Japan forgivable?

alecgraham said:

Oh, sorry about that. Simply because you don't like the 'they started it' aspect.

Click to expand...

Oh.

Really, it's been a few years since I deeply considered WWII topics. Japan and Germany were the aggressors. They committed atrocities. But that was the government, not the people. Except the people who did. It's the same reason that I don't blame Americans for the war on Iraq.

I think the things that led me to my opinions on the bomb were things like watching documentaries like "the Fog of War" or "The Atomic Cafe", or reading a first hand account of it like Barefoot Gen. There's been others, but those are the things off the top of my head. It just occurs to me that the people in power didn't think of the human aspect. Maybe in war you can't. But in hindsight, I just have my feelings about it.


On the actual topic of the thread. My father sometimes tries to poke at the leftist in me in order to provoke conversation, since we literally have nothing in common except blood. A few years back at the war-peace memorial in south Okinawa, he made a comment about feeling stared at, and what could their problem be since they started the war. Of course, no one in Okinawa had any say in what the imperial government of Japan did, and I let him know that. It didn't sink in. At home, I gave him volume one of Barefoot Gen. Despite his son being an amateur comic artist, he hadn't read a comic since the 50's. He read it in one night, said it was good, and read all four parts I had in the rest of the week. In all his prodding, he never mentioned Japan starting the war again, since he understood that the main populace had the choice of supporting the government or being ostracised. That's about the last time I considered the war.

"In all his prodding, he never mentioned Japan starting the war again, since he understood that the main populace had the choice of supporting the government or being ostracised."

Yeah, and that's exactly why the US and Allies insisted on unconditional surrender: so the military dictatorship that had launched Japan on its course of conquest and destruction would not remain in power.

RolandtheHeadless said:

"In all his prodding, he never mentioned Japan starting the war again, since he understood that the main populace had the choice of supporting the government or being ostracised."

Yeah, and that's exactly why the US and Allies insisted on unconditional surrender: so the military dictatorship that had launched Japan on its course of conquest and destruction would not remain in power.

Click to expand...

(sigh) Conditional surrender only means there are conditions, not that there MUST be the SPECIFIC condition that the military dictatorship remain in power.

Once again, the Japanese in fact did get conditional surrender, despite the constant mantra that they didn't. The condition was preservation of the emperor, the absolute most important condition they wanted that the insistence on unconditional surrender would not provide.

People go on and on in their totally unprovable faith that the A-bombs saved lives. But those same people never talk about how many were KILLED by the dogmatic demand for unconditional surrender that in the end, was not even realized.

Hundreds of thousands at least, including both sides, would not have died if the one condition of preserving the emperor had been accepted as surrender terms in January 1945.

"Once again, the Japanese in fact did get conditional surrender, despite the constant mantra that they didn't. The condition was preservation of the emperor, the absolute most important condition they wanted that the insistence on unconditional surrender would not provide."

Hmm. I think you're wrong there. As I recall, preservation of the Emperor was a thing decided by MacArthur after commencement of the Occupation.

My dear old mother-in-law, recently departed, was one of the countless women who were being trained with naginata (imagine a knife on the end of a six foot stick) to go out and repulse the hordes of invading American soldiers.

Given the benefit and clarity of time, she looked back on it and chuckled at the foolishness of it. But at the time, had she been called upon, she would have been right out there getting senselessly mown down with everybody else.

She also helped paste together the balloons that carried incendiary bombs to America's northwest....another bit of foolish desperation. I let her peacefully go to her grave without knowing that one of them killed some people out on a Sunday School picnic; she assumed they all fell harmlessly in the ocean.

Mark of Zorro said:

People go on and on in their totally unprovable faith that the A-bombs saved lives. But those same people never talk about how many were KILLED by the dogmatic demand for unconditional surrender that in the end, was not even realized.

Hundreds of thousands at least, including both sides, would not have died if the one condition of preserving the emperor had been accepted as surrender terms in January 1945.

Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that.

A few years back at the war-peace memorial in south Okinawa, he made a comment about feeling stared at, and what could their problem be since they started the war.

Click to expand...

He "FELT" he was being stared at. Uh, ok. Does he have ESP? Does he have a FEELING about why they were staring? Doesn't he know that most foreigners in Japan are stared at just because they don't look Asian? Your dad has some serious issues here.

And, what staring at a foreigner has to do with starting a war is beyond me.

RolandtheHeadless said:

"Once again, the Japanese in fact did get conditional surrender, despite the constant mantra that they didn't. The condition was preservation of the emperor, the absolute most important condition they wanted that the insistence on unconditional surrender would not provide."

Hmm. I think you're wrong there. As I recall, preservation of the Emperor was a thing decided by MacArthur after commencement of the Occupation.

Click to expand...

I don't know who decided it, but it was the only condition the Japanese made for their surrender following Nagasaki.

I picked up a copy of the NBC series, Victory At Sea the other day and it was said in the final episode as well (about retaining the Emperor).

"And, what staring at a foreigner has to do with starting a war is beyond me."

Staring at someone is a primitive, animal expression of hostility. Standard advice when confronting a bear or vicious dog is not to stare at them.

