UNBelieveable!! Pearl Harbor: New Japanese version for all..

[HouseHobbit]

This is unbelievable!! The gall of these people..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/8940481/Pearl-Harbor-Japanese-veterans-and-politicians-to-question-causes-of-Pacific-war.html

The New Japanese version of WW2..Talk about a slap in the face of the Allied veterans..

[stiz]

as a neutral "i dont really care who the heck started it, so long as what happened doesnt get warped or forgotton" guy ... they do kinda have a point. Their not saying it didnt happen, or that it was the right thing to do. But if you look at the things america was doing at the time (supplying aid to Britian and other places, trade embargoes, military help to chinese etc) they were extermly lop sided for a "neutral" country, so it could technically be arqued that they were at war from the start, its just that pearl harbour was when it was made "offical" so to speak.

Dont forgot that unfortunatly a lot of propoganda, on all sides, (which at the time was written by spin docoters for moral at home) through repition become known as "facts".

[SSI01]

Step No. 1 - wait until everyone at this conference has had their say.

Step No. 2 - look at the backgrounds and the tone and accuracy of previous statements of these individuals, and consider their statements re: the fault of the U.S. in this war when looking at those statements. Then decide whether you think they have a case or not.

There are deniers in Germany and elsewhere in the West who to this day insist the holocaust never happened, and was either fabricated or grossly exaggerated. This claim is past the point of ridiculousness; the only reason it isn't hysterically funny is because so many deaths are involved (one would be one too many).

Keep in mind the Roosevelt administration knew it would be involved in WWII and very much wanted war with Germany first; the American armed provocations - and yes, they were ARMED provocations - that occurred were all in the Atlantic. German submarines were harassed and depth-charged by U.S. destroyers; the U.S. gave the RN 50 old, but nonetheless useful destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on former bases in the Caribbean and elsewhere; U.S. SIGINT on German ship movements and diplomatic traffic was shared with British intelligence as well. The U.S. airborne Neutrality Patrol aircraft and blimps routinely reported German submarine positions to the British. Britain conducted a long-term intelligence operation on U.S. soil, out of Manhattan, NY before PH with the knowledge of the FBI and the consent of the president. It spied on German activities here in the states. Most folks aren't aware the Catalina flying boat which found Bismarck after it broke contact following the sinking of Hood was carrying an American naval officer in its crew. What was he doing there? That was in May 1941. U.S. Marines occupied Iceland in 1941 prior to Pearl Harbor, thus freeing up British troops for duty elsewhere. Kind of far east to extend the American defensive perimeter in peacetime. The USN also escorted British-bound convoys as far as Iceland where the RN/RCN took over. Again, this was asking for trouble. The miracle is only the two German attacks occurred on U.S. destroyers, one involving the Reuben James, which was sunk. That was not an unprovoked attack. There should have been more but Germany displayed remarkable restraint in the Atlantic. These things were all unknown to the American public. Julian A. and his network weren't around to tell their version of the matter, the U.S. military meant it when they threatened their members with dire consequences if they told ANYONE about what was really going on in or over the Atlantic. When viewed in this light Charles Lindbergh and other people saying what they did about America staying out of WWII unless there was a direct attack on the country can be viewed in another light. Did they know? Was an extraordinarily brave individual slipping them information?

Japan is not faultless in the Pacific. Yes, the rape of Nanking did occur. It was so bad the Nazi consulate in Nanking actually gave sanctuary to a number of potential Chinese victims; it also documented the horrors that were occurring outside its gates, including the "chopping off of heads" contest between two Japanese Army officers that was so well documented in the Japanese press. Chinese civilians in occupied China were routinely barbarized by Japanese troops, as were the Koreans; this is documented. Many Korean girls were forcibly placed by the Japanese in their "Comfort Corps." Again, this is documented by the victims themselves in some cases. Many Korean males were impressed by the Japanese Army into labor units and shipped to work on remote islands in the Pacific, where they died like their Japanese hosts. The Japanese general in command of the Philippines when MacArthur returned declared Manila an open city and ordered Japanese troops out, a humane and sensible thing to do; the Japanese admiral on site instead declared it a war zone and ordered his naval people to fortify the city and fight to defend it. Over 100,000 Filipinos were massacred by the Japanese during this battle alone, not to mention what else went on in the PI during their occupation. The barbarity shown to American and Filipino captives during the Bataan Death March is extremely well-documented, but little taught in U.S. schools now. The behavior of the Japanese Army in this episode is particularly revolting because outside observers were present during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, and saw how well, even kindly, the Japanese Army treated Russian captives, even after particulary hard fighting, including much hand-to-hand and bayonet fighting around Port Arthur, especially vicious fighting. How did things sink so far in 36 years? Japan has acknowledged many of these things happened, but has not accepted responsibility for them - a fine point. All this stuff goes a long way toward explaining why so many of the formerly Japanese-occupied Far Eastern countries are now so sensitive about any rearming done by the modern Japanese military.

