Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-10-2003, 12:48 AM | #101 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edinburgh. Scotland
Posts: 2,532
|
Well that certainly sounds like the Churchill we know and love.
|
04-10-2003, 02:53 AM | #102 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edinburgh. Scotland
Posts: 2,532
|
When Britain entered the war they had an avowed policy of not targeting civillians. And at least when bombing the UK the Germans had a similar policy. They did kill civilllians but their initial raids were directed on legitimate military and industrial targets.
On the 24th August 1940, some German bombers got lost and dropped their bombs over London against orders. The next day the British responded with a bombing raid on Berlin. This had two benefits. It raised the morale of the British and also provoked the Germans into concentrating their attacks on London. The Blitz, whilst undoubtedly unpleasant, did far less damage to Britain's war effort than continued targeting of strategic targets would've done. And since the Germans were now clearly targeting civillian centres the British were more at ease switching to a similar policy. The doctrine of "terror" bombing was developed. By destroying cities they would break the morale of the German people. There were practical considerations behind this as well. The British had no option to bomb at night and that combined with their equipment resulted in hopeless inaccuracy. Hitting an oil refinery or munitions factory was all but beyond their capability. A city they could just about manage. This policy was wholeheartedly embraced by Bomber Harris. He took over early in '42 and improved accuracy. However he was firmly wedded to city bombing despite growing doubts within the RAF as to its efficacy. Their own research was suggesting that, despite widespread destruction, it was having little marked effect on the Germans' morale or war effort. In summer '43 they bombed Hamburg, the second city. A big industrial target. They dropped lots of incendiaries. The weather was hot with low humidity. It hadn't rained in weeks. They created a firestorm. It wasn't deliberate. It had never been seen before. But the scale of destruction was noted and Bomber Harris set about planning how to create one deliberately. They ended up with a list of burnable cities. Dresden was near the top. However by this stage the Americans were involved. And the USAF were commited to day-light precision bombing, despite the huge costs in personnel and equipment. And evidence was growing that their methods were bringing greater success. More pressure was put on Harris to switch tactics or to at least vary them. In March '44 the RAF hit Nuremberg. They inflicted massive destruction but at huge cost in crews and aircraft. This brought about a change in policy. It was decided the losses did not appear justified by the results and so the RAF would switch to supporting the USAF in targeted raids, much to the annoyance of Harris. He continued to argue for terror bombing, including repeated requests to bomb Dresden despite it's total lack of military or strategic value. He had a plan for Dresden. He wanted to implement it. Towards the end of '44 the policy of targeted bombing had had marked results, in particular the targeting of fuel depots. The German war machine was beginning to choke. Also the allies had all but achieved air superiority so losses of aircraft were way down. At this point Harris refused to continue with targeted bombing. He demanded a return to area bombing or he would resign. Churchill acquiesced. But there were precious few targets left. Everything had already been bombed. Except Dresden. It was just sitting there. Pristine. Undefended. Made of wood. And Arthur had a plan for Dresden. Had done for some time. But still they wouldn't let him bomb it. It still had no military or strategic value. Until January '45. Suddenly a reason could be found to justify it. The Soviets were advancing towards it and Yalta was coming up. If they destroyed Dresden then Churchill could walk into negotiations with a demonstration that he was helping the Soviets whilst at the same time impressing upon Stalin the fearsome capability of the RAF. One of the stated aims of the raid was "to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do." And so Harris finally got the go ahead for what he'd wanted for so long. Unfortunately weather delayed it till after Yalta so what little rationale for the raid that existed had all but gone, but they went ahead anyway. And this time they got the Americans involved. From February 13th to the 15th the RAF attacked followed by the USAF. We dropped 3,900 tonnes of explosives, completely destroyed 85% of the city, and slaughtered up to 135,000 people. Because Churchill wanted to impress Stalin and Harris had a plan he was itching to try out. If Dresden wasn't a war crime then there is no such thing a war crime. |
04-11-2003, 08:10 PM | #103 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Athens, Ga, USA
Posts: 61
|
...
Dang man, how was it a war crime to terminate the Third Reich. The Nazis were nasty, they wouldnt have gone down to reason or idle chit chat. Only death on an unprecendented scale would have brought down the 3rd Reich.
Sir Harris is a great hero of your nation, and if he is a war criminal, so be it, the ends certainly justified the means. He would have been a greater hero if he had killed more Germans... Just curious, I dont mean to be rude, but I cant help but be rude. Are you old enough to have had many conversations with people from the WW2 generation??? It wasnt a pretty time in history, and platitudes meant little. |
04-12-2003, 02:22 AM | #104 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
|
Vork
Been travelling....converse with you in couple of days jp |
04-13-2003, 01:58 AM | #105 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
No hurry, I'll be travelin' next week, it looks like, until Friday.
Vorkosigan |
04-14-2003, 01:24 AM | #106 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edinburgh. Scotland
Posts: 2,532
|
It was a war crime because it was all but pointless.
