(urth) (no subject)

[James Wynn]

>
> Thomas Bitterman-
> It is entirely possible that the atomic bombs were not the cause of 
> Japanese surrender.  Some Japanese principals have denied that the 
> bombs were a major factor, citing instead the Russian invasion. In any 
> case, invasion wasn't the only other option - a blockade along with 
> continued bombing was also an option, and would have almost certainly 
> succeeded (albeit more slowly).

As in North Korea? Do you really think we could have pulled off such a 
blockade during the Cold War with China and the Soviet Union right off 
of Japan's coast?  I think the idea that the bombing wasn't THE factor 
in the surrender is extremely wishful thinking. There was likely a  
Japanese ministers or two who thought privately that surrender would be 
a good idea. But the military and emperor called the shots.  If the 
Japanese didn't surrender after the loss of Okinawa, it is improbable 
that they would have capitulated to the loss of some small islands 
(which the Soviets didn't take until after Hiroshima). And anyway, they 
didn't surrender after the loss of those islands. They surrendered after 
Nagasaki.

>> James Wynn: Allow me to take the Devil's side for a bit. The Imperial Japanese
>> culture in the early 1940s glorified nihilistic fanaticism. Long after
>> it was clear that they would not win the war, the Emperor and the J
>> government had decided that if they were beaten there should be a
>> genocide of the Japanese people.
>
> Lee-
> I certainly allow it, if I am permitted to take Angel's advocate role for a minute.
> It is a simplistic, cruel view of life to say that if an enemy Emperor orders the genocide of
> his people that we ought to be the perpetrators of it. Somehow that is the right thing to do?

"War //is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give 
them all they want."
~ William T. Sherman

>
> Lee-
> If I were transported back in time and installed as US president I would order something along
> the lines of a N. Korea strategy. Containment. One cannot in good conscience commit a crime
> against humanity, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people (including American POWs) in the
> "hopes" (and it was simply hope at the time) that it might avert a worse killing.

I appreciate that sentiment. However, knowing how containment has worked 
for North Koreans and Iraqis, I am unconvinced that would have been the 
humane choice. Compare Japan to North Korea. Compare SOUTH Korea to 
North Korea.

> Lee-
> We'll never know. But as a 21st century resident I know could never nuke any nation.
> (meaning I couldn't be elected president now either, esp. if I spoke that publicly

Actually, if you had been President in 1945 and sent 10s of 1000s of 
young men to die to liberate remote Pacific Islands and then said "We'll 
just spend the next 40 years watching Japan's borders." You probably 
would have been impeached. If you had chosen to invade Japan rather than 
end the war quickly with a couple bombs, you certainly would have been 
impeached. We elect presidents to make unpleasant choices: Take it in 
the face or fight back. If Americans had wanted half-measures, they'd 
have run the country from Congress.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20110119/90472c73/attachment-0003.htm>