The British Official Secrets Act, which has some very sharp teeth to it, is only now just beginning to allow the release of documents relating to the activities of all the combatants in WWI. Some of the first releases show 1915 German claims about RMS Lusitania carrying contraband war materials were absolutely accurate. There will be other fascinating releases in the future as more time elapses. I won't be around long enough to see the stuff to be released about what REALLY happened in WWII but I'll bet it will be positively fascinating. Many perceptions will have to be changed and textbooks rewritten.

A university prof once said in class, "On the world stage, there are no good guys, and no bad guys - there are just guys." I would disagree slightly with him.

Let's see what comes out of the discussion by these people and refute what they have to say, if we need to. It will be interesting.

[Cazzie]

I have to lean with Stiz here. The Internet has blossomed into a world of misinformation and spin. It has given propaganda a new age.

When I think or read anything on the web, I resort back to something my father told me long ago, "Son, don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you are shown on film or TV. If you haven't heard it with your own ears or seen it with your own eyes, it is not the whole truth. And always remember, after all has been said and done, there will have been a lot more said, than has ever been done."

My father had to quit school after the 7th grade and get a very hard low paying job due to the fact his father past away when he was only eight. He served in the Pacific during WW II. He never had a kind word about the Japanese, not even on his dying breath. He was a smart man and had a heart of gold. And no MIT grad could do simple math in his head as well as my dad. He was an Earth smart old cookie and I still love having been in his presence, because he taught me more profound elements of the human and sub-human race than all my teachers and mentors.

[wombat666]

The roots of the Pacific and Asian War go as far back as the latter part of the 19th Century.
I'll leave it there for now and we'll avoid a political food fight if possible.
:kilroy:

[brad kaste]

I'll leave it there for now and we'll avoid a political food fight if possible.
:kilroy:

And speaking of a political food fight,.....I won't even jump on the stump about ex-gov Blago receiving 14 years in the slammer. But I sure am tempted!:icon_lol:

[huub vink]

Although I definitely do not want to put oil on a fire, I'm surprised to see the reason why the Japanese entered the war isn't common knowledge. As it is even mentioned in the Hollywood version of Pearl Harbor with Ben Affleck or should I say Kate Becksindale.....
(The topic is mentioned during the meeting of the Japanese staff at the beginning of the movie.)

After the French armistice the Japanese invaded French Indochina and Siam (currently Thailand) or as the Japanese said "placed these areas under their protection". In a reaction the US and the Dutch (Dutch East Indies) cut of their oil supply to Japan. The US went even further and stopped the supply of iron, steel and aviation fuel. As Japan was depending on these supplies, the naval staff felt forced to react with military force. Which would also enable them to put areas under their control (conquer) which could supply oil (Dutch East Indies). Whether the trade embargo justified the start of a war I leave to your own judgement.

Cheers,
Huub

[brad kaste]

Although I definitely do not want to put oil on a fire, I'm surprised to see the reason why the Japanese entered the war isn't common knowledge. As it is even mentioned in the Hollywood version of Pearl Harbor with Ben Affleck or should I say Kate Becksindale.....
(The topic is mentioned during the meeting of the Japanese staff at the beginning of the movie.)

After the French armistice the Japanese invaded French Indochina and Siam (currently Thailand) or as the Japanese said "placed these areas under their protection". In a reaction the US and the Dutch (Dutch East Indies) cut of their oil supply to Japan. The US went even further and stopped the supply of iron, steel and aviation fuel. As Japan was depending of these supplies, the naval staff felt forced to react with military force. Which would also enable them to put areas under their control (conquer) which could supply oil (Dutch East Indies). Whether the trade embargo justified the start of a war I leave to your own judgement.

