Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Atomic Bomb Didn't End the War
#1
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2...s-on-japan

With President Obama in Japan and even visiting Hiroshima, all this stuff about end of WWII is again in the Japanese news. Without big emotions from the majority of Japanese people in general, I have to say.

This WWII is now more and more a political tool, for excuses and accusing others here in this region, between China, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan and of course Japan.

However also - but slowly  - all these political talks in Far East region are also changing, considering Japan not as enemy anymore, but looking over to China.


While opinions are much divided about WWII issues, young people do not show much interest anymore into this subject, and old people who suffered directly because of WWII are getting fewer and fewer.

Same with my family, my Japanese wife and I, we were both born 7 years past the end of WWII and we are not so young anymore, I will retire next year, 65 years old.

Quote:The Atomic Bomb Didn't End the War

It was Soviet intervention, not the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that caused Japan to surrender.

Most Americans cling to the myth that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, by forcing Japan's surrender without a U.S. invasion, saved the lives of a half million or more American boys. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

As the National Museum of the U.S. Navy makes clear, the atomic bombs had little to do with the end of the war. The museum's display on the bombings unambiguously states that the atomic bombings "made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds." As shocking as this may be to Americans today, it was well known to military leaders at the time. In fact, seven of America's eight five-star officers in 1945 said that the bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible or both.

General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor. Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold.

For the complete article, click on the link above.
Reply
#2
I don't completely agree here.  The truth is that it was a combination of things, and not just one.  Emperor Hirohito was the 'Effect' of the decision.  Without his intervention, this would have most likely ended up as just one more island that needed destroying.  Tarawa, i.e. Betio, come first to mind here.

Further, MacDaddy is a complete case of what we think of as "Sophomoric" (Wise Fool), because that is exactly what he is.  The quote from H.L.Mencken, which Jack uses for his Signature, is most apropos.  The only problem is that many of us do Not deserve it. S11
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
I was fortunate enough to get to hear Dutch Van Kirk speak in OR. Here is what Dutch said:

1) The Japanese were so beat that the US did not even send up escorts to protect the A bomb, he said he never flew over Germany like that. He also said only birds were around, no AAA flak.

2) The former Japanese ambassador to the USA was living in a cave, that's how beaten they were

3) First you have Hiroshima, then you have the Russians invading Japan killing ~ 80K Japanese soldiers in Japan, then you have the 1000 plane willie peter bombing of Tokyo burning it to the ground, then you have Nagasaki, then you have surrender in this order I think.

So, all played their roles, IMO. I bet the Russians did scare the Japanese bad though, they had a pretty big war just 40 years earlier.

There is a book out on the bombing from a revisionist view which posits we did it to scare Stalin as much as speed up surrender and I would imagine that was true.

More Japanese died in Tokyo the next day, but, the focus is on the A bombings. Kind of an odd fact.
Reply
#4
I also think it was a combination of events, but we can't deny that the A bombs were very significant psychologicaly.
It may have had little direct impact on the military, but the psychological impact had to be astounding. Much more than soviet mongol invasions.

If the Japanese were that beat, why didn't they surrender after the first A bomb? It means they were still able and willing to fight despite the evidence.
That the Japanese needed more than one A bomb to contemplate surrender is one of these things which made WW2 the craziest period ever.

Dutch Wrote:The Japanese were so beat that the US did not even send up escorts to protect the A bomb
The reason is more that it was a no-return fligth. The pilots had to crash themselves somewhere in Corea and hope to meet the resistance there. Almost suicide mission.
It's not something you can do with many crews.

Of course, had the Japanese still have anti aircraft defense capabilities, the americans couldn't have tried it. But I don't think that the choosed not to send escort.
Reply
#5
You must remember the martial religion of Japan, which encouraged Kamikazes and fighting to the bitter end. It was the Emperor who had to throw in the towel. I've read this argument many times that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't end the war, but one of the Emperor's inner circle answered that, and said the Emperor needed a good reason to surrender, one that he could hold up against the Militarists. The bombs did that.