You say the ends justify the means. Well I can go along with that in principle. But it depends on the ends and the means. After all I've already said I regard the dropping of the A-bombs as justifiable (without wanting to get back into the minutiae of Sino-Soviet telegrams). You drop those bombs it ends the war, lives were saved. I can go along with that. But Dresden? What was the end result? 135,000 dead. Apart from that precious little. It served almost no purpose. It was slaughter for slaughter's sake. Now you might be real comfortable with that kinda thing. But don't be so quick to assume that people from the WWII generation were quite so bloodthirsty; Quote:
|
|
04-14-2003, 06:36 AM | #107 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
|
Part I
Vork
Sorry for the delay, have to earn my bread. Let me first address this part of your posts first…. BTW, the tone of my post was based on your posting Chomsky as though I were the dupe in this case. In reality, you are the one who has sucked down Japanese fascist propaganda. Umm will refrain here….if you go back to my post which mentioned chomsky, you would see something written in anglais which said “And this is what I said in the old thread at the end” Those old comments were directed at people in the old thread. And the continuation of crappy tone, wonder why ? My tone also could be similar at certain junctures …..since had done the response over few days, when I was able to get some time. Don’t feel like going through the whole stuff to edit now.. Now let’s get to the remainder…… The whole issue boils down to the question that ?Did they consider all means (peaceful and military) before dropping the bombs? Can we say with certainty this was done? Yes. List them out with references The sole objective was to limit US casualties. Despite postwar US propaganda, nobody appears to have considered the civilian death toll from the conituation of the war by other means until after the war. ???Didn’t the rationale of using the bombs was as you had mentioned earlier– To end the war, scare the shit out of the Soviets, annihilate valuable military targets, and test them on a city Now its become only one objective? He¡¦s a major Japan scholar, leftist, progressive and extremely knowledgeable. His book is about the failure of Japanese society to provide progressive solutions for its problems, and covers economics and politics. The final section is on the inability to deal with WWII. The Tunnels exist, Phaedrus. Good, that means you are aware that the book is not primarily dealing with the atomic bomb issue. The tunnels exist, Japanese were planning to fight !! So? Wouldn’t US fight an invading force on its homeland instead of rolling over amicably and wagging its tail? Every nation/culture tries to make the best out of any situation. You¡¦re trying so hard, Phaedrus, and not saying anything. The tunnel system was there so that the war could be continued, as were the aircraft, and the suicide militias, and other things. Which part of my statement didn’t you comprehend? Now lets see…if there is a country which is being invaded, realizes its beaten and wants to end the war in a peaceful manner but is “suspicious or unsure ?of the opposition’s intentions, what will they do? They will try to bolster their defenses to the best they can. Isnt that obvious? Or you think all countries will give up their sovereignty in face of certain defeat? Yeah, Skates thought it was unnecessary. But the issue was whether they were going to defend the islands. That was the only point I was addressing. You¡¦re so eager to leap in and twist every word I say hoping to find that I am disingenuous. Otherwise you¡¦d have to admit that you don¡¦t know anything and you are just scattershooting from internet sites. Sigh imagine whatever you want mate. The point is the same author whom you were so eagerly quoting thought bombing was unnecessary. How am I twisting? When you who claim to have read the book, only talk about a selective part of the book and not mentioning what the author thought about the bombing itself, doesn’t it amount to twisting?. Coming to the defending part, see above. Which public statement? Be aware that by Potsdam we knew Japan had no intention of surrendering and no surrender plan¡K Err….the one that was to be issued for the bombing. And given that Truman got the news of the successful testing at trinity, wouldn’t it be plausible (or the fact) that the language of the final draft of Potsdam declaration, in particular the language of paragraph 12? And why weren’t soviets part of the signatories and why couldn’t the allies CLEARLY indicate the soviets were going to declare war against Japan? This is what we call a lie, Phaedrus. The Japanese did not use the Swedes, the Swedish initiative was started in Sweden and killed by the Japanese. The Soviet initiative was to get an alliance in return for territory which Stalin was going to take anyway in support of a cease-fire. This is propaganda. Tell me, do you know what terms Konoye was carrying to the Soviets? Sigh again, the same author whom you so eagerly quoted now is lying since it is not in sync with the propaganda you believe in? Konoye….read the telegrams know quite well what his conclusions are. Unfortunately, they are not supported. He is speculating based on a study conducted in 1946. Ironically, fighting would continue on Okinawa past the end of the war, with small unit actions going on until 1947. That should put the conclusions into perspective. Umm… all those studies are WRONG, especially even the author is wrong since it doesn’t fit your belief system? look at the DATE! July, 8, 1945. A month before the invasion. Also, these guys had no idea about the Bomb. Also, the Japanese did not surrender when the Soviets entered. Err….so what if it is a month before the invasion? Does that make it irrelevant? It clearly states what exactly are the concerns of the Japanese and regarding the soviets, read the statement carefully An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat. Maybe instead of trying to test the bomb on a second city, one could have waited for a week or so to see whether the surrender will happen after the Soviets entered…instead of killing more civilians? How would the knowledge of the bomb change any of those observations? Trying to wiggle out? And there is also the secret War Department Study (April 1946), details of which are given in the Alperovitz response at h-diplo Quote:
And you knew about it before since you say so right? Wonder why you never mentioned it? What would be justification for you? The fact is that they were the one’s who interviewed the survivors and came to the conclusions. If the survey was a tool of the Air Force, then hope you have read the Europe survey? In case you haven’t, let me tell you that the report describes the inefficiency and inaccuracy of strategic bombing during world war. Skates dismissed the conclusions of the survey as WRONG? I don’t think he says that. Yes. If you knew anything about this situation, you¡¦d know why Zacharias had such a far reaching position. But alas, you¡¦re just fishing on the internet without understanding what you are seeing. Read and understand what I posted completely before opening that thing. I am posting a telegram which gives what the Japanese thought of the zacharias broadcasts, how the hell they were to know what is official and what is not? And once they knew they gave their response in the context of the Atlantic charter, which means that they RESPONDED to the broadcasts. And their concern was clear in the telegram where it said His(Zac) word, however, that Japan shall receive the benefit of the Atlantic Charter is in contradiction to the attitude taken by England and the United States when they rejected German participation under the said Charter prior to her surrend July 25¡K.the day before the meetings on the 27th, where Togo is clearly understanding the whole Unconditional Surrender thing. BTW, this is an outgoing telegram to a subordinate. Why