Cheers,
Huub

Good points Huub. Also,...I'd to add,... President Roosevelt had much more concern on what was going on with Hitler and Europe than what was developing along the Pacific rim and Indo-Pacific regions. He left much of the strategy in dealing with the Japanese to various cabinet members. On the personal side, FDR held a negative opinion of Japanese dating decades earlier before Dec. 7th, 1941.
Yes,...it can still be debated today,...did the US work diplomatically hard enough to ward off war with the Japanese? Or because of Japanese imperialism and expansionism all the negotiating leading up to the war became a moot point.

[Tom Clayton]

As far as I'm concerned, 70 years + 1 day ago, several hundred people died in a very short time. The reasons why don't mean squat in today's world. Remember and honor the dead, and move forward. There are very few, if any governments that haven't, at one time or another, committed atrocities in the name of good intentions. It has happened as long as man has walked the earth. And, unfortunately, I don't see the trend ending any time soon.

[Jagdflieger]

Yes, a country (Japan) with few natural resources (oil,iron, rubber, etc.) and a never ending war in China needed the embargoed resources to continue prosecuting the IJA's agenda in China and Mongolia.

The USA used its political trump card of embargo to enforce its demand forJapan to leave China. The Nazi victories in Europe embolden the Japanese towards further gains and thus the takeover of French Indo China, to further isolate China by closing one of the last land routes of supply into the Celestial Kingdom. Of course this resulted in further embargos.

With strengthened embargos by the USA, the concept of the "Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" gained traction and the planning for the takeover ofthe Dutch East Indies in the "Southern Resource Area" went ahead. With the continued success of the Nazis in Europe, Japan felt the time was ripe for their own conquests. Given the Bushido culture in Japan at the time, there was no turning back to peace as that would have been a loss of face to the ruling elite in Japan.

Once the Dutch East Indies, Siam, Burma and the Philippines had been taken and the US Pacific fleet attacked at Pearl Harbor, it was necessary to develop a defensive perimeter around the new gains and to interrupt allied support of Australia. To do this, the taking of New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands was put in hand with further plans to also take Fiji, Midway and other islands. At the high water mark of Japanese conquest, they controlled one of the largest conquered areas in history and enslaved millions people. All of this was apparently justified because the USA started the war with an embargo? All Japan had to do was to return their army from China and the embargo would have been dropped.

So, given the premise of the article (that the USA started the war) let me ask the following:

Who invaded China in the early 30s and slaughtered unarmed peasants in their tens of thousands?
Who tried to take Mongolia from Russia?
Who took over French Indo China after France and the Netherlands fell to Germany?
Who invaded Siam, Burma, Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies following the strike on Pearl Harbor?
Who invaded the north coast of New Guinea and then tried to take Port Moresby on the south coast?
Who bombed Darwin, Australia in 1942
Who sailed into the Indian Ocean and attacked British installations as far west as India?
Who invaded the Solomon Islands in early 1942 in order to flank Australia?
Who was allied to Italy and Nazi Germany in the Tripartite Treaty?

So what did the USA do to promulgate a war in the Pacific up to December seventh?

Primarily, the political tactic (still used today. i.e. Iran) of embargo to gain a political objective.
Militarily the US Navy moved the Pacific Fleet from California to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
Moving B-17 bombers to the Philippines for the defense of those islands.

Conversly, the US Navy was continually weakening it's Pacific Fleet by transfering ships to the Atlantic Fleet given America's perception of Nazi Germany as the main threat. It is my opinion, that if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, America would have not done much if anything militarilly for at least six months and would have allowed Japan to perhaps negotiate a peace with the USA after gaining their objectives in the "Southern Resource Area."

Well, that's my two cents worth.

[brad kaste]

Yes, a country (Japan) with few natural resources (oil,iron, rubber, etc.) and a never ending war in China needed the embargoed resources to continue prosecuting the IJA's agenda in China and Mongolia.