Japan's surrender

Doug Long Wrote:MARQUIS KOICHI KIDO: (LORD KEEPER OF THE PRIVY SEAL) and the ATOMIC BOMBING OF JAPAN

Marquis Koichi Kido was the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal for Japanese emperor Hirohito during World War II. While not a member of the government, Kido was Hirohito's closest advisor. He was also the liaison between Hirohito and the government.

By 1945 Kido knew that Japan could not win the war. But to overtly work for peace meant risking reprisals by the Japanese military. Three events moved Kido to action for peace:
  • Japan's lack of fighting power against the massive Allied fighting power.
  • Kido's belief that Japan would face destruction if Germany, Japan's only remaining ally, surrendered. On May 8, 1945 Germany surrendered.
  • On June 8, 1945 the Japanese Army pushed the government into approving "The Fundamental Policy To Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War". This made it Japan's official policy to "prosecute the war to the bitter end". (Robert Butow, Japan's Decision To Surrender, pg. 99-100 note 69).

The militaristic "Fundamental Policy" was the final straw that led Kido to conclude that "some sort of drastic measure would have to be taken" to end the war. (U.S. Army, Far East Command, Statements of Japanese Officials on World War II, Kido, no. 61476, National Archives - hereafter referred to as Statements).

Later on the day of the "Fundamental Policy" decision, Kido wrote a peace plan to describe his "drastic measure". The most drastic part was his call to "petition for Imperial intervention" for peace (from Kido's diary in International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Record of Proceedings, 1946-1948, pg. 31149, Library of Congress - hereafter referred to as IMTFE). Altho Japanese policy was enacted in the emperor's name, the emperor did not dictate government policy. But Kido desperately needed a counter-weight to the Japanese Army.

Kido's plan was "to ask the Soviet Union, which maintains neutrality with Japan, to mediate between Japan and the Allies". Japan's minimum peace terms were "security of the Imperial family and vindication of the national polity", referring to the continuance of the emperor system, which Japan believed to be of divine origin. (from Kido's diary in IMTFE, pg. 31148-31150).

After getting Emperor Hirohito's go-ahead for the peace plan, Kido gathered support for it from Prime Minister Suzuki, Navy Minister Yonai (the head of the Navy), and Foreign Minister Togo. Disorganized until now, the Japanese peace movement was coming out of the closet.

While Togo pressed government leaders and the emperor to seek peace, Kido met with the emperor and requested that he "directly express his desire for accelerating the peace" to the Japanese government (Statements, Kido, no. 61476). The emperor took Kido's advice, and on June 22, 1945 Hirohito asked the government to "end the war as quickly as possible". (Statements, Togo, no. 50304; Statements, Toyoda, no. 61340; see also Butow, pg. 118-120; Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 235).

But Russia was already preparing to join the war against Japan in return for territory, as part of a deal with the Allies. Russia had no interest in helping Japan end the war before she could enter it and gain her reward.

Japan was waiting for Russia to respond to their request for negotiations before making any moves. They hoped for a reply around August 6 or 7. Instead, on August 6th an atomic bomb was dropped on the population of Hiroshima. And on the night of August 8th, Russia declared war on Japan (IMTFE, pg. 31,172).

During this time Kido continued to discuss the need for peace with the emperor and members of the government. On August 12th he steered Prime Minister Suzuki back to favoring surrender when Suzuki wavered (IMTFE, pg. 31,184 - 31,186).

Kido's final effort for peace was probably also his most harrowing. On the morning of August 14th he received word that U.S. planes were dropping leaflets on Japan containing the U.S. and Japanese peace proposals. Fearing a backlash by the Japanese military, Kido rushed to advise the emperor, in Kido's words, "to command the government without further loss of time to go through the formalities for terminating the war". The emperor agreed and sent Kido to make arrangements with Suzuki for the government to meet. The government surrendered that day at the emperor's request (IMTFE, pg. 31,189 - 31,190; Statements, Kido, no. 61541; see also Butow, pg. 205-209, Sigal, pg. 267-271).
Reply
#6
Fred,

Japan does not think like we do, that's why surrender was more difficult for them than it would be for us. However, based on what Yohan posted, they apparently were ready to surrender by May of 1945 IF we had stated the emperor could remain on his throne at that point.
Reply
#7
(05-29-2016, 07:29 PM)Palladin Wrote: Fred,

Japan does not think like we do, that's why surrender was more difficult for them than it would be for us. However, based on what Yohan posted, they apparently were ready to surrender by May of 1945 IF we had stated the emperor could remain on his throne at that point.

