocating surrender" because they were, rightly so, terrified of the right wing cabals who had assassinated Japanese politicians who refused to commit to the Army version of diplomacy and government. When the Potsdam declaration had been delivered, Prime minster Suzuki Kantaro stated that they were going to "mokusatsu" the declaration. Now this is an easily mis translated word which IIRC was translated as treat with silent contempt. Despite the bombing, and more horrifically the fire bombing, the Japanese Government was paralyzed since they were afraid of being labeled as traitors or defeatists.

 

My great uncle Fred flew B-29's and participated in firebombings. He said that he could smell the burning flesh of the people of Tokyo. So the decision to deploy the bombs was a chance to so totally shock the Japanese Government and break it free from the corner in which it had painted itself. The use of the second bomb (along with the Russian invasion of China), cracked the paralysis that the government found itself. Emperor Showa finally stepped in at the request of Prime MInister Suzuki and expressed his views. The intervention of the Emperor forced War Minster Anami to agree to the Emperor's decision. The bombs forced the shock which allowed the Emperor to step into the vacuum that had been created.

 

I find that compared to fire bombing, the use of the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less horrific. If they had not been used, then the USAF would have increased the number and amount of firebombing raids, and the naval blockade would have helped create a famine. Uncle Fred said that Japan was one of the most destroyed places he had ever seen when he flew into Tokyo right after the war. He, like so many veterans who fought the Japanese never questioned the morality of the bomb, instead they dreaded the cost that would have been paid for Operation Downfall, on both sides.

 

That is a all sound and within good reason and thought but within the limited scope of the unconditional surrender being necessary and just, so by not addressing the expanded scope, then it implies agreeing that the US was in the right to dismantle the whole empire and that all that followed was acceptable cost to doing it.

 

The one thing that is very risky to respond with counter points is when relatives are introduced into the argument. While sharing it is good course of action but with it introduced, disagreement risk bringing insult to introduced relatives. So while I agree with your post if presented in the limited scope. But not in the expanded scope. If expanding the scope to why the US felt it necessary to force unconditional terms (one way or the other) then why falls short to shifting the a-bombs and fire bombing out of the US created catagory of "war crimes". The expanded scope is really the more valid. It's like saying the same thing with Nanking massacre... Japanese could have massacred more than keeping it limited to mostly fighting age males, but they didn't, because just like US forces in occupied Japan, the Japanese in China would want to get the cooperation from Chinese which would result in the Wang regime some years later.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The use of the atomic bombs were war crimes.

The ratilnality of them not being war crimes hinges on the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war being entirely on the fault of the Japanese, the start of the Pacific War by PH attack was entirely on the fault of the Japanese, that the Japanese were by nature equvilent to intolerable society like the Nazis, and that the US "had to make Japan surrender" on the unconditional terms.

All of those points are false.

CKS and KMT had made agreement that kept Japan's Manchuria intack. Japanese northern activities in mid 1930s were for reinforcing the Manchuria area. That was the scope of most interests in China. CKS was on the hunt for the chinese commies. But CKS was betrayed by one of his generals and was kidnapped and brought to the Chinese communists so as to make truce and start war with Japan in Dec 1936.

Run up to PH attack is full of the US getting itself involved in China matters, we all know this. If the US created definition of "war criminal" was applied in a non-bias way, then FDR would be a war criminal just like Tojo for being racists and key figure in the escalation towards war. Truman for approving the use of the atomic bombs which was the massacre of mass civilians, that being more at fault than "Class A war criminal" Iwane Matsui for being charged with the Nanking massacre. So the carrier USS Truman going about is really named after a war criminal by US definition.

From the moralist perspective, the nature of Imperial Japan was no worse than the average of other empires or US. And was better than the SU, KMT, and CCP. The "necessity" to completely eliminate Imperial Japan resulted in the victory of the CCP, the fall of Taiwan to KMT distorship, and the split in Korea with the fat-kim regime in the north and the south taking 4 decades to suppass levels as it was when part of the empire. The korean War was a direct result too. Had the US been any slower, it might have been a full Fat-Kim regime on the peninsula today. Vietnam war as well probably.

It took many years and the ability to see very different views on perspectives which was not just various views in Japan but also CCP views which their own propaganda measures so poorly. It's amazing how long it took to realize the obvious once things are known.

No Pearl Harbor, no atomic bombs. The end.