is it you think Togo would reveal himself in such a thing? Sigh read the response …..and btw they were communicating and hoping that others would also know their stance. And it clearly states in the telegram As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender Again, Togo and the others met on the 27th and it was clear that they understood exactly what is going on. What is your point? The point in that particular telegram is If is is possible to avoid such a formula, however, Japan desires to end the war, with an extremely conciliatory attitude, so long as Japan is guaranteed the nation's honor and existence. it clearly shows what is their concern Again, what peace feelers. Can you detail them? Names, dates, and places? Umm didn’t you read the link where the same zacharias who was famous for his broadcasts comments upon the situation? “How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender” Forrestal then called Potsdam and requested Presidential approval (after the fact) for our "deliberate indiscretion." Finally he dropped everything in Washington and flew to Potsdam himself. Our nerves were on edge as we waited word from Potsdam. Then came the Associated Press flash saying the President would stand by my reference to the Atlantic Charter. But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled. Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan. It was drafted in the presence of the Russians as they stood poised to enter the Far Eastern war, convinced that Japan could not accept it in the time limit set. It was offered in the shadow of the A-bomb—ready to be released over a city whose population had not been forewarned as other cities to be bombed by the Air Force had been forewarned before. The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed and insure our postwar strategic position. What is missing here is this. At the top, the cables were all being read. So whatever the OSS or the State Department or MacArthur or Zacharias or anyone else thinks, the people at the top knew perfectly well that Japan had no intention and no plan to surrender. That is the missing item of information you need to assess all these ¡§peace feelers.¡¨ That is why the President and the top circles were so cold to all these people below them. They knew perfectly well what was going on in Tokyo. If they were being read, then still they decided to BOMB, then either they misinterpreted the whole thing or were being stubborn. As I said in the old thread…. was a bomb dropped and people died and the japanese surrendered. Thats a fact, why was the bomb dropped on civilians, why couldnt the bomb be dropped elsewhere to demonstrate its power (whether or not it would have served the purpose is another debate altogether), should one have used the "bomb" in the first place, was the "bomb" dropped to give USSR a signal, how different was the surrender deal given to japan ultimately and how different was it from the deal they were asking from before the bomb was dropped, did the leaders even understand how powerful the bomb was and devastation it could cause, were the estimation of military casualties inaccurate...etc ....there are zillion questions like that for which one cant paint an answer in black & white. Those are up for debate Any country while pursuing the surrender option, will also be prepared to fight in case they are going to be humiliated One other thing. I have no idea why you condemn that the Americans for extending the war, but not the Japanese. It takes two to make war, Phaedrus. All they had to do was surrender. Period. And it would have been over. Or make a concrete, clear, and serious surrender offer, from the top, asking for terms. But none ever came. No one is applauding what the Japanese did or the Germans did in world war II, the things which we are discussing here was the BOMBING justified morally or otherwise. All the Americans do was to indicate publicly or through the right channels, that the emperor could stay. As the cables and other articles point out, They wanted to surrender as indicated in the telegrams, but they wanted to get more clarification on how they and the country is going to treated? |
|
04-14-2003, 06:39 AM | #108 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
|
Part II
that was Kase's analysis I included, a line by line decomposition of the Potsdam Declaration. Kase knew perfectly well what it said. In addition to the text of the telegram itself, there were also the famous Zacharias broadcasts which also explained that unconditional surrender was...well...conditional.
Zacharias I already covered. And regarding kase’s analysis, could you give me the text of the original cable which says all those things? And with regard to sato’s views on the matter, instead of depending on weintraub, suggest that you read the actual telegrams to get a grip on what sato actually thought. When did sato say that Potsdam was the only avenue to peace as you mentioned? Supporting Sato's contention that Potsdam was the only avenue to peace Phaed, I included several other diplomats in the list -- all of the top men from among the "peace faction" understood this, and they made their understandings clear….snip…..I know this is difficult for you to handle, as you have been raised on the Japanese propaganda campaign and its leftist allies and dupes around the world. It was one of the left's great errors that it fell for the lies of Japanese facism. Firstly what does weintraub base his conclusions on and then when did this particular meeting happen, before or after Potsdam declaration? And if all of them were “clear” on what unconditional surrender meant, then why was this cable sent? As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender And why were they insisting on getting clarification on the issue of the emperor or an official word from the Americans on the same, which anyhow they did agree to in the end? Then what is this release you are talking about? And regarding your last statement above, just address it to yourself with the appropriate changes. Washington knew that because it was reading ALL the diplomatic and almost all the military traffic. Thus, it had a pretty good picture of what was going on. It knew from the orders and inquiries that Kase was getting that his effort was entirely his own and not his government's. He had no orders. Also -- small problem -- Kase's peace urgings never reached the Americans. Can you tell me which American officials Kase contacted? Firstly, don’t try to dodge, answer the question. This still doesn’t address my point Read what I wrote… “And again I would like links for your interpretations that “Washington [k]new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes?” Now you say there is a cable which is the source for this exact statement. How can a cable that magic intercepted have these words????? ?Washington [k]new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes?That is a frikkin interpretation and not the cable message itself, which I am sure you will be able to provide, instead of giving me a link to bruce’s excerpts. Second, have you already forgotten William Donovan and kase? Not reached the Americans I believe every single time Japan's ambassadors pleaded with the central government to surrender, Washington knew, sometimes before Tokyo did. That's how Washington knew that Japan would not surrender. It knew because it had cables like the July 16 cable, which said "Unconditional Surrender will only mean that our national structure and people will be destroyed...we must...fight to the last." That day the War Council authorized a resolution calling for the death of The Hundred Million -- all the people in Japan. These are people you claim are giving out "peace feelers." Which cable is this you are carrying out? Just in case you didn’t realize it was the military faction. From your position of lofty ignorance, having read none of the standard histories, and completely and totally unfamiliar with the most basic aspects of the war and