Post by Mens sanaPost by AUK Registrar[rec.arts.marching.drumcorps removed]
Post by Mens sanaPost by GunnerPost by Mens sanaPost by GunnerThe Russians hated a lot of people in their time..but they nuked none
of them simply for revenge or a short term warm and fuzzy.
Yes. The distinction of being the only country so depraved as to drop
nuclear bombs on people goes to America.
Mens sana.
Depraved? Odd that you would use that term. One supposes that you
would have prefered the 2-5 million additional dead Japanese civilians
if the bombs hadnt been dropped, ending the war?
Acting on Japanese attempts to surrender would have saved many lives,
Japanese and allied.
The allies were after unconditional surrender. The Japanese were trying to
dictate terms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't get an unconditional surrender even after America had tested the
Atomic bombs on Japanese civilians.
Since I recently submitted a journal article for publication in the
Journal of East Asian Studies (among others), entitled, "The Cleansing
of the Chrysanthemum: An Examination Into the Decision of the United
Stated to Retain Emperor Hirohito following the Pacific War" I think I
can shed some additional light on this.
If the question is whether or not the U.S. got an unconditional
surrender (according to the Potsdam Declaration); the answer is yes.
With the exception of MacArthur, who was heavily influenced by his
Chief of Psychological Warfare, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, and a
few others, the overwhelming sentiment of the U.S. government and
public was to abolish the Emperor system in Japan and prosecute
Hirohito as a war criminal.
While it is true that, as early as May 1945, Prince Konoe was actively
recruiting moderates to convince Hirohito to sue for peace, and the
goal was retention of the Emperor system (Konoe was not as concerned
about Hirohito personally), and to avoid Allied occupation of Japan,
the overture was 1) not acceptable to the U.S., and 2) overwhelmed by
the fact that MAGIC interceptions revealed that the military had no
intention of ending the war effort. Thus, there was little reason to
believe that anyone offering peace terms actually had the authority to
overcome the military chiefs.
The only serious surrender offer came from then Foreign Minister, Togo
Shigenori, on 10 August. With the blessing of Hirohito, Togo sent word
through the Swiss embassy that Japan had only one condition for
accepting surrender, "that the said [Potsdam] declaration does not
comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as
a Sovereign Ruler." U.S. Secretary of State Burns responded, the
following day, "that the Emperor would be subordinate to SCAP with no
further clarification on Hirohito's fate." The United States offered no
safe harbor for Hirohito but, in fact, reasserted the demand for
unconditional surrender based strictly on the terms of the Potsdam
Declaration.
The decision by Truman to use atomic weapons against Japan drew no
immediate reaction from the Japanese government to unconditionally
surrender. It was not until the so-called "Hirota-Malik" talks with the
Soviets failed, and Stalin announced his intention to invade Manchuria,
that Hirohito finally stepped in and agreed to accept unconditional
surrender terms. His decision to directly intervene and surrender to
the Allied powers was not based on any condition.
The problem with your argument is that you are confusing what happened
before and up to the surrender announcement, and steps taken to retain
Hirohito to ease the challenges of occupation. MacArthur understood the
value of using the emperor's status to help with the transformation of
Japan, and he was convinced that attempts to prosecute Hirohito would
cause a violent reaction by the Japanese public. Regardless, MacArthur
purposely let the emperor know that his ability to retain his throne
(in title only) was at his sole discretion. Hirohito understood the
value of not acting in any manor that might threaten his relationship
with MacArthur.
---
John
Post by Mens sana-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK RegistrarPost by Mens sanaAmerica had two atomic bombs and two imperatives - test the bombs and shake
a big stick at Stalin and the rest of the world. Everything else, including
ending the war as early as possible, took second place.
This "discussion" happens at least as often as a full moon. Rather than
1) You google the subject as discussed in uma previously and get back to us
if you have something new to contribute -or-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what was discussed in uma as it's not available on my news
server - I think my ISP might have a policy on facilitating contact with
terrorist organisations - not that uma discussions have any relevance.
I was merely responding to the Gunner's observation that Russia never nuked
anyone, it was you and others who trotted out the long discredited American
rationalisation for it's failure to live up to Russian standards in this
regard.
Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar2) Just leave
I vote for #2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your vote LOL.
An American vote is worthless in America, what makes you think it might have
any value here?
Does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about votes? Come to think
of it, does the regime know you're talking to foreigners about anything?
Have a care lest you find yourself sharing a room with a Mr. Padilla.
Mens sana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by AUK Registrar--
AUK Registrar
Providing clues to the cluless since time began