The USA used its political trump card of embargo to enforce its demand forJapan to leave China. The Nazi victories in Europe embolden the Japanese towards further gains and thus the takeover of French Indo China, to further isolate China by closing one of the last land routes of supply into the Celestial Kingdom. Of course this resulted in further embargos.

With strengthened embargos by the USA, the concept of the "Greater AsianCo-Prosperity Sphere" gained traction and the planning for the takeover ofthe Dutch East Indies in the "Southern Resource Area" went ahead. With the continued success of the Nazis in Europe, Japan felt the time was ripe for their own conquests. Given the Bushido culture in Japan at the time, there was no turning back to peace as that would have been a loss of face to the ruling elite in Japan.

Once the Dutch East Indies, Siam, Burma and the Philippines had been taken and the US Pacific fleet attacked at Pearl Harbor, it was necessary to develop a defensive perimeter around the new gains and to interrupt allied support of Australia. To do this, the taking of New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands was put in hand with further plans to also take Fiji, Midway and other islands. At the high water mark of Japanese conquest, they controlled one of the largestconquered areas in history and enslaved millions people. All of this was apparently done because the USA started the war with an embargo as claimed by article in the link.

So, given the premise of the article (that the USA started the war) let me ask the following:

Who invaded China in the early 30s and slaughtered unarmed peasants in their tens of thousands?
Who tried to take Mongolia from Russia?
Who took over French Indo China after France and the Netherlands fell to Germany?
Who invaded Siam, Burma, Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies following the strike on Pearl Harbor?
Who invaded the north coast of New Guinea and then tried to take Port Moresby on the south coast?
Who bombed Darwin, Australia in 1942
Who sailed into the Indian Ocean and attacked British installations as far west as India?
Who invaded the Solomon Islands in early 1942 in order to flank Australia?
Who was allied to Italy and Nazi Germany in the Tripartite Treaty?

So what did the USA do to promulgate a war in the Pacific up to December seventh?

Primarily, the political tactic (still used today. i.e. Iran) of embargo to gain a political objective.
Militarily the US Navy moved the Pacific Fleet from California to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

Conversly, the US Navy was continually weakening it's Pacific Fleet by transfering ships to the Atlantic Fleet given America's perception of Nazi Germany as the main threat. It is my opinion, that if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, America would have not done much if anything militarilly for at least six months and would have allowed Japan to perhaps negotiate a peace with the USA after gaining their objectives in the "Southern Resource Area."

Well, that's my two cents worth.



Good points Dave on the aggressive nature of the Japanese military/government. I'd like to add one more to your list. The targeting and sinking of the gunship USS Panay while anchored in the Yangtze River,...Dec. 1937. Three crew members were killed. The Japanese claimed their flyers never saw any US flags displayed on the ship. They said the attack was wholly unintentional A board of inquiry later proved otherwise that several US flags were flying when the vessel was attacked. The Japanese did pay restitution plus a lot of apologies/hand wringing for the 'mistake.'
Which begs the question: By blowing away the baloney-smoke the Japanese professed to stick to,...it was an intentional bombing. And,.....if the Panay fired back and shot down a couple of the dive bombers/fighters would that have sent a strong message to the Japanese? "Don't tread on me!"

For political and diplomatic reasons,...the Panay incident was summarily swept under the carpet.

[pfflyers]

Conversly, the US Navy was continually weakening it's Pacific Fleet by transfering ships to the Atlantic Fleet given America's perception of Nazi Germany as the main threat. It is my opinion, that if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, America would have not done much if anything militarilly for at least six months and would have allowed Japan to perhaps negotiate a peace with the USA after gaining their objectives in the "Southern Resource Area."


I'd like to run with this idea for a moment.

Suppose the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor or any other US territories in Dec 1941?

How long might it have taken for FDR to get a declaration of war?

It seems possible to me that without a declaration of war public opinion in the US may have forced FDR to scale back Naval operations in support of British convoys if there had been more skirmishes between US destroyers and German U-boats.

What if when FDR finally got the declaration of war it was against Hitler only?

Suppose FDR only turned his attention toward the Pacific after defeating Hitler?

By then the Japanese might have had years to fortify their empire and a war-weary US population might have demanded that the US negotiate with the Japanese, in effect accepting the empire.

Maybe the Pearl Harbor raid was an even bigger strategic mistake than we thought.

