latin american civilization

If you think he's an American, you should reconsider your own education.

By the way, I'm curious as to what America should have done in 1945 to end the war with Japan. What would a civilized person like yourself have done in our place?
 
If you think he's an American, you should reconsider your own education.

By the way, I'm curious as to what America should have done in 1945 to end the war with Japan. What would a civilized person like yourself have done in our place?

1 - He sounded american, and I told you i maybe wrong about that.

2 - Japan case: I would probably do something Uncivilized like Americans did, which leads to my third point.

3 - Do not define civilized by how much civilized a nation is or was, you could be behind, you could be ahead. Its your conciousness about humanity and its place on earth that really matters. Wrong decisions are bound to be taken.

And now rethinking the lack of a brazilian civilization. I would say the real problem is that we should have indian civilizations, we do have a couple, aztecs but to really get this thing real, maybe they should add, Sioux Chayenne, Tupi, Incans, Mayans, like they did in Colonization (With a little twist of course). Americans are post classical, and so are a whole bunch found in the game. Maybe it would be more fun. Just an Idea.
 
Your statment implies that WAR is civilized. I know you know better thant that. I also think that you know that there is not always a civilized way of ending war. But I could be mistaking.

Im pretty sure you´re going to mention Pearl Harbor, and all the little kids screaming. So I´ll just drop it right here.

Remember you are picking an argument. The other dude when he said, all those things about latin america, he was doing a comparision. Meaning that US is civilized and BRAZIL is Not. I personally think we all are CATTLE, but American Cattlle dreams higher and deeper than us. No grudge agains USA, EXECPET for BUSH, and for that dude that created a religion a made a whole buch of people kill themselves by drinking poison, a I also hate the KKK. Love waffles, Universitys, frenchtoast(I guess thats french huh?) and the city organization you have there.
 
Your statment implies that WAR is civilized. I know you know better thant that.

My statement did not imply that war is civilized. But there are more and less civilized options. For example, you can follow the Geneva conventions, as we used to, or not follow the Geneva conventions, as we currently don't.

I also think that you know that there is not always a civilized way of ending war. But I could be mistaking.

But you condemned America for using the atomic bombs against Japan. So clearly you know of a better option for ending the war. So what was it?


Im pretty sure you´re going to mention Pearl Harbor, and all the little kids screaming. So I´ll just drop it right here.

Considering your apparent tendency to assume people you disagree with are Americans, I don't think you should continue making assumptions here, it makes it look like you don't learn from your mistakes. And you certainly have no right to accuse me of histrionics, you brought up the use of atomic weapons out of the blue.
 
At the time the decision to a-bomb Japan was made, it was already known that Japan had lost the war. Peace negotiations had been tried, but US didn't settle for anything but unconditional surrender, which was not acceptable to Japan (not that they really did have that many conditions). Japan was mainly looking for a way to get a peace treaty that was not uncoditional, one that would retain Japan as sovereign country, but US wanted to set their own man in charge. Yes, the eventual unconditional surrender did leave Japan as sovereign country, but indeed US set their own man in charge. Japan was controlled by US, and the "sovereign" was more or less not there.

So what could possibly have been civilized in a situation where a country is ready to surrender and accept almost all conditions set? Maybe finding out the exact conditions they did have and writing the peace treaty so that those conditions could be retained. I doubt the conditions would've been too much really.
 
I guess that wraps it all up Elandal, thanks for the input. I really think talking about Nukes, gets into their nerves. Its a mistake that humans will never forget. One thing I have to say is: The decision was not made by all americans. There is clearly a missunderstanding here when you think we are judging a nation by a decision made by a few power people.

The Nuke argument went in, becouse the other dude was saying that a simple estate of underdeveloped civilized manners leads to a nation that cant call it self civilized. He was using americans as an example, so I counter it with the Nuke example.

I lived in the USA, I have met awsome people there. I dont disagree with Americans just becouse their americans. Heck, Im playing a SGOTM now with a nice crew of north americans, discussion is going fine. I simply sensed the other dude (I really dont recall his name...) was spilling a little bit of imperialism towards a peacefull discussion about adding Latin American Civs. And imperialism generally sounds american.

Dont forget, THE WORLD condenm America for the Nukes.

Dont take it on yourself thought. No point in arguing any more.
 
At the time the decision to a-bomb Japan was made, it was already known that Japan had lost the war. Peace negotiations had been tried, but US didn't settle for anything but unconditional surrender, which was not acceptable to Japan (not that they really did have that many conditions). Japan was mainly looking for a way to get a peace treaty that was not uncoditional, one that would retain Japan as sovereign country, but US wanted to set their own man in charge. Yes, the eventual unconditional surrender did leave Japan as sovereign country, but indeed US set their own man in charge. Japan was controlled by US, and the "sovereign" was more or less not there.