Read my post, it came out seconds before yours did, and explains exactly what happened. The Russians were NOT going to help Japan surrender, and the military had just forced the government to officially "fight to the bitter end."
Reply
#8
Stalin would have loved to have taken the entire Japanese Islands, no doubt. Shinto is why they held on so long, correct there IMO.

Not being a Shinto or Japanese, I cannot imagine hearing the emperor explain "I'm really not a god". Well, my sons are all dead in combat, my city is rubble, my wife died in aerial bombing and now the guy explains he really didn't know dick more than a 1st grade student ?

Dang. Thanks for that announcement!

BTW, we can't know what Japan would be like in a century from now, but, the devastation of all the bombs and Red Army at least since 1945 have sure caused them to be nicer to their neighbors.
Reply
#9
Do you think the US would have dropped the bombs if they knew that Japan was ready to surrender within hours?
I don't think so. Maybe there were already some negociations, and the Japanese made this terrible mistake of trusting the soviets! But at the time the second bomb exploded peace was not yet signed. And until it's not the rule of war prevail.
Reply
#10
Japan was NOT going to surrender within hours. The military had forced a government policy through that ordered all - combat and civilian - to fight to the bitter end. It was Kido, an unofficial government liaison adviser to the Emperor, who wanted to surrender, and was looking to give the Emperor some bargaining chip. The bombs gave them that.
Reply
#11
And for anyone who believes the Korean War was also an error read this:
Victor Davis Hanson Wrote:Why did America Fight the Korean War?
Mention the Korean War today and most people will look at you with a blank stare. At the time it was fought, just five years after World War II ended, everyone recognized it as a world-shaping conflict, a stark confrontation between the forces of democracy and communism.

It began on June 25, 1950 when Soviet-backed communist North Korea crossed the 38th parallel and invaded its US-backed anti-communist South Korean neighbor. Within weeks the communists had nearly absorbed the entire country. The United States at first was confused over whether it should—or even could—respond. America had slashed its military budget after the end of World War II and was short both men and equipment. It still had not awakened fully to the expansionist threat of Soviet Russia.

The Soviets—buoyed by their own recent development of an atomic bomb and Mao Zedong’s communist victory in China—sensed America’s lack of resolve and encouraged the North’s aggression. Yet within weeks President Harry Truman rushed troops to save the shrinking Allied perimeter at Pusan on the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. And by late September, 1950, General Douglas MacArthur had successfully completed the Inchon landings and launched counter-attacks.

He quickly reclaimed the entire south and sent American-led United Nations forces far into North Korea to reunite the entire peninsula—only to be surprised when hundreds of thousands of Chinese Red Army troops crossed the Yalu River at the Chinese border and sent the outnumbered Americans reeling back into South Korea.

Thanks to the genius of General Matthew Ridgeway, who arrived to assume supreme command in South Korea in December 1950, over the next 100 days US led UN forces pushed the communists back across the 38th Parallel. The fighting was fierce. Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, exchanged hands between communist and US led forces five times before it was finally secured.

During the years 1952 and 1953, the war grew static, neither side able to deliver a knockout blow.  Eventually the conflict ended with a tense armistice in July 1953. For over the next 60 years, a cold war persisted between the Stalinist North and what, by the 1980s, had evolved into the democratic, economic powerhouse of South Korea.

