My father was on Luzon recovering from several months of action in the mountains. He started out in New Guinea in mid 1944, went to Leyte next, and finished on the Ville Verde Trail.
He always said the bomb saved his life, not to mention his fellow soldiers lives.
They were about to start training for the invasion, scheduled to start early in 1946 and many soldiers in Europe were headed that way too. The Japanese had no intention of giving up and a number of officers didn't even after the surrender was announced.
People think the Muzzies in the middle east are fanatics but the Japanese culture was much the same. But when the Emperor said to stop, they became peaceful and cooperative.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Iris Chang put it well in The Rape of Nanking (New York: Penguin Books, 1997):

“What baffled and saddened me during the writing of this book was the persistent Japanese refusal to come to terms with its own past. It is not just that Japan has doled out less than 1 percent of the amount that Germany has paid in war reparations to its victims. It is not just that, unlike most Nazis, who, if not incarcerated for their crimes were at least forced from public life, many Japanese war criminals continued to occupy powerful positions in industry and government after the war. And it is not just the fact that while Germans have made repeated apologies to their Holocaust victims, the Japanese have enshrined their war criminals in Tokyo—an act that one American wartime victim of the Japanese has labeled politically equivalent to ‘erecting a cathedral for Hitler in the middle of Berlin.’”


And then there was a conversation I had with an American woman who spent several years in Japan. In a class of some sort that she was taking they were shown a film/video about the atomic bombings. After it finished, she was fixed with evil eye stares by her classmates. Based on everything I know about the subject, I am convinced that the Japanese today have no conception of what their country did to deserve what happened to them during the war.

I posted in a thread a few days ago, during the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor in a PBS documentary, a Japanese history scholar commented along the lines "in Japan, the only WWII history they teach is the American atomic bombings". Seems Japanese atrocities have disappeared.

Iris Chang committed suicide, unable to deal with the trauma of what really happened in Nanking (which included some of her relatives).

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

...Based on everything I know about the subject, I am convinced that the Japanese today have no conception of what their country did to deserve what happened to them during the war.

Historical amnesia. I lived in Kure as an Army civilian 1989-93, about 20 miles from Hiroshima. I never experienced any animosity and the Japanese people treated me and my family wonderfully (we lived off post), but it's clear the facts of WWII have been kept from them.

We used to visit the Peace Park in Hiroshima, and the theme of the museum was "The innocent people of Hiroshima were minding their own business when the US dropped the bomb." No menton of China, Pearl Harbor, or anything that would place blame where it belongs. I recall reading that the Japanese Minsitry of Education stricty controlled the content of textbooks, so the people only learned what they were taught.

It may be different now, but 30 years ago the Japanese people did not learn the truth about WWII.

Truman should've forced MacArthur to retire after he singed the documents on the Missouri, over estimating the strength of his allies in Congress and the Midwest. MacArthur lived out his fantasy of king and arbiter over an entire country, first he screwed up in the Philippines and then Japan after the war. Allowing Hirohito to remain on the throne, was mistake #1. The scars of what they did to China, Korea and the Philippines still remain, the healing never happened (unlike Europe) and only time was left to cover it over.

My brother was in a unit called up in December 44 because of the Battle of the Bulge. The 69th since it was formed up late in the War and with less casualties was picked to go to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. The A bomb caused a lot of celebration in the ranks.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Iris Chang put it well in The Rape of Nanking (New York: Penguin Books, 1997):

“ ......it is not just the fact that while Germans have made repeated apologies to their Holocaust victims, the Japanese have enshrined their war criminals in Tokyo—an act that one American wartime victim of the Japanese has labeled politically equivalent to ‘erecting a cathedral for Hitler in the middle of Berlin.’”

Interesting utilizing a quote from an American wartime victim of the Japanese when a couple decades later, finally, the U.S. started re-evaluating the statues and memorials to The Confederacy and its supporters.

also....

"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier." - Gen. LeMay

Taken together, the moral aspect string or war and conquest can be pulled all day long throughout the histories of almost every nation leaving nothing but hypocrisy. Seems LeMay was conscious of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:
finally, the U.S. started re-evaluating the statues and memorials to The Confederacy and its supporters.

Meaning what, exactly...