So what could possibly have been civilized in a situation where a country is ready to surrender and accept almost all conditions set? Maybe finding out the exact conditions they did have and writing the peace treaty so that those conditions could be retained. I doubt the conditions would've been too much really.

So let the militarists continue to run the country, and fight the whole war over when Japan had time to rearm. That'd have been much better than 60 years of a peaceful Japan, with war outlawed in her constitution (they're talking about removing that though), and an incredible prosperity that made Japan the second biggest economy in the world. Plus, you know, democratic with rights for women and all that. By the way, you're just assuming that Japan would have surrendered with terms because some factions of the government wanted to.
 
I guess that wraps it all up Elandal, thanks for the input. I really think talking about Nukes, gets into their nerves.

The fact that you go instantly for the emotional issues, and pretend that I'll do the same, when you have no knowledge of the facts seems to say a lot more about you than about my "nerves".



Its a mistake that humans will never forget.

You have yet to demonstrate that it was a mistake. A tragedy, certainly, but war is full of those. Compared to an invasion of Japan, which would have killed millions, or continued firebombing of Japanese cities, which was killing more people than the atom bombs did, even counting horrible after effects on the survivors, use of the atom bombs was the best option available.

The Nuke argument went in, becouse the other dude was saying that a simple estate of underdeveloped civilized manners leads to a nation that cant call it self civilized. He was using americans as an example, so I counter it with the Nuke example.

The guy you decided was an American, right? But you're not obsessed with fighting Americans.


Dont forget, THE WORLD condenm America for the Nukes.

Evidence? I think you're just making that up because you like the idea of the world condemning America. So let's see some evidence. Even a list would help.
 
So let the militarists continue to run the country, and fight the whole war over when Japan had time to rearm. That'd have been much better than 60 years of a peaceful Japan, with war outlawed in her constitution (they're talking about removing that though), and an incredible prosperity that made Japan the second biggest economy in the world. Plus, you know, democratic with rights for women and all that. By the way, you're just assuming that Japan would have surrendered with terms because some factions of the government wanted to.

All that is something we will never know. There is no way to try alternate history.

I still assume Japan would indeed have surrendered given the chance. Even the most militaristic factions knew that they had lost, and there was no hope in victory, only ways to prolong the war until inevitable defeat.

The number one condition Japan would've had was the status of Emperor. Eventually the conditions set by US (and other Allied countries, although I'm not sure how much they participated in the peace negotiations and post-war management - it looks that for most parts US was working on its own without others participating) required the Emperor to renounce his status as divine ruler, but retained the Emperor as a constitutional monarch. This went as far as allowing the wartime Emperor to stay in his position (apparently this was heavily influenced by MacArthur who saw the Emperor as continuity that would make post-war transitions easier). Considering that constitution was rewritten in any case (drafted by MacArthur staff, stamped by US approved Japanese government), and the fact that by worship of Amaterasu the status of divine descendance was retained even if not in the constitution, I don't see this really a big issue to the US - somehow it just was made a big issue.

Apart from the status of the Emperor, I'm guessing the other conditions would've been of more mundane nature. Probably the military would've been reduced to purely defensive one, which in essence was what was done (whether it would've been called an army or not is quite irrelevant IMHO - Finland does not have an Army, we have Defense Forces, which is in all regards the same as having an Army). The leaders in the militaristic faction would've faced charges on war crimes, removing them from the political field. Constitutional changes would've been made.

The question we can't really answer is "what would have happened if..." - in this case if the Allied (in essence US) would've taken the peace negotiations and the conditions Japan would've been allowed had been part of the peace.
 
All that is something we will never know. There is no way to try alternate history.

I still assume Japan would indeed have surrendered given the chance. Even the most militaristic factions knew that they had lost, and there was no hope in victory, only ways to prolong the war until inevitable defeat.

The number one condition Japan would've had was the status of Emperor. Eventually the conditions set by US (and other Allied countries, although I'm not sure how much they participated in the peace negotiations and post-war management - it looks that for most parts US was working on its own without others participating) required the Emperor to renounce his status as divine ruler, but retained the Emperor as a constitutional monarch. This went as far as allowing the wartime Emperor to stay in his position (apparently this was heavily influenced by MacArthur who saw the Emperor as continuity that would make post-war transitions easier). Considering that constitution was rewritten in any case (drafted by MacArthur staff, stamped by US approved Japanese government), and the fact that by worship of Amaterasu the status of divine descendance was retained even if not in the constitution, I don't see this really a big issue to the US - somehow it just was made a big issue.