Over 35,000 Americans died in the Korean War. The war marked the first major armed conflict of the Nuclear Age, and one in which the United States had not clearly defeated the enemy and thus not dictated terms of surrender. Was fighting the Korean War and restoring the South—without uniting the entire peninsula—worth the huge cost in blood and treasure?

The natural dividend of saving the South was the evolution of today’s democratic and prosperous South Korea that has given its 50 million citizens undreamed of freedom and affluence—and has blessed the world with topflight products from the likes of Hyundai, Kia, LG and Samsung.

South Korea is a model global citizen and a strong ally of the U.S.—and stands in sharp contrast to the communist regime in the North that has starved and murdered millions of its own people and caused untold mischief in the world community. Had it not been for U.S. intervention and support to the South, the current monstrous regime in Pyongyang would now rule all of Korea, ensuring its nuclear-armed dictatorship even greater power and resources.

The American effort to save South Korea also sent a message to both communist China and the Soviet Union that the free world, under U.S. leadership, would no longer tolerate communist military take-overs of free nations. The resulting deterrence policy helped to keep the communist world from attempting similar surprise attacks on Japan, Taiwan, and Western Europe.

Finally, the Korean War awakened the United States to the dangers of disarmament and isolationism and led to the bipartisan foreign policy of containment of global communism that in 1989 finally led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it victory in the Cold War.

The Korean War was an incomplete American victory in its failure to liberate North Korea and unite the peninsula, but a victory nonetheless. And not just from a military perspective, but from a moral one as well. The reason 35,000 Americans died in Korea was to keep at least half the Korean people free. Korea did not have a single material resource that would have benefited America.

The Korean War merits more than a blank stare. It deserves to be remembered and studied – with pride.

I’m Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution for Prager University.
Reply
#12
Fred,

The thing that makes me wonder is top US leaders are known to have opposed the A bombing. They felt the war would have been concluded easily IF the US had agreed to allow the emperor to remain in power. We refused to. Properly so IMO because he was a god in their pantheon and had led them into this brutal conflict.

Then, we allowed him to remain in power when MacArthur took over their governance.

What was that? We could have avoided many months of combat, no nukes used had we simply done that ahead of time. That alone makes me wonder what was going on. Why extend the war by refusing the emperor demand, then use the bombs, then change on the emperor?
Reply
#13
(05-29-2016, 07:29 PM)Palladin Wrote: Fred,
Japan does not think like we do, that's why surrender was more difficult for them than it would be for us. However, based on what Yohan posted, they apparently were ready to surrender by May of 1945 IF we had stated the emperor could remain on his throne at that point.

Let me explain this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korechika_Anami

After the surrender of Germany some Japanese politicians were indeed ready to surrender around May 1945, checking out diplomatic contacts, not only with the Russians - however the most powerful person, Korechika Anami, was always against any form of a Japanese surrender.

Even after asked by the Emperor to surrender, he still was so powerful, he could have rejected this request by using his veto rights against the Emperor, who had no voting rights in the Supreme War Council of Japan. 

However as a deeply convinced Japanese nationalist he gave finally up as requested - as he said he must obey the Emperor, he signed the surrender document, went home and committed suicide next morning with the assistance of his relatives.

I am somehow surprised that his name is nowhere mentioned, neither in the article nor in this thread.
He was the most influential and powerful person in Japan concerning WWII.

Another point is also about poor international communication facilities at that time. Even phone-lines in Japan often failed to operate. Plenty of misinformation, merely telegram services were still working to overseas.

And yes, the Japanese made the bad mistake to trust the Russians and the agreement they had with them. Japan did never attack the Russians and they did not see any reason why the Russians should attack them. 

It is true that the Russians took some Japanese islands and sea territory about 2 weeks after the Japanese surrender.

Nowadays in Japan, there is still a deep mistrust in everything coming from Russia - most Japanese consider the Russians as traitors, and so far the relationship between Russia and Japan remain modest on a formal level without any progress since the end of WWII. 