Given Yamamoto's misgivings about provoking a shooting war with the US, I wonder why they attacked when they did.

The war was really between the US economy and manufacturing base against those of the Japanese as much, or maybe more than between the military forces. As such it seems that the Japanese could have used a little time to consolodate and exploit their conquests before taking on the US.

Just some stray thoughts on an alternate history to maybe provoke dicussion.

[wombat666]

I'd like to run with this idea for a moment.

Suppose the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor or any other US territories in Dec 1941?

How long might it have taken for FDR to get a declaration of war?

It seems possible to me that without a declaration of war public opinion in the US may have forced FDR to scale back Naval operations in support of British convoys if there had been more skirmishes between US destroyers and German U-boats.

What if when FDR finally got the declaration of war it was against Hitler only?

Suppose FDR only turned his attention toward the Pacific after defeating Hitler?

By then the Japanese might have had years to fortify their empire and a war-weary US population might have demanded that the US negotiate with the Japanese, in effect accepting the empire.

Maybe the Pearl Harbor raid was an even bigger strategic mistake than we thought.

Given Yamamoto's misgivings about provoking a shooting war with the US, I wonder why they attacked when they did.

The war was really between the US economy and manufacturing base against those of the Japanese as much, or maybe more than between the military forces. As such it seems that the Japanese could have used a little time to consolodate and exploit their conquests before taking on the US.

Just some stray thoughts on an alternate history to maybe provoke dicussion.

Harry Turtledove has been making a very comfortable living writing numerous novels covering 'Alternative History' on this theme.
:kilroy:

[Allen]

Playing with what ifs....<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Had the Japanese not attacked 1941 the embargo may have drained them of resources. Maybe they could have attacked Non-US territories ONLY for their resources but it is unknown how much of this the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> would take before it felt the knife at its throat. I wouldn't feel good seeing my neighborhood being bombed all round me. Maybe all or part of the Pac Fleet would be sent to the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Philippines</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Islands</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> to counter this. If the Japanese didn't like that they may just sunk the Pac Fleet in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Philippines</st1:country-region> just like they did in Pearl Harbor and the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> is in the war but just a little later.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Looking to <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region> survied BoB. Opinion in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> may have forced FDR to scale back naval operations in support of British convoys but the Germans were at war with <st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region> and the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">USSR</st1:country-region></st1:place>. The <st1:country-region w:st="on">USSR</st1:country-region> didn't get a ton of support from the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> and would have fought back toe to toe with the Germans with out it. The now trapped English would be a nice target but the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">USSR</st1:place></st1:country-region> would be getting the upper hand in the east leaving the Germans with a choice. Go after the trapped but entrenched English again or send those men to counter the advancing Russians.
<o:p> </o:p>
The Russians should have been capable of winning the war by them self as long as the Japanese stayed out or stayed out tell all of the pre-war <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">USSR</st1:place></st1:country-region> was recovered from the Germans. I don’t know if the Russians could take <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> at the same time early on. If the <st1:country-region w:st="on">USSR</st1:country-region> fell and Europe was under Axis controller how long before <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place> turn on each other?
<o:p> </o:p>
If <st1:country-region w:st="on">Germany</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region> turn on each other and not the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> presuming that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> had some how not been drawn in by the Japanese. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> becomes Japans best friend. Had Europe fallen and the Axis not turned on each other no one in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> could be blind to what had happen in <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>. The <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> would have been building up it forces soon as it became clear that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">USSR</st1:place></st1:country-region> would fall.

[hubbabubba]

The New Japanese version of WW2..Talk about a slap in the face of the Allied veterans..
I don't think, HouseHobbit, that the declarations of fringe organizations represent the "Japanese version of WW2", no more than I would consider the ranting of a KKK moron the official position of the U.S.A. concerning racial politics.

As for the preposterous idea that the Americans had already started the war, one question beg to be answered by these Tojo's thugs nostalgics; Why bother sending a - belated - declaration of war then? In his famous "day of infamy" speech, FDR simply acknowledged that a state of war existed between his country and the Empire of Japan. You don't have to "declare" war when war is already in progress.:kilroy:

[Allen]

Why bother sending a - belated - declaration of war then?

I thought it wasn't belated but not translated in time for the US to understand?