Sow wind. Reap whirlwind.

Half (or more really) of the sowing was not from Japan's side. US sowing was all out for CKS.

 

And what did CKS bring later? He was worth all of it? Well from the realpolitik perspective, perhaps yes. USN no longer had a rival. But everyone seems only interested in moral and ideal arguments. It was all worth it for real?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A whole PH thread again maybe.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44415

 

Maybe 3 or 4 times a year. Once for early August to early September (a bombs to Sept VJ Day), once for early Dec (PH attack), once for early June (Midway battle), and then any other random occurances.

 

Every year because the MSM narrative does'nt get corrected.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the debate to drop the bomb is a total non starter. You can debate perceived vs probable in retrospect casualties for Olympic or whatever, but basically the mindset at the time was that we were in Total War, had resigned ourselves to bombing civilians for several years and now we just got a super big bomb. It actually seems like most ww2 historians nowadays kind of think the same way.

 

Exactly.

 

Debating these decisions 75 years later might be an interesting academic exercise, but doesn't really get you to appreciate the situation the world found itself in during WW2. Japan and Germany were aggressive enemy nations that had conquered large parts of the globe, enslaved the populations of entire regions and, in the case of Germany, set out to eradicate an entire religious group.

They had to be defeated, by any means necessary, period.

 

Whenever this debate about how unfair it was to have our cities bombed comes up in my circles, I like to bring up this image. It shows one of the first types of leaflet dropped by the RAF over Germany, and it reads "With every bomb, remember: This war was started by Hitler" (In German, it rhymes nicely). And that's it.

 

1942G05202.jpg​

Edited by Der Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to know my views on strategic bombing (im sure you already know because I keep going on about it) but you can read much of it in the preamble to Guy Gibsons 'Enemy Coast Ahead'. Something along the lines of the enemy bombed us, and they didnt like it when we did it to them, and the Japanese wont like it when we get around to it either. Something to remember considering the original intent of this thread, about whether the British intended to launch an atomic attack.

 

So as far as moral objections, they are in my view taken care of. We just continued a form of war others started. Did it shorten the war, the conventional and nuclear bombings? There is no doubt about it. The only people who have doubted it are those who frontload their arguments with objections about the very real and abhorrent losses of civilians. But as the British Air Ministry said, if Germany surrenders, we stop bombing. You cant really get more humane than that. It was the Nazi's decision to continue, so we continued the bombing. They could have surrendered after Hamburg when they knew the game was up and the war was already lost. They didnt.

 

As for a war crime, I dont remember anyone in Japan pulling their hair in indignation over the bombing of a dozen places in China or the South Pacific, or protesting against the thousands of innocent sailors who died in Pearl Harbor or on the Prince of Wales and Repulse. Or the USS Houston or the Perth come to that.. Their Government chose an aggressive war, they had a chance to surrender, and they carried on. The only one responsible for the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention all those who died in the firebombings) is the Japanese Emperor, and may God rot his soul for it.

 

We already done this a dozen times. Do we need to make it a bakers dozen? Presumably.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a all sound and within good reason and thought but within the limited scope of the unconditional surrender being necessary and just, so by not addressing the expanded scope,

 

Your "expanded scope" essentially boils down to the points

  • The US behaved obnoxious to Japan
  • Japan felt entitled to have an empire, too
  • The US did what they could to subvert those plans, which somehow was deeply "unfair"

The notion that Japan had no choice but to start a war with the US, and that it was justified doing so, is preposterous. Maybe Japan's culture of Bushido code seemed to leave no other choice at the time, but then you have to concede that Bushido culture proved to be incompatible with the modern world.

 

 

Japan gambled that a surprise attack would force the US to a negotiation table. The gamble failed; the cry of protest that the backlash of its actions was excessive falls on deaf ears with me. Germany was bombed to rubble, and so was Japan. Both nations could have paid a much smaller price had they surrendered earlier, but their government chose to fight to the end. Such is the fate of nations that pick a bad government and stick with it for too long, and be it out of a misdirected sense of honor and pride. Pride is rightfully characterized as a "sin" by the Catholic Church. I don't subscribe to all their teachings, but pride is usually an attitude that leads to escalation of conflict rather than settling it peacefully.

 

I think you're seeing too much of Japan's past through the lens of the present, which I concede you know better than anyone else on this board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...