Even the Communist Party of Japan (which is not such a small political party holding about 10 percent of all votes and is somehow anti-USA/pro-China orientated) assures its Japanese voters all the time, that it does not have any direct relationship with Russian politicians. Should the Japanese Communist Party ever promote anything pro-Russian, it will lose plenty of votes and it is aware of that.
Reply
#14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

To understand better about the final hours of the surrender of Japan I recommend to read this article.
The situation was very confusing. There were 3 choices. Opinions were divided what to do.

A considerable number of these politicians and military commanders, regardless their choice they made, decided for suicide during the last week of August 1945.

1 -
Some were with the Emperor, (Togo Shigenori, the foreign minister)
It is worth to mention, that Togo was not a Japanese, he was a Korean born in Japan. His real name was Pak Mudǒk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigenori_T%C5%8Dg%C5%8D

General Takeshi Mori was killed for protecting the Emperor and refusing to join the coup d'etat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshi_Mori_(commander)


2 -
Some were against the surrender, but followed the Imperial request reluctantly (Korechika Anami)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korechika_Anami


3 -
Others were totally against it, carrying out a coup d'etat, which failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Hatanaka
Reply
#15
(05-30-2016, 09:14 PM)Palladin Wrote: Fred,

The thing that makes me wonder is top US leaders are known to have opposed the A bombing. They felt the war would have been concluded easily IF the US had agreed to allow the emperor to remain in power. We refused to. Properly so IMO because he was a god in their pantheon and had led them into this brutal conflict.

Then, we allowed him to remain in power when MacArthur took over their governance.

What was that? We could have avoided many months of combat, no nukes used had we simply done that ahead of time.  That alone makes me wonder what was going on. Why extend the war by refusing the emperor demand, then use the bombs, then change on the emperor?

Something is wrong here.

Japan was clearly NOT willing to surrender around May 1945. 
USA did not refuse to negotiate anything, the fault for late surrender is clearly with the Japanese War Council.

The Emperor considered to surrender around June 1945.
However I think, the power of the Japanese Emperor is somewhat overrated by many US-citizens.
The Emperor of Japan had no voting power for any final decision, he could only 'recommend' something, however due to his respected position it was rather impolite to ignore or refuse such 'Imperial requests.'

The Japanese War Council, which had the power for the final decision to surrender was not willing to do so until August 1945 and did so only after the Emperor asked for consideration.

However some Japanese high ranking politicians noticed already around April 1945 that the war was lost, and the question was more about how and when to surrender. They were checking out secretly in the following months how to do it asking various governments for assistance.

There was the idea to ask the Russians to grant asylum to top Japanese politicians, even the idea to surrender to the Russians and to accept Russian occupation of Japan, while to ridicule the USA - fighting for years in the Pacific and getting away with nothing... etc. etc.

There was however also the idea to fight it out to the last man, the last woman, even to the last children, to create a powerful guerilla war in Japan after occupation. 

To make it clear, there were only ideas and first steps about how to surrender or not to surrender, it was about to negotiate possible conditions of surrender, but not more than that. 

WWII continued, USA had no other option but to continue the combat in the Pacific and to hurry up, as they were aware that the Russians were moving slowly and secretly troops from defeated Germany to Far East. Moving Russian troops for what? The Russian winter was ending, and it was clear that these Russian troops were not moved without the intention for combat. 

USA did a great job and were near Japan already with their war ships, but the Russians were also approaching quickly and finally the Japanese War Council was getting worried to see Japan divided into North Japan and South Japan similar to West Germany and East Germany. - 

A divided Japan was the horror version for everyone. - The idea to surrender ONLY to USA and not to the Russians, who were despised as traitors after they broke the non-aggression contract made suddenly a lot of sense for Japan. 

It was about to let the USA into Japan from the East and South BEFORE the Russians could enter from the West and North and this is what really happened in August 1945.
Reply
#16
(05-30-2016, 09:14 PM)Palladin Wrote: ....
What was that? We could have avoided many months of combat, no nukes used had we simply done that ahead of time. That alone makes me wonder what was going on. Why extend the war by refusing the emperor demand, then use the bombs, then change on the emperor?
Would you have agreed to keep Hitler in Germany? Same question here.

