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.
It's a nice turn of phrase, but it's really pointless. If the Japanese said, "We'll surrender peacefully as long as a member of our royal family isn't prosecuted," thereby saving a million or so Japanese and American lives in the process, then it's a bargain.
Sad to say but this is the way things work in the real world. We talk about how many people died so horribly with the dropping of the Bomb, but the casualties would have dwarfed that figure if a land invasion had been needed, either seperately in terms of Japanese and Allied soldiers or combined. And Japan itself would have seen wholesale destruction, which it did not. Because it was largely intact it was able to become an industrial power, but that would not have been if it had been a large bomb crater.
When you look at the bigger picture, those people who died when the bombs dropped bought the lives of millions and millions more who would have died or suffered or lost a loved one. For them it is no comfort since they are still dead. But in reality the cost was balanced.
And in terms of the next twenty years? We had a real demostration of what the bomb could do. We knew we should be terribly terribly afraid of it. Would Kennedy and Kruscheov had thought of their children and grand children when they decided to blink if we didn't really *know* what it would do? Sometimes the real use of something in the end means it isn't used because everyone knows what it will do, and the viseral pictures win out over some study of expected effects (which were not really accurate).
History is not kind and does not follow rules of good behavior. The Black Death was hidious. It destroyed half of the population in places and tore up the fabric of society. But without it the Rennasiance would never have been. Our society would not have been either.
Of course some of us wouldn't have been, either, if a deal had not been struck. My dad too would have been in the second wave of a land invasion. How many who apply unconditional principles to history realize that they might not be here if others had?
Was it right? Morally no. Was it practical? Yes. Was the ultimate result many more people who lived? Absolutely. So was it right for them to be alive even if morally it was wrong?
Sad to say but this is the way things work in the real world. We talk about how many people died so horribly with the dropping of the Bomb, but the casualties would have dwarfed that figure if a land invasion had been needed, either seperately in terms of Japanese and Allied soldiers or combined. And Japan itself would have seen wholesale destruction, which it did not. Because it was largely intact it was able to become an industrial power, but that would not have been if it had been a large bomb crater.
When you look at the bigger picture, those people who died when the bombs dropped bought the lives of millions and millions more who would have died or suffered or lost a loved one. For them it is no comfort since they are still dead. But in reality the cost was balanced.
And in terms of the next twenty years? We had a real demostration of what the bomb could do. We knew we should be terribly terribly afraid of it. Would Kennedy and Kruscheov had thought of their children and grand children when they decided to blink if we didn't really *know* what it would do? Sometimes the real use of something in the end means it isn't used because everyone knows what it will do, and the viseral pictures win out over some study of expected effects (which were not really accurate).
History is not kind and does not follow rules of good behavior. The Black Death was hidious. It destroyed half of the population in places and tore up the fabric of society. But without it the Rennasiance would never have been. Our society would not have been either.
Of course some of us wouldn't have been, either, if a deal had not been struck. My dad too would have been in the second wave of a land invasion. How many who apply unconditional principles to history realize that they might not be here if others had?
Was it right? Morally no. Was it practical? Yes. Was the ultimate result many more people who lived? Absolutely. So was it right for them to be alive even if morally it was wrong?
By early 1945, after the March 9-10 firebombing of Tokyo which resulted in at least 100k dead, there were not many cities in Japan left standing. The United States Army Air Force had repeatedly targeted many of Japan's industrial targets. Few cities really stood: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the ancient capital of Kyoto, and Niigata, in the northern regions of Honshu Island.
Hiroshima was a key industrial area, and labor shortages necessitated the importation of Koreans to replace Japanese manpower who had to serve in the army.
How, then, do you argue Japan was "largely intact?" Japan was certainly an industrial power during the war, but it's not as if the US didn't target its industries during the conflict.
It seems odd that the prince was able to live for so long. How could a group of Chinese citizens with some proper training not have taken matters into their own hands. I get the feeling that if someone was at least partially responsible for the killing and raping of thousands and thousands of US civilians and then allowed to skate, that a group of us would make sure this man doesn't last until the end of the week. Unreal to know he was able to live for decades after the event.
It seems odd that the prince was able to live for so long. How could a group of Chinese citizens with some proper training not have taken matters into their own hands. I get the feeling that if someone was at least partially responsible for the killing and raping of thousands and thousands of US civilians and then allowed to skate, that a group of us would make sure this man doesn't last until the end of the week. Unreal to know he was able to live for decades after the event.
China had too many internal issues at the time. Granted, this dude needed to fill his place in hell sooner rather then later, but can you imagine the cold war backlash if Peoples Republic of China sent a hit team to Japan?
Also, from what I read about spycraft during the cold war, the unwritten rule - for the most part foreign citizens in a foreign countries are off limits. Foreign citizens caught in there country - no problem, they get a bullet to the back of the head. National citizens in foreign countries (such as defectors) also no problem - they get pierced with an umbrella tip loaded with cyanide.
