dowding@burdvax.UUCP (John Dowding) (10/07/84)
I feel forced to reply to this quote from Rick Keir (in regards to the Japanese military): >This was a military that had allied itself with Hitler's Germany; belief >in rational and humanitarian decision-making on their part seems misplaced. This guilt by association with Germany is simply unjustified: The alliance between Japan and Germany was purly tactical, not an alliance in the same sense in which the US and England had formed an alliance! Lest we forget, we fought Japan because Japans imperialist plans for China conflicted with our imperialist plans, as stated in the Open Door Policy. Because the USSR was as concerned about Japanese aggression in China as the US was, an alliance with Germany was necessary to keep the USSR out of the war over China. There was never any real cooperation between Germany and Japan. This is related to why the US bombed Nagasaki. By the end of the war, relations between the US and the USSR had deteriorated to cold war levels, but the USSR was scheduled to join the war against Japan soon. We wanted the war over before the Soviets had a chance to attack through China (once they went somewhere, they tended not to leave). There were several alternatives to using the A-bomb (such as invasion, fire-bombing, etc.), but none of them would have ended the war quick enough to avoid the Soviet Union's invasion of China. To say that the Japanese were inhumane and irrational because they did not surrender quick enough shows a lack of understanding of the Japanese culture. The US demanded a totally unconditional surrender, including the removal of the Emperor. The Japanese hesitated on this one point. If the US would have been willing to guarentee the sovereignty of the Emperor, then the Japanese would have surrendered without the second bombing. If one of the two parties can be said to have been irrational and inhumane, it must be the US.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/12/84)
> This is related to why the US bombed Nagasaki. By the end of the war, > relations between the US and the USSR had deteriorated to cold war levels, > but the USSR was scheduled to join the war against Japan soon. We wanted the > war over before the Soviets had a chance to attack through China (once they > went somewhere, they tended not to leave). There were several alternatives > to using the A-bomb (such as invasion, fire-bombing, etc.), but none of them > would have ended the war quick enough to avoid the Soviet Union's invasion > of China. I seem to remember that one reason the US make so many concessions to the USSR in Europe was that they wanted them to join in against Japan. (Now, if we knew that the bomb would end things quickly, why did we think this was so important?) Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/16/84)
> This is related to why the US bombed Nagasaki. By the end of the war, > relations between the US and the USSR had deteriorated to cold war levels, > but the USSR was scheduled to join the war against Japan soon. We wanted the > war over before the Soviets had a chance to attack through China (once they > went somewhere, they tended not to leave). There were several alternatives > to using the A-bomb (such as invasion, fire-bombing, etc.), but none of them > would have ended the war quick enough to avoid the Soviet Union's invasion > of China. > > To say that the Japanese were inhumane and irrational because they did > not surrender quick enough shows a lack of understanding of the Japanese > culture. The US demanded a totally unconditional surrender, including the > removal of the Emperor. The Japanese hesitated on this one point. If the US > would have been willing to guarentee the sovereignty of the Emperor, then > the Japanese would have surrendered without the second bombing. If one > of the two parties can be said to have been irrational and inhumane, it must > be the US. (1) My understanding is that the Allies had long been trying to get the USSR to declare war on Japan, but only when the end of the war seemed imminent did Stalin initiate his land grab in the Kuriles (without which we would perhaps not have had the KAL007 problem). I have also read, but cannot confirm, that Stalin refused to pass on to the US and UK Japan's first feelers for surrender, so that he could enter the war and be counted in at the Peace Confeence. (2) The Japanese FINALLY, not initially, demanded that the Emperor be retained, and the US agreed. The Emperor himself dictated that Japan would surrender, against the wishes of some of his top brass, to the extent that they tried a quick revolution (in the old Shogun tradition). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt