Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Japanese were ready to surrender under one condition - Emperor' life and institution of monarchy to be spared. Guess what? That's exactly what they got ... after 2 A bombings. Japan is a constitutional monarchy. Emperor Hirohito died in 1989 as an Emperor. In 1975 Hirohito made a visit to the United States. How about Hitler making a visit to the United States in 1975? The point is - Japanese monarch avoided all the responsibility for WWII while remaining the nominal ruler of Japan until his death in 1989.
I had not heard that. Not only that, but I cannot find that. I can find this document of surrender:
Quote:
.....The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.
That's from the document of surrender, and contradicts what you said above. Also in the same document is this:
Quote:
We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
So they agreed to the terms of the Potsdam conference, which said this:
Quote:
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[3]
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
Can you can buffer your assertion that there was an agreement that the "institution of monarchy be saved"? Because the record says otherwise.
It does exist, true enough. But no agreement.
Can you can buffer your assertion that there was an agreement that the "institution of monarchy be saved"? Because the record says otherwise.
It does exist, true enough. But no agreement.
It's nice of you to spend 5 seconds on Google browsing through documents, but if 5 seconds is not enough to find something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Institution of monarchy is saved, Japan is a constitutional monarchy today. The Emperor of Japan during WWII Hirohito was not tried in the Tokyo war tribunal, instead he remained the Emperor until his death in 1989. Do you think that things like that are akin to spontaneous combustion, they just happen without being OK'd by the absolute victor of the war? Don't be ridiculous.
You're worried about enforcing American ideology: views, values, etc. Is this bad for ordinary people? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's definitely bad for the national elite which loses control over their subjects. Their people cease to obey traditions and religious rules, demand a new law. How could a national elite resist? By raising nationalism, xenophobia, etc.
Try to substitute this part of the sentence "you are worried about enforcing American ideology" ( because I am obviously not worried about such thing,) and because I think you mean something else. But since you do not make yourself clear, I can't comment here.
Examining the past is fine. But too many people take personal ownership of some past event and shape a portion of their lives over some event that never happened to them personally.
An Irishman upset because of the potato famine; a black person upset because blacks used to be slaves in America 150 years ago; an American Indian upset because of loss of property in 1885; a Chinese American outraged because Chinese were used as forced labor in 1880; a Japanese American demanding retribution because his grandfather lost a business in 1941....
But it's only natural for people to look into the roots of their origins and to examine what happened to their ancestors/ those who share similar ethnicity/coming from the same "root" with them in order to interpret their present existence ( as a group) and to foresee their future.
Now how they are going to handle the information ( and to feel about it,) is totally up to each and every individual. Some start seeking god trying to find the answers and make some sense out of a bigger picture, some sink in deeper and deeper hatred, some try not to think about it too much. It all depends on the current situation of every specific group in general and on the attitude of each and every individual as I've already mentioned. So "collective" past is definitely a relevant matter, but who handles it and how - it's already a different story.
Try to substitute this part of the sentence "you are worried about enforcing American ideology" ( because I am obviously not worried about such thing,) and because I think you mean something else. But since you do not make yourself clear, I can't comment here.
I have lived in Japan and in Germany. As I got to know the cultures and the people, at first I was mystified as to how the people of either country were ever capable of the atrocities that were committed in WW2.
But as I matured, I realized that this evil lies latent in mankind in general, and it takes very little to wake it.
One of the most poignant "souvenirs" of my travels is a wooden German wall plaque inscribed in the unique German lettering from the turn of the 20th century. The saying on it translates to this:
"He who grabs the golden ring and thinks that only golden days lie ahead...
Oh, he does not know the darkness that lies in the hearts of man."
Japanese were looking for the ways to surrender before (and between) A bombings. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. A-bombings served mainly 2 purposes: 1) live weapon test, 2) warning to USSR and other potential competitors (unwilling and incapable of further large scale fighting anyway), everything else comes as #3, 4, .... Just study the rush to A-bomb before citing some obscure "Institute for conservative studies" disproving all the above. US leadership rushed A-bombings because it was afraid Japan might surrender first.
Vietnam war was fought mainly over "national prestige" as demanded by realpolitik. Domino of communist menace, Vietnam mineral resources, etc. come as distant 2, 3, 4.... Realpolitik demanded to squash Vietnam audacity to settle their own issues on their own terms (with little regard to American wishes and concerns) otherwise many more 3rd world domino pieces might have attempted the same thus threatening the neocolonial edifice.
Again we are getting into topics discussed MANY TIMES before in this forum, you are invited to resurrect one of those threads and debate it there. But in summary:
1.) Japan was looking for ways to surrender CONDITIONALLY (i.e. to keep some of it conquered territories, keep its forces intact, keep it's leadership intact). That would never be accepted by the allies, the only term offered was unconditional surrendor, for good reason. Let's not forget that even after the second A bomb Japanese leadership almost went through an internal overthrow rather then surrender. All evidence suggest that the A bomb was used to prevent a needed allied invasion of the Japan homeland that would cost a half a million American casualties.
2.) I see no Machavelian reasoning in Vietnam. I had a professor in college saying Vietnam was all about Tetley Tea. American policy during that time prescribed to the Domino theory, that if one country fell to communism all the countries in Asia would fall - Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, that was a fixed policy. In hindsight it was foolhardy, as communism fell from within. The intention, as unsounds as it was, was still to protect american interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