the Japanese side of it, nevertheless, you are sure I am wrong. Fine, no problem. Supply me with the names of men in this hardworking, organized group that had a positive policy for which all worked together as a team. Again depends you see, an ignorant person might call others ignorant coz he/she is ignorant. Regarding the names, please read my earlier posts and this one, you will come up with names. LOL. It¡¦s one passage. Did you see a context supplied? I didn¡¦t. That¡¦s how I know it is out of context. You made these statements, first No context given (it is actually from his famous diary, and totally out of context) and further, Leahy is one man, just as Kase was. and I asked why out of context? And you go blabbering, what do you mean by out of context? Quite true. And guess what. Not a single one had the power to make a decision. The war was Hirohito¡¦s, and only he could stop it. Yup just like they were people like leahy who didn’t like the way things were going on but didn’t have the POWER. Truman had the power to change the lingo and not bomb, why didn’t he do it? Any coin has two sides All you keep doing is saying ¡§You¡¦re wrong! Nyah! Nyah! Have you bothered to read up on the debates on Strategic Air Power after WWII and the procurement issues in a military being demobilized? The Air Force was trying to position itself to keep the Strategic Bomber alive in the nuclear age. Hence the conclusion that it Japan would have surrendered without invasion, A-bombs, or Russian invasion. BTW, did you find their rationale for that? Guess what! That¡¦s cuz they never gave one. First, give the content of those cables as asked . And second, what sort of argument is that? If you have any exact evidence with regard to air force doctoring the survey, provide that. Or else, stop….refer to my comments earlier on the Europe survey Phaed, Leahy did not understand what all the major Japanese diplomats ¡V Sato, Togo, Kase and Suzuki, the Premier, understood: that Unconditional Surrender was conditional. That is why he was clueless. And regardless of whether they are meeting minutes or not, Leahy¡¦s state of mind is not relevant.. What¡¦s relevant is what the Japanese did. And they rejected every peace initiative started by their own underlings and the US. Why leahy, it seems that Truman and his officers themselves don’t seem to have understood what all the diplomats understood. US had peace initiatives of its own, especially during the time before the bombing? Pls give some references. Phaed, all of them were cut off by the Japanese. The Portugal thing, I believe you¡¦ve confused Fujimura¡¦s attempt through Dulles in Berne. That was killed in July, when he was told by his Navy superior, Yonai, to ¡§take, at least outwardly, no further part in the matter.¡¨ Shigemitsu¡¦s position on the Unconditional Surrender is absolutely irrelevant; as I have already demonstrated, the decision makers all knew perfectly well. In any case, as I have said several times, what Unconditional Surrender meant was carefully explained to Japan in a series of broadcasts, articles and letters to the editor in the Washington Post (forwarded by Kase to Tokyo). See Weintraub¡¦s discussion of July 22, 1945. That the Japanese understood was illustrated by a broadcast made in response. That initiative too was killed by Tokyo. Could you be kind enough to provide links/references or actual evidence to all this. And with regard to what the Japanese understood, I have already commented and they did respond and read zacharais article as to who/what killed the initiative. They were seeking clarification and then Potsdam happened. Shigemitsu¡¦s initiative to Bagge was shut down by Togo, his successor in the Suzuki government, not the Americans. Togo was convinced that Sweden was too small to intercede effectively. Shigemitsu was Foreign Minister under Koiso and before Togo. Evidence? Did US respond to bagge? So long a distance! 100 miles! On an island arc 1500 miles long¡K. Sure you like the book so you can justify…what about “Kuriles” and “Ryukyu” Thailand was occupied by Japanese troops who made sure that it was an ¡§ally.¡¨ And what does weintraub say on it? And how about If one takes a look at this review of his other book where its points out the numerous errors, should the book be thrown in the garbage can? Are we talking about the same war! The Americans repeatedly assured Japan that the Emperor could stay on. Again, for the umpteenth time, see the whole saga of the Zacharias broadcasts and the accompanying print material. See also the Potsdam Declaration which was carefully worded. Apparently same war from which you seem to remember only selective things. Have commented on zacharias and what he actually thought about how Americans bungled the whole thing. No, they don¡¦t. But they were happy fallout from the first and most important reason, which was to end the war. Like I said, the Bomb had to satisfy several demands. Sigh, then why are you calling them the rationale for dropping the bomb. It was a major industrial city. And was originally slated for destruction a couple of weeks later, but the drop was moved up due to the weather. But Nagasaki should not have happened, as I said above. I have no quarrel with the selection of it as a target. You haven’t addressed the issue here, what was the need for Nagasaki? And what happened to your earlier statement Quote:
Simple, you go read the telegrams and other stuff that I have highlighted what they understood and the change of heart and response to the Atlantic charter and how they were seeking clarification. Emperor was bad, we will not agree to keeping him and not budge from our position and then after the surrender keep him. Yeahh, by being stubborn and adamant, the US was able to push the Japanese into a corner so that they could test their new toys and kill civilans. Evidence. Can you cite the peace feelers rejected by the United States? That they didn’t agree to the retention of the emperor. And with regard to peace feelers…..read above Yes, I see my problem. It is that, no matter what facts I put up regarding the Japanese rejection of numerous peace initiatives by their own people, the clear understanding of Potsdam possessed at the highest levels, the thousands of tunnels, aircraft, in-depth defenses, kamikaze boats and troops sequestered for the defense, the existence of a national militia made up of women and old men for suicide attacks, the Emperor¡¦s refusal to order an end to the war until the Bomb was dropped, and other pieces of information too numerous to collect here, you are going to ignore it all, in favor of the long postwar Japanese propaganda campaign, whose existence is affirmed by all serious writers on the topic ¡V see Fallows, Van Wolferen, McCormack, Hall, etc. Umm …instead of just running around in circles….let me do this….there was long debate about Alperovitz’s 1995 book, which bonnet reviewed and villa supported him on H-diplo discussion list which concentrates on diplomatic and international history , all historians. It was a pretty long debate….and al responded to the review here…..just read it… Alperovitz Responds Right¡K.and in his ¡§sensitivity¡¨ to the Japanese, he gave them total control of the exhibit. You don¡¦t get it, do you? This ¡§sensitivity¡¨ is something that the Japanese have cultivated as a way of gaining control over well-meaning people. Why do you think people who write and think critically on Japan in the West are constantly attacked as racists and Japan bashers. The Japanese spend millions annually tracking and shaping public opinion in the West, just as we do in the East ¡V I know this because the company I used to work for was part of this effort. You acknowledge one campaign, but not the other. In fact, you simply reject the possibility that the Japanese could ever have such a thing as a ¡§conspiracy.