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Truman should've forced MacArthur to retire after he singed the documents on the Missouri, over estimating the strength of his allies in Congress and the Midwest. MacArthur lived out his fantasy of king and arbiter over an entire country, first he screwed up in the Philippines and then Japan after the war. Allowing Hirohito to remain on the throne, was mistake #1. The scars of what they did to China, Korea and the Philippines still remain, the healing never happened (unlike Europe) and only time was left to cover it over.

MacArthur had his issues but leaving the Emperor in place was what caused them to quickly cease hostilities without question (he was God to them) and stay that way. He did a pretty good job in his role there. His performance at the beginning of the war is what I'd question the most and has been glossed over by history.

Plenty of Japanese were executed in war crimes trials although we missed a few that deserved that fate. Leaving some of the really culpable leaders may have been a mistake by today's standards but the cold war was on and we did similar things in Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

MacArthur had his issues but leaving the Emperor in place was what caused them to quickly cease hostilities without question (he was God to them) and stay that way. He did a pretty good job in his role there. His performance at the beginning of the war is what I'd question the most and has been glossed over by history.

Plenty of Japanese were executed in war crimes trials although we missed a few that deserved that fate. Leaving some of the really culpable leaders may have been a mistake by today's standards but the cold war was on and we did similar things in Europe.

Totally agree. The Japense are now a strong ally and - despite what you may read in the media - most of them like us. Under MacArthur the occupation forces treated them very well, and that good will has lasted.

I don’t know of any high level military leader who never made any mistakes in time of war, and MacArthur certainly had his flaws, but I don’t consider the decision to allow Hirohito to remain emperor as about the only concession to the Japanese short of absolute unconditional surrender as a mistake. And lest we forget, MacArthur could have been overruled had not others agreed with him, including the President. With the advantage of decades of 20/20 hindsight I believe the Japanese should have had their noses rubbed in their war guilt much more vigorously, as was done to the Germans, but they were not the only ones whose atrocities in WWII were largely ignored at the time and are largely unrecognized today.

After Iwo and Okinawa, leaving the Emperor in place was preferable to fighting on Kyushu and Honshu.

I think it a solid trade that prevented the death of 10-12 million people.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In the first few comments to the original WSJ article that I read were a couple of claims that the Japanese didn’t surrender because of the bombing, but rather because of the entry of the Soviet Union against them. There are a couple/three reasons I would be skeptical of that idea, but in any case it’s not a claim I’ve ever seen in any of the many histories I’ve read. Is this something that’s now being taught by the leftists who dominate all aspects of university “scholarship” these days?

Actually, 25 years back as part of the discussions that took place honoring the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, part of the story of the significance of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also mentioned that the entry of the Soviets played as significant a role as the bombings did. So, it has been around for a while and there were some convincing arguments for that point of view at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:
finally, the U.S. started re-evaluating the statues and memorials to The Confederacy and its supporters.

Meaning what, exactly...

Removal of Confederate Monuments and Memorials

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I am convinced that the Japanese today have no conception of what their country did to deserve what happened to them during the war.

There is a strong current of revisionism running through Japan today. Among the "New" talking points:

1. Japan wasn't conquering other Asian countries. Japan was liberating them from European imperialism. Japan was welcomed.

2. The Rape of Nanking is entirely Chinese propaganda. It was the Chinese who started the fires.

3. The Batan Death March was hard on Japanese soldiers too. Many died.

4. Japan has paid way too much in reparations. China and Korea are just greedy.

5. The Americans burned all (or most of) the books and historical documents, thus depriving Japan of much of its history.

Japan is a lot like a house cat. As long as we are more powerful, they mostly play nice. If our relative strengths were reversed, they would eat us.

Actually, 25 years back as part of the discussions that took place honoring the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, part of the story of the significance of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also mentioned that the entry of the Soviets played as significant a role as the bombings did. So, it has been around for a while and there were some convincing arguments for that point of view at the time.[/QUOTE]



Armchair critics, 50 years after the fact may have discussed this, but I doubt many that were there thought that way.
Given the state of communications in 1945 wartime Japan, I doubt many knew much about the Soviet declaration at the time. Besides that, the Soviets didn't have a great fleet for an invasion or large force of long range bombers to reach Japan. Fighting Japan on their own land mass was another matter but losses in Manchuria didn't factor into the surrender.
The shock and awe of those mushroom clouds is what sealed the deal, regardless of what the revisionists may say today.