Yohan: I'll reply to you later. When I'll find the time reading all this...
Reply
#17
(05-31-2016, 03:53 AM)yohan Wrote: 1 -
Some were with the Emperor, (Togo Shigenori, the foreign minister)
It is worth to mention, that Togo was not a Japanese, he was a Korean born in Japan. His real name was Pak Mudǒk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigenori_T%C5%8Dg%C5%8D

It is also worth noting that he is not the "Hideki Tojo", who was later hanged as a war criminal following the surrender. This is something that most American are not aware.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#18
(05-31-2016, 09:23 AM)John L Wrote:
(05-31-2016, 03:53 AM)yohan Wrote: 1 -
Some were with the Emperor, (Togo Shigenori, the foreign minister)
It is worth to mention, that Togo was not a Japanese, he was a Korean born in Japan. His real name was Pak Mudǒk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigenori_T%C5%8Dg%C5%8D

It is also worth noting that he is not the "Hideki Tojo", who was later hanged as a war criminal following the surrender.  This is something that most American are not aware.

Just my opinion, to make it clear, at that time around 1945 after the surrender of Japan all and everything was a mess.
To be back to 'normal' was not easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hideki_Tojo

Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister was out of power in 1944, about 1 year before the surrender of Japan.

He was partically responsible starting the war, but had nothing to say about surrender in 1945.

He had time - 1 full year - and full support to 'disappear to somewhere (Russia, Brazil etc.) but he did not.
He made a very serious attempt to commit suicide after his arrest but failed.

The coming up Tokyo Trials were anything else but fair, trying to push guilt away from Imperial family members and some politicial faithfuls fitting the USA while blaming only a few politicians and military officers for the entire disaster.

The best example is Shiro Ishii, the commander of Unit 731, who was the Japanese 'Dr. Mengele', known for 'human experiments'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shir%C5%8D_Ishii

It is unbelievable and inexcusable that this cruel man received immunity at the Tokyo Trials, but over 50 others not much better than him were also released, and don't ask me why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Yasuhiko_Asaka
To be a prince was reason enough to remain a free man....regardless the crimes

The Asian judge of the Tokyo Trials considered the tribunal as questionable, also the judges of Netherlands and France had objection about how this tribunal was operating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio...e_Far_East
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal

Other trials against Japanese military officers were even more questionable, especially the case of Tomoyuki Yamashita in Philippines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita

----

But as said, this was the end of WWII, long time ago.

Nowadays it is said up to 90 percent of the Japanese population have only limited knowledge about these details and are not interested to learn anything about it, it's all history for them.

I still know 'something' about it, but despite already born after WWII, still my home town was under Russian occupation in Austria up to 1955 - but the generation after me? I cannot blame them to look forward and not backward.

Maybe same with the young generation in USA, who do not know any difference between Togo Shigenori and Tojo Hideki. I cannot blame them. We all, regardless if we are from Europe, Russia, Japan or USA, we have now other problems....
Reply
#19
Fred,

No, I wouldn't, the question is why did we allow it after the war when we refused to earlier, which refusal prolonged the war even if Yohan's version is most accurate. Even if Japan had surrendered in late June 1945, lots more Japanese survive, lots of Americans survive, no A bombs, no Red Army in Japan, etc.

It is a mysterious thing why this happened as it did. I don't know why.
Reply
#20
(05-31-2016, 12:49 PM)yohan Wrote: ...To be a prince was reason enough to remain a free man....regardless the crimes

My opinion as to why all these princes were allowed to escape responsibility was because of the surrender itself. When General Douglas MacArthur accepted the surrender, Japan, first, had to be demilitarized. Japan's foreign policy was dominated by the military, as evidenced by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye’s failed attempts to reform his government and being virtually pushed out of power by career army officer Hideki Tojo. Step two was the dismantling of Shintoism as the Japanese national religion.

The only way to make both of those things happen was to allow some of the ruling class to survive with enough power to not allow the military back in.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)