[TARPSBird]

The Japanese document which broke off all negotiations (basically their declaration of war) was supposed to be presented by Kurusu and Nomura a short time before the attack commenced. It was a lengthy multi-part message which took the embassy typists a long time to prepare, resulting in the envoys arriving late at Secretary of State Hull's office. Regardless of when the document was presented, the surprise nature of the attack is obvious and there's no doubt the Japanese were the instigators of the Pacific war. They historically have a revisionist tendency when it comes to their track record in Asia, not surprising considering how they savaged the people they conquered. In history there are in fact good guys and bad guys. In this case the Japanese were the bad guys. They can have as many conferences as they want and it won't change how they are viewed in the final judgment of history.

[hubbabubba]

Here you go, Allen.

Thanks for the precisions, TARPSBird.:applause:

The chain of events is particularly well described in the epic movie Tora! Tora! Tora!.

[Navy Chief]

In 1996, when TAD to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, I would take the train into nearby Hiroshima. I visited the Peace Museum there.

The main theme of the museum, is the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, so such destruction never happens again.

But there's no mention within the museum's exhibits, (as I recall) of the reason for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

NC

[Jagdflieger]

Speaking of Pearl Harbor. I was TDY to Hawaii several years ago. Prior to departing for ports of call further west, I had a day off and went out to see the USS Arizona memorial.

While at the memorial, I looked to the east back to the navy yard and noted that several DDs were sailing west down the loch past the dry docs. The superstructures did not look familiar and as they closed, I saw that the were Japanese Defense Force frigates flying the national hino maru. The four frigates steared to port and out to sea and passed the memorial with all crewman, in dress whites, standing at attention at the rails.

It was a sobering sight and quite a finish to my tour of the Arizona.

[srgalahad]

"The reasons why don't mean squat in today's world. Remember and honor the dead, and move forward."

I beg to differ...

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," (George Santayana) - the "reasons" are the critical part. In spite of the reverence we promote and hold as a beacon, the "dead" are unfortunate consequences of decisions and mistakes made by others. Yes, we should be aware of the cost of the decisions, but equally aware of how they came about in the first place. Remembering the dead won't prevent a repeat performance but knowing WHY they died might cause people to avoid going down the same path again. (Of course, that means teaching - and learning - a balanced view of events, not the history written as by the winners.)

[AndyG43]

But there's no mention within the museum's exhibits, (as I recall) of the reason for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

NC


Sorry, I realise this post may be considered a little controversial, but it needs to be made.

There is a reason why this is not mentioned, and it is not about revisonist history. The justificaton given at the time for the use of the atomic bombs was that it woud save millions of lives, both the life of Allied troops & the Japanese service personnel & civilians who were said to be ready to fight to the death. There was still a core of the War Cabinet surrounding Hirohito who wanted to fight on, and initially they rejected the Potsdam Ultimatum (which called for their surrender); so Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th and Nagasaki was bombed on the 9th.

But was it really necessary? Could the war have been won by conventional means, without vast loss of American lives? I'll give you the voices of some of your own countrymen:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - President Eisenhower

"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" - General Curtis LeMay

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

Maybe, maybe, Hiroshima has some justification; the bombing of Nagasaki does not - only 3 days had elapsed, the Japanese were still coming to terms with what had happened, and there is very, very strong evidence that they had decided on August 8th to sue for peace. One school of thought says that Truman authorised the use of the bombs more to intimidate the Soviets than the Japanese; I guess we will never know the truth.

I know this post won't be popular, so feel free to attack me if you must. But think carefully before you do, because there is just a chance I'm talking sense.

[glh]

Personally, I subscribe to the old adage:

"If there had been no Pearl Harbor, there would not have been a Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

When a nation is in a war, it does what is required to win in order to impose your will on your enemy. That's basic Klausewitz. George Washington knew this, Lincoln and Grant knew it, Pershing knew it and so did Roosevelt, Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley and literally all the general officers in WW2.

If you don't do what is required, results such as Korea, Vietnam and probably Afghanistan/Iraq in the future where non-resolution or stalemate is the basic outcome. Unfortunately, much blood and treasure has been wasted in the process in these cases.

[Tom Clayton]

"The reasons why don't mean squat in today's world. Remember and honor the dead, and move forward."