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by Kraquin:
finally, the U.S. started re-evaluating the statues and memorials to The Confederacy and its supporters.

Meaning what, exactly...

Removal of Confederate Monuments and Memorials

Yeah, I’m aware of that. I’m talking about “finally”.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Besides that, the Soviets didn't have a great fleet for an invasion or large force of long range bombers to reach Japan.

Exactly. Those were a couple of the factors that immediately occurred to me when I read the comments I referred to above. The U.S. had conducted one successful amphibious invasion and conquest after another, including of Okinawa, and was clearly able—and ready—to continue onto the home islands. If the hard line militarists weren’t prepared to surrender with that staring them in the face, not to mention the fact of the end of the war in Europe, what reason is there to believe that the entry of the Soviets caused a sudden loss of resolve? They would have pushed Japanese forces out of Manchuria, but how much greater danger would their entry into the war against Japan have posed to the home islands than the continuing U.S. campaign?
Plus, it’s highly unlikely the army would have accepted the idea of surrender without Hirohito’s decision, and the specific justification he cited was the atomic bombings.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In the first few comments to the original WSJ article that I read were a couple of claims that the Japanese didn’t surrender because of the bombing, but rather because of the entry of the Soviet Union against them. There are a couple/three reasons I would be skeptical of that idea, but in any case it’s not a claim I’ve ever seen in any of the many histories I’ve read. Is this something that’s now being taught by the leftists who dominate all aspects of university “scholarship” these days?

The invasion of Manchuria by Russia at the close of the Pacific war, was both Russia's desire to gain territory and a loose agreement with the Allies to further force Japan to surrender. There were several large land battles fought in Manchuria between Japan and Russia even after the US-British-Japan surrender if I am correct. Russia also retook Shalakin Islands.

Last year I read, Last Train from Hiroshima, a morbid , yet fascinating book from actial survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Unbelievelably, some A bomb survivors in Hiroshima fled that city to Nagasaki, where they were unfortunately there when the second A bomb was detonated, but survived that bomb also.

The firebombing of Japanese cities was also discussed in Last Teain from Hiroshima.

A must read.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

MacArthur had his issues but leaving the Emperor in place was what caused them to quickly cease hostilities without question (he was God to them) and stay that way. He did a pretty good job in his role there. His performance at the beginning of the war is what I'd question the most and has been glossed over by history.

Plenty of Japanese were executed in war crimes trials although we missed a few that deserved that fate. Leaving some of the really culpable leaders may have been a mistake by today's standards but the cold war was on and we did similar things in Europe.

Totally agree. The Japense are now a strong ally and - despite what you may read in the media - most of them like us. Under MacArthur the occupation forces treated them very well, and that good will has lasted.

MacArthur was instrumental in the rebuilding of post war Japan, which US involvement ended in 1952.

In my viewpoint, the Japanese were more nationalistic in WWII than the Germans, and continue that even to present day.

I subscribe to the Japan Times. This article was in a recent newsletter I received, use your own judgement at the bias. I don't think anyone is in a position to discuss the legality of the bombing raids, considering Japans actions in the past 10 years against other countries.

"In the early hours of March 10, 1945, 279 U.S. B-29s dropped 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo, killing approximately 100,000 civilians in a single night. Almost 270,000 buildings were destroyed, and more than 1 million residents were rendered homeless.

On March 10, 2020, the figures were a stark contrast, with only 10 people attending a memorial service in Tokyo to mark the 75th anniversary of the firebombing. The service at a hall in the capital’s Sumida Ward where the remains of many of the unidentified victims are kept was downsized to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus.


VIDEO: Lessons Learned: The Firebombing of Tokyo (2012) | COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
PHOTO: A residential area of Tokyo is seen destroyed following Operation Meetinghouse, the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945. | U.S. ARMY
This was not the only attack during the war, notes Robert D. Eldridge in a commentary about the March 10 attack: “In total, Tokyo would be struck 106 times, and dozens of other cities all around Japan were attacked repeatedly, basically indiscriminately, as well.

“These attacks beg the question as to their legality, and many on both sides of the Pacific believe that the attacks went against international law,” Eldridge writes. “They certainly were immoral, which many acts during war are.”

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sunset_Va,