A few notions to consider before you assume that "Japan would indeed have surrendered given the chance."
1. Kamikaze
2. Shattered Jewel
3. Okinawa
4. Iwo Jima
5. Tokyo



Apart from the status of the Emperor, I'm guessing the other conditions would've been of more mundane nature. Probably the military would've been reduced to purely defensive one, which in essence was what was done (whether it would've been called an army or not is quite irrelevant IMHO - Finland does not have an Army, we have Defense Forces, which is in all regards the same as having an Army). The leaders in the militaristic faction would've faced charges on war crimes, removing them from the political field. Constitutional changes would've been made.

The military government was going to surrender, and one of the conditions of that surrender was that they were going to be tried (and executed) for war crimes?


The question we can't really answer is "what would have happened if..." - in this case if the Allied (in essence US) would've taken the peace negotiations and the conditions Japan would've been allowed had been part of the peace.

Germany was beaten in World War I. Twenty years later they launched WW2, and Hitler's rise to power had a lot to do with the idea that Germany had been cheated out of victory or at least a draw. The Allies forced Germany, Italy and Japan to accept complete defeat and allow the Allies to control their countries for a time and dismantle military industries and institutions out of a desire not to fight World War Three.
 
Even considering the list you gave, I believe they would have surrendered. This is something we can't know for sure of course, but given that they had tried opening peace negotiations, the chance seems quite high. It's not like there was a "military government". There were militaristic politicians as well as military become politicians. Generals moving to politics is a theme recurring throughout history, and I don't really see a difference here. Potential for military coup of course also existed, and at least one had been suppressed already. EDIT: there were non-militaristic politicians as well, even if the militaristic wing was a majority.

Relating to Germany between WWs, would the history have repeated here? Again something we can't answer. But the nazi Germany of WWII had a lot to do with the recession during which they rose to power by promising people things they didn't have. While it seems common in politics (how many times do politicians make nice promises in the election time? Yeah, right - they sure can fullfill them), this time a nasty group got into power by those means.

The question here is, was using nuclear weapons a solution better than other solutions? I don't think so. I believe taking up the offered peace negotiations could have lead to a solution as well, with better future prospect. We'll never know.
 
Even considering the list you gave, I believe they would have surrendered. This is something we can't know for sure of course, but given that they had tried opening peace negotiations, the chance seems quite high.

You're not addressing my points. Japan had clearly lost the war long ago, but they kept fighting. They fought to the death of almost every man, woman and child before giving up islands. They sent thousands of boys off on ramshackle airplanes with fuel for a one way trip to crash into American ships. They abandoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers across the Pacific with no food so they resorted to cannabalism. They were preparing the Japanese home islands for resistence on absolute level of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, on a much larger scale. They were training Japanese civilians to attack American tanks with bamboo spears. MightyGooga raised the issue of nuclear weapons because he is hysterical and looking for emotional issues to batter America with, but the firebombing of Japanese population centers was killing many more people and this did not compel surrender. Even after one atom bomb, they did not surrender, and even after the second it was a very near thing.



It's not like there was a "military government". There were militaristic politicians as well as military become politicians. Generals moving to politics is a theme recurring throughout history, and I don't really see a difference here. Potential for military coup of course also existed, and at least one had been suppressed already. EDIT: there were non-militaristic politicians as well, even if the militaristic wing was a majority.

There was absolutely a military government in Japan. If you truly disagree with this, I'll have to recommend you books because your statement baffles me. I respect your knowledge and your calmness, but on this point I think you are very mistaken. To treat Tojo as a "General moving into politics" is absurd.

Relating to Germany between WWs, would the history have repeated here? Again something we can't answer.

After two World Wars, the Allies didn't want to flip a coin on it. I'm glad.


But the nazi Germany of WWII had a lot to do with the recession during which they rose to power by promising people things they didn't have. While it seems common in politics (how many times do politicians make nice promises in the election time? Yeah, right - they sure can fullfill them), this time a nasty group got into power by those means.

Certainly the Depression was a factor, but it struck the entire industrialized world. There's a reason the Germans turned their despair into rage against their neighbors (and countrymen), and part of that was the lie that they lost because of a "stab in the back" by leaders who negotiated surrender when they could have still won. So Roosevelt and Churchill decided that fascism and militarism needed to be defeated, not negotiated with.


The question here is, was using nuclear weapons a solution better than other solutions? I don't think so. I believe taking up the offered peace negotiations could have lead to a solution as well, with better future prospect. We'll never know.

I think that the tragic but necessary use of nuclear weapons saved millions of Japanese lives by preempting an invasion or continued blockade and bombardament. It also saved countless Korean and Chinese lives by ending hostilities there, where the Japanese Imperial Army was dug in and committing horrible attrocities. For what it's worth, I used to believe that the decision to use nuclear weapons was wrong. I changed my mind while studying history, in Japan.
 