¡¨ Just look at the cynical stalling of the POWs, the slave laborers, the comfort women, the debates over the textbooks in Japan, the Japanese Right¡¦s (whose position is the same as yours) attacks on those who dare speak out, the Japanese government¡¦s failure to acknowledge the biowarfare experiments, the whole debate over the Nanjing (and many other massacres) and so on. Japan carefully controls and frames this issue, and it is not surprising that many in the West on the Left have adopted the Japanese Right¡¦s position on the A-bomb. Don’t twist the issue or my statements. When did I reject that any side can involve in propaganda….at last count US had more money than japan and US was calling the shots in japan after they surrendered. So it looks pretty silly logic to me that they were able to do all that . No one has said “JAPANESE ARE GOOD PEOPLE AND THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG”. The issue here is nuking of japan. By that logic, if we extend back in history, the atrocities against American Indians and blacks and all the other things US has done in the modern world can be quoted as evidence that Americans are inherently EVIL. Who can? It is full of unsubstantiated nonsense. Let¡¦s go over it: Sure you go on quoting historians and when a bunch of historians subscribe to a view that is not consistent with yours you don’t like it. Now why does it sound like fundie logic. Why didn’t other historians respond to it and have a public debate? How is ¡§Many ten thousands of deaths¡¨ an underestimate of 200,000? yes it is called making cosmetic changes to a fact to make it appear less gruesome. Actually, a third the population of Hiroshima was soldiers; it was an Army HQ. The aiming point was Hiroshima Castle, 4,000 fighting men inside. The A-Bomb dome was close by. The Japanese preserved it because to rebuild Hiroshima castle, the true aiming point, would remind everyone that actually Hiroshima was damned warlike. Since ¡§official¡¨ Japanese records are inflated, and official US ones undercounting, nobody really knows how many died. ……….., Hiroshima was about one-third soldiers, and was the major military HQ responsible for the defense of Kyushu, which most definitely made it a military target. The reason the Bomb was dropped in the city center, is that that¡¦s where the Headquarters was. In fact, [I]it was the aiming point. Phaed, when are you going to learn that the Left lies as often as the Right? Umm the reference was to both cities, am sure you can justify Nagasaki along the same lines. One third were soldiers? What is the source for that? Werent there loads of workers who worked at the military installation at the outskirts? Now if Hiroshima was such an important base and high on the priority list, why wasn’t it bombed earlier? Was it nuked coz it was a pristine city? And the city center also had civilians, why not the military installations? But let¡¦s go on ¡V I have to skip the next set of points because I have dealt with them all above. The Japanese government was perfectly well aware of what Unconditional Surrender meant. Read above This one is downright disingenuous. It is quite true that the leaflets did not warn specifically of an atomic weapon. Nevertheless, the Japanese were warned many times, including several days prior to the Bomb, that their cities would be destroyed. The paragraph leaves the impression that no leaflets were dropped. That is quite false. This is what is vulgarly known as a ¡§lie.¡¨ I read it and don’t think it says that. It says, the way the line is constructed could be misconstrued to think that the residents were warned of the atomic bomb, by saying warned about a bombing raid in one sentence and in the next referring to the atomic bombing. That is called careful crafting That¡¦s right. Phaedrus, we have the luxury of 20-20 hindsight. We know the Bomb ended the war. But the planners in July of 1945 could not have known that. They had to plan for the contingency of failure. So yes, that¡¦s right, if the Bombs failed, they would have had to invade. So the Bomb had to address that possibility. The historian¡¦s letter also lies; Hiroshima was ¡§pristine¡¨ precisely because it had been saved for the Bomb (which those signatories know full well), not because it was an uninteresting target. The invasion was not an ¡¥alternative¡¦ ¡V the Bomb was the alternative to the invasion Transshipment base you said, are you referring to Hiroshima or Kure? And the military installations on the outskirts…were they wiped out? When was the decision made to include Hiroshima in the list of targets? When the target committee met in April, was it there in the list? In May when they met, they said this and didn’t mention about the soldier: civilian ratio or Kyushu. Quote:
Provide the contents of the particular cable you are talking about and references. The US did something is it? What was their propaganda campaign? The harper magazine issue? When Americans were effectively ruling japan, why couldn’t they force the version they wanted? jp Edited to add...Will respond to your remaining posts in couple of days, bear with me for the delay. |
||
04-16-2003, 08:28 AM | #109 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Re: Part II
[Zacharias I already covered.
LOL. Phaedrus, Zacharias you don't understand at all. And regarding kase's analysis, could you give me the text of the original cable which says all those things? The text is in the prior post in this thread.
And with regard to sato's views on the matter, instead of depending on weintraub, suggest that you read the actual telegrams to get a grip on what sato actually thought. When did sato say that Potsdam was the only avenue to peace as you mentioned? Supporting Sato's contention that Potsdam was the only avenue to peace Sato said, and I quote (again):
Sato knew quite well what Potsdam meant. That's from Toland, not Weintraub, BTW. Craig notes that on July 20 he sent a note saying he recommended ¡§Japan¡¦s surrender on any terms.¡¨ Vork: Phaed, I included several other diplomats in the list -- all of the top men from among the "peace faction" understood this, and they made their understandings clear? Phaed: Firstly what does weintraub base his conclusions on and then when did this particular meeting happen, before or after Potsdam declaration? There were many meetings and cables -- Kase was in Switzerland, for one thing. Second, these are not Weintraub's but mine. I have supplied you with quotes from all the relevant members of the "peace faction." Kase, Suzuki, Sato and Togo all clearly understood that "unconditional surrender" was conditional and certainly did after Potsdam. The military knew this -- it had phrases that indicated that Potsdam was conditional removed in the version it circulated to the public. In other words, the claim that the Japanese balked at unconditional surrender is a lie. The Japanese used the phrase as an excuse to avoid surrendering and continue the war. Phaed: And if all of them were “clear?on what unconditional surrender meant, then why was this cable sent? Because Sato was trying to convince his government that the Russia route was a dead end! Remember, Sato is in Moscow, not Tokyo. He is a junior diplomat recieving instructions and conveying information back. He's not in the policymaking apparatus. Additionally, not everyone in the government was convinced that Russia was a dead end. Who was going to send Konoye to Moscow to negotiate a cease-fire with Russian backing? Hirohito. And the military wanted to continue the war. Remember, Sato is in Moscow and has only the vaguest idea of what is going on in Tokyo. He has no idea if anyone is listening to him or not, which accounts for the increasing desperation in his cables as he requests clarifications for surrender plans that do not exist. As he himself said in a decrypted message: "My first responsibility is to prevent the harboring of illusions which are at variance with the reality." He knew that the war was futile -- "How much reserve strength does Japan have for continuing the war?" he asked in another cable. But because he was in Moscow, not Tokyo, he had no clue as to the actual control by the military.