I beg to differ...

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," (George Santayana) - the "reasons" are the critical part. In spite of the reverence we promote and hold as a beacon, the "dead" are unfortunate consequences of decisions and mistakes made by others. Yes, we should be aware of the cost of the decisions, but equally aware of how they came about in the first place. Remembering the dead won't prevent a repeat performance but knowing WHY they died might cause people to avoid going down the same path again. (Of course, that means teaching - and learning - a balanced view of events, not the history written as by the winners.)

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean that today's generations shouldn't learn from the mistakes of the past. Only that the time for blame is long gone. So I suppose I should ammend that second sentence:

Remember and honor the dead, learn from the mistakes made, and move forward.

[stiz]

Who invaded Siam, Burma, Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies following the strike on Pearl Harbor?
Who invaded the north coast of New Guinea and then tried to take Port Moresby on the south coast?
Who bombed Darwin, Australia in 1942
Who sailed into the Indian Ocean and attacked British installations as far west as India?
Who invaded the Solomon Islands in early 1942 in order to flank Australia?
Who was allied to Italy and Nazi Germany in the Tripartite Treaty?


those happened after 1941, so they dont really count in a "who started it" dissucsion :engel016:

[Jagdflieger]

Stiz,

Those events were promulgated by the Imperal Japanese Staff planning prior to the war or the modification of plans made prior to the war. They were not the actions of a nation that persued a policy of peace, but those of a nation that knowingly planned a war and then actively prosecuted it. They are evidence, if you will, of the indepth planning and preparation of the Japanese prior to attacking the West and thus their inclusion in the discussion. Military planning does not happen overnight and the planning for the start of the Pacific war by the Japanese started long before December 7th.

For a succinct and single reason for the Pacific War, I guess the one overriding event was the Japanese expansion into China and Mongolia and their brutal excesses there. The world was horrified at the slaughter and the rather benign action of western embargos was certainly justified from any moral standpoint. To have precluded the war and stoped the embaros, all that Japan had to do was return her forces from China and Mongolia (Korea too if you want to listen to their poinit of view) in order to return to the fold of the Leage of Nations. Had there been no conquest of China and Mongolia (Korea was a fait accompli) there would have been no embargos.

The Japanese remained a closed and feudal society until late in the game and after watching the western powers establish colonial empires, I'm pretty sure that they wanted their place in the sun too. The raison d'etre for colonialism is trade and development of raw material to support that. The Japanese were handicapped by their meager resources and their planning to catch up to the western powers could only be satiated by the conquest of the Dutch East Indies and South East Asia. Also, the Tripartate Pact was signed on September 27, 1941, a couple of months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Malaya and the Philippines and it supported their plans for the upcoming conquests by allying the Japanese to the victor apparent of the European War.

With the western powers engaged with and largly beaten by Germany in 1941, there was no better time than 1941/42 to grab their place in the sun.

I guess my sumation is: Is that you don't start a war without a plan and the Japanese had a well developed plan that they executed to perfection up until May and June 1942 at the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway.

[deathfromafar]

This is nothing new. For quite some time Japanese society has often embraced the might and capability they had at the time as well as make multiple attempts to revise history to lay blame elsewhere. A guilty conscience are often the prime motivator. Having spent a bit of time in Japan as well as working amongst Japanese people, I was struck by how many of them were unapologetic for the war in general or had no formal acknowledgement of the vast atrocities IJ Forces committed in Asia and the Pacific rim. In contrast, I had met several WW2 Japanese military veterans in my travels who clearly expressed deep seated remorse for what they had either seen or knew of having been committed by their military in occupied nations. The two things these veterans burned into me was that they felt historians in Japan would try to bury all that they could get away with and that more troubling was the youth of Japan embracing all the wrong and dishonorable parts of their history in the war. Many of the older wiser Japanese understand what they did and that ultimately their own destruction was sealed by their own hands.

We all keep hearing different claims by history revisionists of who's fault it was but no matter what, there was absolutely zero justification for what the Empire of Japan did back then. The atrocities they committed went well beyond their meager explanation for justification. We need not apologize for beating them into the ground and ending that horrible war. The only morality in the immorality of war is ending it by defeating the enemy who started it.