I can't say about war, but staring has caused plenty of barfights. lol

RolandtheHeadless said:

Hmm. I think you're wrong there. As I recall, preservation of the Emperor was a thing decided by MacArthur after commencement of the Occupation.

Click to expand...

Words. The fact is that they got the condition they wanted. Never mind the words. You can call the sky green, but its still blue.

I don't know who decided. But I sure don't remember anybody stepping up and saying "Hell no, they can't have the emperor, because its a condition they asked for and we can't accept it. We fought and lost our sons so they could not have the emperor!" Fact is the condition was accepted in the end. So why IN THE HELL did the war drag on for another seven months?

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 ----------

Glenski said:

It's not as simple as that.

Click to expand...

No, but its a HELL of lot simpler than declaring the A-bombs saved lives!

Glenski said:

He "FELT" he was being stared at. Uh, ok. Does he have ESP? Does he have a FEELING about why they were staring? Doesn't he know that most foreigners in Japan are stared at just because they don't look Asian? Your dad has some serious issues here.

And, what staring at a foreigner has to do with starting a war is beyond me.

Click to expand...

What the heck is wrong with you? Are you emotionally stunted? Just bitter at the world? I tell a story about my family and international relations, and that's what you get out of it? I gotta figure out how to block members, since I don't need any Glenski in my life. Christ.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I remember intensely disliking your attitude way back when I joined Japan Today Forum...

Indeed it seems it was the power of MacArthur on the occupation side that led to the emperor not being charged with war crimes, and therefore also able to retain his throne, or at least according to Wiki. Hirohito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here I have to confess this is new information to me, so I need to check it out more. But the fact that the emperor was not charged with war crimes goes against the Potsdam Declaration, even though the emperor was not specifically mentioned in it. But these are relevant to the emperor:

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"

"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"

Click to expand...

The instrument of surrender demanded adherence to the Potsdam Declaration and these points.

Well, the power and influence of the emperor is pretty well eliminated, unless you consider his position as figurehead to be power and influence.

Still, its amazing that he could get away with no conviction of war crimes leading to execution or serious jail time, like life in prison. I guess you could say the same of that bastard Shiro Ishii of Unit 731.

I am still trying to decide what this means. On one hand it seems MacArthur single-handedly (with the help of Japanese officials though) disregarded the surrender terms and Potsdam Declaration. On the other hand, it seems unlikely MacArthur could do it by himself. And I don't know of anyone who bothered to fight him over it.

However, it still does not undermine the fact that the war could have ended sooner only by agreeing to preserve the emperor. Seems a much fairer trade to me than firebombing Tokyo and dropping A-bombs on civilians. But after all that was done, I am not sure if I can agree with MacArthur on letting the emperor slide.

Unlike most of what I have posted, I don't have a long held opinion on this and I need a hell of a lot more details before I will form one and wiki won't cut it.

And while it does seem that MacArthur was largely behind keeping the emperor out of court, I still don't really know who decided the royal line could continue or when (bear in mind the emperor's children could carry on even if the emperor were executed as a war criminal).

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

ArmandV said:

I don't know who decided it, but it was the only condition the Japanese made for their surrender following Nagasaki.

I picked up a copy of the NBC series, Victory At Sea the other day and it was said in the final episode as well (about retaining the Emperor).

Click to expand...

ArmandV, I do not withdraw anything I said. But, it was not my intent to attack you personally, only the commonly held beliefs about the war in America which I find to be one-sided and self serving and I have no patience for them. But, I will say I am sorry that you felt personally attacked and I am pretty sure you did.

That said, I hope something has been gained in this thread despite the frustration. I may make mistakes, but I will never intentionally lie to or mislead a decent human being, and I am sure you are. (forgive the caveat, I have lied to certain people, but only in fairness!)

nahadef said:

What the heck is wrong with you? Are you emotionally stunted? Just bitter at the world? I tell a story about my family and international relations, and that's what you get out of it?

Click to expand...

International relations? Your dad felt for some reason that he was being stared at, and this was somehow connected to his perception of the Japanese starting the war. That is what I gathered.

Now, your profile says you've been in Japan 5-10 years. You ought to have realized even after the first few weeks that foreigners, especially non-Asian ones, honestly do get stared at in many instances. Please don't say you deny that. The point, however, is that your dad (apparently) didn't realize that, and according to the way you wrote, he felt that was somehow related to an animosity towards him as a foreigner, maybe even some despicable one...?

Where am I misunderstanding this story? I'm sincerely interested, because if it's anything like that, your dad really needs to change.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I remember intensely disliking your attitude way back when I joined Japan Today Forum...

Click to expand...

You'll just have to forgive me for not remembering whatever run-in we had.

Zorro, it's been a while since I've read it, but I found this book about the post-WW II occupation very informative: Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II: John W. Dower: 9780393320275: Amazon.com: Books

MacArthur really did have almost absolute power in the occupation. Many US and other Allied officials DID want to prosecute Emperor Hirohito for war crimes, but MacArthur over-ruled them. He was convinced by cooperating Japanese officials that preserving the emperor was key to obtaining the cooperation of the Japanese people. I think he was probably right.