No. The problem was the attitude of the Japanese, who were using unconditional surrender as an excuse. You will note that the cable above was sent on July 25. The context is completely missing, as it usually is in such propaganda presentations. This was an instruction from Togo to Sato, who is not discussing realities but instead is telling Sato what attitude he is to take with the Russians. Togo added at the end of this cable specifically that this was not a 'peace feeler' (exact words) but "obedience to Imperial command." In other words -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- this is an out-of-context quote that actually demonstrates that Japan's stance on unconditional surrender was a negotiating tactic designed to give the military cover to continue the war. Togo then went on to add that actually "it is necessary to have them understand that we are trying to end hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure and maintain our nation's existence and honor." Very reasonable terms! Do you know that the original proposals given to the Russians in May consisted of a few territorial concessions in Siberia and Manchuria and fishing rights!? The Japanese envisioned keeping all that they had in May of 1945. We in the US already knew this because the Russians had already informed us that they were just stringing the Japanese along and had no intention of ending the war. We knew it was futile because the Russians had told us. So there's no excuse for listening to people who claim that somehow this was a peace initiative we had ignored or discredited so we could drop the Bomb. The whole Russian exercise was a fantasy designed to prevent the Emperor from facing up to the fact that the war was lost and it would have to give up all the territory it had taken since 1895. Vork: Also -- small problem -- Kase's peace urgings never reached the Americans. Can you tell me which American officials Kase contacted? Phaed: Firstly, don't try to dodge, answer the question. This still doesn’t address my point [I] Read what I wrote?“And again I would like links for your interpretations that “Washington [k]new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes?? Phaedrus! Has it not penetrated? Washington was reading all the cable traffic between Kase and Tokyo! Every last word was on Truman's desk within 24-48 hours. It knew perfectly well what Tokyo was saying to Kase and vice versa! Dodging the question! Indeed! Phaedrus, you don¡¦t know enough about this topic to tell whether I am dodging the question¡Kas we will shortly see. Phaed: now you say there is a cable which is the source for this exact statement. How can a cable that magic intercepted have these words????? ?Washington [k]new perfectly well that Kase was acting on his own, and against Tokyo's wishes?That is a frikkin interpretation and not the cable message itself, which I am sure you will be able to provide, instead of giving me a link to bruce¡¦s excerpts. Well, let's see.....I don¡¦t know how much clearer I can be. If Washington is reading the traffic that goes back and forth, and Washington knows that Kase has not contacted anyone (you are confused and actually thinking of Fujimura)¡K.and Washington sees that for 8 days Fujimura bombards Tokyo with cables, and Washington sees no response from Tokyo, and Washington knows that it didn¡¦t initiate this peace feeler, but Fujimura has told Tokyo that Washington initiated the peace feeler and Washington knows that Fujimura is a low ranking naval attaché, and Washington sees that its offer is spurned and Tokyo¡¦s first reply says¡K.
¡Kthen it is probably clear what this means. Here it is in a nutshell. Kase never contacted any American officials (that was Fujimura and the German Hack) so that¡¦s how I know Kase never had Tokyo¡¦s blessing. In a nutshell, Washington knew Fujimura did not have Tokyo¡¦s approval because it knew that Fujimura told Tokyo that Washington had initiated the contacts. Now, if Tokyo was running the show, why would (1) Fujimura say the US had contacted him (2) they use a low-ranking attaché when (3) they have a 24-7 line to America for any questions they might have? It doesn¡¦t get any clearer than that, Phaedrus. Which you would know, if you had done any reading. Why are you arguing with me about something you don¡¦t know anything about? Second, have you already forgotten William Donovan and kase? Not reached the Americans I believe Did Donovan meet Kase? You are confused. Donovan did not meet Kase at this time. Donovan reported that Kase extended a peace feeler because he met with Fujimura. Offhand, I can¡¦t recall any meeting between Kase and Donovan at this time on this topic. Can you tell me when this meeting took place? Vork: every single time Japan's ambassadors pleaded with the central government to surrender, Washington knew, sometimes before Tokyo did. That's how Washington knew that Japan would not surrender. It knew because it had cables like the July 16 cable, which said "Unconditional Surrender will only mean that our national structure and people will be destroyed...we must...fight to the last." That day the War Council authorized a resolution calling for the death of The Hundred Million -- all the people in Japan. These are people you claim are giving out "peace feelers." Phaed: Which cable is this you are carrying out? Just in case you didn¡¦t realize it was the military faction. Phaedrus, do you know what the War Council was? The Supreme War Council of six members was the oligarchy that ran the war under the leadership of the Emperor. It was basically split 3-3 but it was controlled by the military. It put out that document. The US knew that the military was running the show, and knew it wouldn¡¦t surrender. Of course, US also knew that in June Kido submitted a surrender proposal similar to what Japan would accept in August, and Suzuki presented it to the Diet, but it was jeered at and shot down. At a press conference the next day Suzuki said that ¡§If our hundred million people fight with the resolve to sacrifice their lives, I believe it is not at all impossible to attain the great goal of preserving the essence of Japan.¡¨ Suzuki is generally considered a peace faction member. The rhetoric of both factions was the same! I realize that these are just facts, and will do little to move your unshakeable faith in this fantasy constructed by Japanese propaganda. I present them for those who are lurking. Again depends you see, an ignorant person might call others ignorant coz he/she is ignorant. Regarding the names, please read my earlier posts and this one, you will come up with names. LOL. Never mind. I knew you didn¡¦t know who or what you are talking about. You made these statements, first No context given (it is actually from his famous diary, and totally out of context) and further, Leahy is one man, just as Kase was. and I asked why out of context? And you go blabbering, what do you mean by out of context? Phaedrus: the quote you offered has no context supplied. Where was it from? When was it written? To whom was it addressed? Why was it written? What context is around it? You know, it is out of context. Yup just like they were people like leahy who did¡¦nt like the way things were going on but didn¡¦t have the POWER. Truman had the power to change the lingo and not bomb, why didn¡¦t he do it? Any coin has two sides Truman didn¡¦t do it because he felt it was the best way to force the Japanese to surrender. Vork: All you keep doing is saying "You're wrong! Nyah! Nyah! Have you bothered to read up on the debates on Strategic Air Power after WWII and the procurement issues in a military being demobilized? The Air Force was trying to position itself to keep the Strategic Bomber alive in the nuclear age. Hence the conclusion that it Japan would have surrendered without invasion, A-bombs, or Russian invasion. BTW, did you find their rationale for that? Guess what! That's cuz they never gave one. Phaed:First, give the content of those cables as asked . And second, what sort of argument is that? If