The only exception to this rule perhaps is Mossad who specialize in vengeance hits.
China had too many internal issues at the time. Granted, this dude needed to fill his place in hell sooner rather then later, but can you imagine the cold war backlash if Peoples Republic of China sent a hit team to Japan?
Also, from what I read about spycraft during the cold war, the unwritten rule - for the most part foreign citizens in a foreign countries are off limits. Foreign citizens caught in there country - no problem, they get a bullet to the back of the head. National citizens in foreign countries (such as defectors) also no problem - they get pierced with an umbrella tip loaded with cyanide.
The only exception to this rule perhaps is Mossad who specialize in vengeance hits.
But this is against people who kill Israeli citizens on Israeli soil, thus breaking the rule in first place, no ?
But this is against people who kill Israeli citizens on Israeli soil, thus breaking the rule in first place, no ?
I was thinking actually about the Munich Olympics massacre where Mossad had no problems hunting down and executing those responsible, whatever there nationality and wherever they happened to be in the world.
Mac and the American leadership were looking beyond WW2 crimes and the new threat of Stalin/Communism/USSR. I think it was wrong not to hang tens of thousands of Japanese officials, military people for the various crimes they did during WW2 but that was the logic back then right after WW2.
Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, the uncle of Emperor Hirohito is widely believed to have given the order for the rape and massacre of the citizens of Nanking during WWII but avoided the war crimes tribunal because Douglas MacArthur granted immunity to all members of the imperial family. As a result this butcher lived to the ripe old age of 93. Could someone help me wrap my head around MacArthur's reasoning, if we can call it that.
It's not difficult. None of Nanking's dead could be brought back; none of its women could be de-raped. MacA had a Japan to govern, and to guide into our political orbit as an ally. He did that very effectively. The only thing wrong with it, and with our entire handling of postwar Japan, is the passes we issued to those who committed abominable atrocities. And realpolitik says that we have done so since, and will do so again. Practicality beat idealism. It nearly always does. You may fairly argue that humanity is contemptible for being as it is (I would even argue that if humanity wipes itself out, that'll be good for the cosmos), but it is as it is whether we respect it as it is or not.
By early 1945, after the March 9-10 firebombing of Tokyo which resulted in at least 100k dead, there were not many cities in Japan left standing. The United States Army Air Force had repeatedly targeted many of Japan's industrial targets. Few cities really stood: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the ancient capital of Kyoto, and Niigata, in the northern regions of Honshu Island.
Hiroshima was a key industrial area, and labor shortages necessitated the importation of Koreans to replace Japanese manpower who had to serve in the army.
How, then, do you argue Japan was "largely intact?" Japan was certainly an industrial power during the war, but it's not as if the US didn't target its industries during the conflict.
Intact in terms of dedication for the cause. The difference between a massive clearing campaign so a landing would have been eventually possible was that it would have taken much longer with much more death to have the psychological impact of the bomb. It is a sad thing about humans, but even when things are terrible, shock is a short lived thing. More bombing of Japan with standard means would have been more of the same. The atomic bomb woke everyone up. The truth was that Japan at that point was the only war left, and it was eventually going to lose. It also woke up the leaders of the future. If there has been no real life 'demonstration' of atomic warfare, would Kennedy and the Russians decided not to? The truth is they were very very close to the moment when the *personal* spoke to them and the spared their children/grandchildren.
If you look at the history of warfare, there have been terrible, awful wars fought with no more than swords and archers, and starving out civilians in towns. You don't need the best of tech to kill people in awful ways. And the fate of civilians caught in the middle hasn't much changed. What events really mark change is when the slaughter has been suddenly improved and gives one side a great advantage. It will continue to be that way as we further refine our ability to kill each other remotely.
Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, the uncle of Emperor Hirohito is widely believed to have given the order for the rape and massacre of the citizens of Nanking during WWII but avoided the war crimes tribunal because Douglas MacArthur granted immunity to all members of the imperial family. As a result this butcher lived to the ripe old age of 93. Could someone help me wrap my head around MacArthur's reasoning, if we can call it that.
MacArthur understood the power of culture. The Imperial family line has continued unbroken since the 600s and was an important psychological indicator that the world wasn't over after for the Japanese... despite the militarist's efforts to convince them it would be if the Americans landed on the shores of Japan.
Leaving the Yamato clan intact (but behind the scenes 100% beholden to the Americans and MacArther specifically) made the occupation and reintegration of Japan into the world a vastly smoother process and allowed the country to redevelop into the successful and peaceful Japan of today.
The tradeoff was to let a handful of murders go free in exchange for preserving the lives of millions of Japanese AND American soldiers. There is always a cost... the trick is to get more than you paid for and MacArthur got a good deal in the end.
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.