you have any exact evidence with regard to air force doctoring the survey, provide that. Or else, stop?refer to my comments earlier on the Europe survey LOL. You know what is really ironic about the ignorant comments you are making? Skates, whom you tried to club me over the head with, has a detailed discussion of just how and why the Air Force spun its Strategic Bombing Survey conclusions (the effort to gain credit for ending the war actually began in 1944 even before it was over!) When you locate Skates The Invasion of Japan look on pages 48-51. leahy, it seems that Truman and his officers themselves don’t seem to have understood what all the diplomats understood. US had peace initiatives of its own, especially during the time before the bombing? Pls give some references. US approaches to Japan were Zacharias broadcasts, as well as our enthusiastic response to early overtures. For example, after Fujimura¡¦s initial meeting with Dulles, the US offered to fly out ranking Japanese officials to Europe under US protection to negotiate. Does that sound like rejection to you? Unfortunately, while a number of Japanese wanted to go, the military turned the idea down, and all understood that any Japanese who went would be killed. Phaed, all of them were cut off by the Japanese. The Portugal thing, I believe you've confused Fujimura's attempt through Dulles in Berne. That was killed in July, when he was told by his Navy superior, Yonai, to "take, at least outwardly, no further part in the matter." Shigemitsu's position on the Unconditional Surrender is absolutely irrelevant; as I have already demonstrated, the decision makers all knew perfectly well. In any case, as I have said several times, what Unconditional Surrender meant was carefully explained to Japan in a series of broadcasts, articles and letters to the editor in the Washington Post (forwarded by Kase to Tokyo). See Weintraub's discussion of July 22, 1945. That the Japanese understood was illustrated by a broadcast made in response. That initiative too was killed by Tokyo. Phaed:Could you be kind enough to provide links/references or actual evidence to all this. And with regard to what the Japanese understood, I have already commented and they did respond and read zacharais article as to who/what killed the initiative. They were seeking clarification and then Potsdam happened. ROFL. Phaed, can I ask why you want links and references to basic history? References to these events are numerous. See Weintraub¡¦s The Last Great Victory, Craig¡¦s The Fall of Japan, Toland¡¦s Rise and Fall Vol 2, Miracle of Deliverance, and numerous other works. But since the perfidious US horribly denied the peace-loving Japanese many attempts to make peace, it should be a simple matter for you to find the Japanese ¡Vgovernment initiated peace plan that the US rejected so it could nuke Japan. Just bring it on. Zacharias is confused about the end of the war peace feelers. I read the article. It doesn¡¦t contain a single concrete correct fact, just a lot of invective. No Japanese-government initiated peace feeler was ever cut off by the US. Zacharias, like many after the war, confused a large number of individually-initiated peace feelers with some kind of government program. I have challenged you a couple of times to find me the peace feeler from the Japanese government. There was none, and all ¡§peace feelers¡¨ were individual in nature, not sanctioned by Tokyo, and ultimately rejected by the Japanese, where it was settled policy on the part of the Emperor, the Supreme War Council and the Diet to continue the war. Vork: Shigemitsu's initiative to Bagge was shut down by Togo, his successor in the Suzuki government, not the Americans. Togo was convinced that Sweden was too small to intercede effectively. Shigemitsu was Foreign Minister under Koiso and before Togo. Phaed: Evidence? Did US respond to bagge? Toland, Rise and Fall, p915:
Satisfied? Don¡¦t you own any of the basic works? Vork: Are we talking about the same war! The Americans repeatedly assured Japan that the Emperor could stay on. Again, for the umpteenth time, see the whole saga of the Zacharias broadcasts and the accompanying print material. See also the Potsdam Declaration which was carefully worded. Phaed: Apparently same war from which you seem to remember only selective things. Have commented on zacharias and what he actually thought about how Americans bungled the whole thing. Like I said, Zacharias was not in a position to know what really happened. And the Potsdam declaration clearly called for only the surrender of ONLY the Army, a fact you have resolutely ignored. Sigh, then why are you calling them the rationale for dropping the bomb. Because, Phaedrus, the rationale for dropping the bomb was for ending the war. That¡¦s what all its supporters intended it to do. But that does not mean that it could not have other effects, nor does it mean that planners could ignore the possibility of failure. Phaed: You have¡¦t addressed the issue here, what was the need for Nagasaki? And what happened to your earlier statement Nagasaki was necessary to show that we had a number of the weapons and would use them. As it was, it was rendered a tragedy by a combination of bad weather and the Japanese military and US weapons deployment procedures. Vork: All irrelevant because as I have pointed out again and again, both the Peace and the War faction understood what Potsdam meant. Period. As their words and actions all indicate. By July 27, 1945, the entire high level of the Japanese government knew perfectly well everything the Allies meant. Not only did the leadership know, but the Allies dropped millions of leaflets explaining it carefully to the Japanese people, with the complete text, not the censored one the military handed out. Japanese "worry" about Unconditional Surrender was a smokescreen designed to obscure the military's desire to continue the war even to the destruction of the people of Japan. You can accept, as I do, that the military was dancing to Hirohito's tune, or that they were acting independently as was assumed until Bergamini and Bix published. Either way, the outcome is the same. Phaed: Simple, you go read the telegrams and other stuff that I have highlighted what they understood and the change of heart and response to the Atlantic charter and how they were seeking clarification. Emperor was bad, we will not agree to keeping him and not budge from our position and then after the surrender keep him. Phaed, in every single case, either you have had to ask for links, or have deployed telegrams which do not support your case. I am still, after all these posts, waiting for the peace feeler that originated in Tokyo and was rejected by the US. You have never supplied that one. Vork: Yes, I see my problem. It is that, no matter what facts I put up regarding the Japanese rejection of numerous peace initiatives by their own people, the clear understanding of Potsdam possessed at the highest levels, the thousands of tunnels, aircraft, in-depth defenses, kamikaze boats and troops sequestered for the defense, the existence of a national militia made up of women and old men for suicide attacks, the Emperor's refusal to order an end to the war until the Bomb was dropped, and other pieces of information too numerous to collect here, you are going to ignore it all, in favor of the long postwar Japanese propaganda campaign, whose existence is affirmed by all serious writers on the topic - see Fallows, Van Wolferen, McCormack, Hall, etc. Umm …instead of just running around in circles?let me do this?there was long debate about Alperovitz’s 1995 book, which bonnet reviewed and villa supported him on H-diplo discussion list which concentrates on diplomatic and international history , all historians. It was a pretty long debate?and al responded to the review here?.just read I¡¦ve read this before. Alperovitz is a propagandist, not a serious scholar. If you have that Japanese peace feeler, let me know. Alperovitz can¡¦t produce it. Skates, by the way, refers to Alperovitz¡¦s views as the ¡§most extreme.¡¨ Japan carefully controls and frames this issue, and it is not surprising that many in the West on the Left have adopted the Japanese Right's position on the A-bomb. Phaed: Don’t twist the issue or my statements. When did I reject that any side can involve in propaganda?at last count US had more money than japan and US was calling the shots in japan after they surrendered. So it looks pretty silly logic to me that they were able to do all that . More ignorance! The US was not ¡§calling the shots.¡¨ I think you need to read up on the Occupation as well. No one has said “JAPANESE ARE GOOD PEOPLE AND THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG? The issue here is nuking of japan. By that logic, if we extend back in history, the atrocities against American Indians and blacks and all the other things US has done in the modern world can be quoted as evidence that Americans are inherently EVIL. LOL. You missed the point. You keep ducking the issue. Here it is in black and white: the Japanese government, the world¡¦s second richest, operates a propaganda machine that is extremely effective. One of the things it does is attempt to get the US blamed for the nuking of Japan by trying to get the Left to believe that the US deliberately put off the Japanese surrender so it could bomb Japan. You have not once ever conceded the existence of this effort or the way it has colored your thinking. In fact, you refuse to face this. What I would like is a clear statement acknowledging that Japan has had a dedicated propaganda program on this issue, from you. Phaed: Sure you go on quoting historians and when a bunch of historians subscribe to a view that is not consistent with yours you don’t like it. Now why does it sound like fundie logic. Why didn’t other historians respond to it and have a public debate? Duh. They did. In any case, I personally have supplied the data why the famous ¡§Historians Letter¡¨ is a pack of lies. How is "Many ten thousands of deaths" an underestimate of 200,000? yes it is called making cosmetic changes to a fact to make it appear less gruesome. Perhaps, but if you can give me a precise estimate ¡V something no one else can do ¡V ¡§many tens of thousands¡¨ can hardly be called an underestimate. Vork??., Hiroshima was about one-third soldiers, and was the major military HQ responsible for the defense of Kyushu, which most definitely made it a military target. The reason the Bomb was dropped in the city center, is that that's where the Headquarters was. In fact, [I]it was the aiming point. Phaed, when are you going to learn that the Left lies as often as the Right? Phaed:Umm the reference was to both cities, am sure you can justify Nagasaki along the same lines. Irrelevant. The letter states Hiroshima was not a military target, when it most certainly was. Therefore it is a lie. Nagasaki was an industrial city, and therefore a military target. End of discussion. Phaed:One third were soldiers? What is the source for that? Let¡¦s see¡K.just about any decent book on it! Werent there loads of workers who worked at the military installation at the outskirts? Phaedrus, if you don¡¦t know things like this, and don¡¦t have references that can tell you, why are you carrying on this conversation? Phaed: Now if Hiroshima was such an important base and high on the priority list, why wasn¡¦t it bombed earlier? Because it had been designated a target in May and reserved in a decision taken by the Army Air Force on July 3, I think. Was it nuked coz it was a pristine city? Yes, it had been kept that way for the Bomb by the Air Force ¡V against orders, as I recall. And the city center also had civilians, why not the military installations? The 2nd Army HQ of Hiroshima castle was the aiming point. Vork: This one is downright disingenuous. It is quite true that the leaflets did not warn specifically of an atomic weapon. Nevertheless, the Japanese were warned many times, including several days prior to the Bomb, that their cities would be destroyed. The paragraph leaves the impression that no leaflets were dropped. That is quite false. This is what is vulgarly known as a "lie." Phaed: I read it and don’t think it says that. It says, the way the line is constructed could be misconstrued to think that the residents were warned of the atomic bomb, by saying warned about a bombing raid in one sentence and in the next referring to the atomic bombing. That is called careful crafting Phaed, you concede that it has been crafted. Here is the simple fact: 720,000 leaflets were dropped two days prior on Hiroshima warning that the city would be obliterated. In a country where most cities had been obliterated, don¡¦t you think that maybe somebody should have paid attention (in fact about 120,000 had already been evacuated)? Transshipment base you said, are you referring to Hiroshima or Kure? <Sigh> Phaedrus, Kure is the Naval Base outside of Hiroshima. And the military installations on the outskirts…were they wiped out? Not that I know of. When was the decision made to include Hiroshima in the list of targets? Offhand, May 21. In May when they met, they said this and didn’t mention about the soldier: civilian ratio or Kyushu. No, they knew it was a military target. They didn¡¦t need to specify. Many of the committee members were conversant with Japanese geography. Did you note the detailed discussion of the geographical features of Hiroshima? Vork: The cable instructing Japanese diplomats to use all means to persuade humanitarians and other left-types like you and me that the Bomb was unnecessary was sent out on September 15, 1945. The US did DO something, it launched into its own propaganda campaign. Disentangling the claims and counterclaims is between the two sides is a full-time job. Phaed: Provide the contents of the particular cable you are talking about and references. See Bruce Lee¡¦s Marching Orders. How many times do I have to provide this reference? Is there no library system near you? The US did something is it? What was their propaganda campaign? The US propaganda campaign. Let¡¦s see¡Kplay down the casualties, invent Truman considering Japanese civilian casualties in an invasion¡K.many facets, all part of the greater goal of public acceptance of Nukes during the 1950s. The harper magazine issue? When Americans were effectively ruling japan, why couldn’t they force the version they wanted? Don¡¦t be silly. You¡¦ve confused ¡§occupation¡¨ with ¡§ruling¡¨. The Americans did not rule Japan. Don¡¦t you know? The Americans did not really de-Nazify Japan like we did Germany. We kept the Facists in power there, starting with Emperor, and ran the show through them. They fed us lies, and controlled us very nicely. The arrangement suited everybody fine. Edited to add...[COLOR=red]Will respond to your remaining posts I hope your responses contain (1) some examples of Japanese government peace feelers that were rejected by the US and (2) no more requests for references. Please read some basic works on the war, especially on the Japanese side, where you appear to be woefully unprepared. Vorkosigan |
04-16-2003, 08:44 AM | #110 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
This site here has a pretty good walkthrough of the city's history from after 1870 to 1945, and gives a ton of info on the Hiroshima's increasing militarization after the 1920s. I had no idea it was so heavily militarized. You might note that the site is located in Japan. Of interest might be the page on major locations of Japanese troops, with the interactive maps showing the HQs located in Hiroshima. And of course, the discussion of Second Army HQ:
"Preparing for the possibility that the mainland would be split by advancing American troops, the Second General Army Headquarters was located in Hiroshima in the barracks of the former Fifth Regiment Cavalry. This headquarters again reinforced Hiroshima's role as a military base." There are some mistranslations, but overall the site is OK. Vorkosigan |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|