I guess the difference in our thinking here is that you only consider unconditional surrender (which indeed was unlikely) while I consider the peace negotiations Japan had tried to start. Why is unconditional surrender the only way to go here? And if it is, then indeed it would have taken extreme measures, like the nuclear bomb - that I have to agree with.

If you want to force unconditional surrender on any sovereign nation, you most likely have to choose uncivilized methods, make it clear that you are willing to destroy every man, woman, and child, even if they are not connected to the military. Unconditional surrender will be chosen before the other choice, the complete annihilation. In cIV terms, unconditional surrender would be capitulation and war time vassallage. The yielding of control to another power, retaining only small amount of control over domestic issues. cIV vassalls have more control and power than is realistic, but then again the human player would abuse the vassall worse than is realistic as well, so maybe it's balanced.

No sovereign country will choose to surrender unconditionally (knowing that the existence as a country may have now come to an end) unless the other choice is worse: annihilation. A way to gain unconditional surrender without presenting the choice of annihilation as real is to remove the leadership, throw out the government, and replace the upper echelons with your own people. This might mean marching to the capitol and taking out the current leadership with tanks, or it might mean covert action that influences the government (including assasinations where needed, but most important thing is to have "your men" in places from which they will be elevated should the upper echelon fall). Power of the people is just not that real, even in modern democracy. The upper echelons are the power.

When choosing the route of nuclear bombing, US had to choose targets for bombing as well. When making the choice, military targets were discarded due to possibility of missing, as in not taking out the target completely and totally with one bomb. This sounds a bit weedy to me - how big time do you have to miss with Little Boy... But the choice of civilian target was made also due to psychological effect. The targets were chosen secondarily due to military impact: a civilian target that has heavy industry for example was considered a candidate. This (choosing a civilian target for psychological effect, with secondary issues being the military capabilities of the target) does not seem too "civilized" to me.

While modern conventional bombing can yield similar results (the bombs were fairly small and primitive by modern standards), in the day conventional bombing was less effective. This means that if the same question was presented today, conventional bombing would most likely be used as the nukes today would be completely off the scale. Similarly uncivilized choice of target by priorizing civilian losses for psychological effect over the military impact might easily be made - I seriously doubt US would be shy of doing that today either.

The above is regarding the original issue, use of nuclear weapons and civilized manners. I don't think we differ in thought much there. The basic question of if being able AND WILLING to annihilate a country, starting with the civilian population, is civilized, is quite fundamental, and no amount of discussion is going to change the opinion of anyone here - the fundamental questions and answers are quite deeply ingrained in us.


Regarding the Japanese government, OTOH. Most of the people in power were indeed militaristic. But the ultimate control would still be in the hands of the Emperor: any other person can be replaced, the Emperor can not. People had been replaced for various reasons already, and Tojo had risen to power because he was still loyal to the Emperor, willing to go against his own (more militaristic) views as required, while being able to control the situation. As during the war, the Emperor was made aware of the situation in more detail than probably ever before, and participated in the mundane rule way more than was common (that might not be very much by some norms though). If the Emperor required trying to continue negotiations, that was done. Even by Tojo. I don't know the period well enough, but I've understood very few of the ministers recommended seeking peace even when the loss had become clear (way before the nuclear bombing), with most of them still recommending continuing the war. At least until such a victory could be attained that Japan would be able to bargain the peace treaty from a stronger position (such victory was never achieved, so this didn't become possible ever), with the peace treaty then being more of one between equals than between a conqueror and the conquered.

What exactly makes a government militaristic? If the Emperor had not sided with the more peaceful opinions, or if the Emperor had not been powerful enough for the militaristic wing to cede to his requirements (this is possible and has happened in the history of Japan - the Emperor being reduced to puppet with someone else, or some faction, being in control), then yes - I would agree that the government as whole would've been militaristic. I agree that the mundane government was indeed militaristic, as the militaristic faction was controlling most of the mundane government. But the special position of the Emperor makes things a bit different. Tojo, like any man, could have been replaced should a peace treaty have been negotiated, and from what I understand about his character, he would have stepped down and accepted responsibility. The only one who could not have been touched was the Emperor. This in itself does not rule out militarism, but it does rule out equating Tojo with the government.

We can of course look into the concept of militarism from other angles. If we take a broad view of militarism, then yes - definitelly Japan was militaristic. However, so would have most other countries be. As we narrow the concept, there will definitelly be a point at which we can say that many (at least most of those we believe worth considering in the global political climate) would not be militaristic yet Japan would still be militaristic. Then we can continue narrowing the definition further and come to a point where we decide that Japan isn't militaristic by the definition anymore. Maybe I had taken very narrow view of militarism here. Many militaristic aspects were part of the Japanese society afterall.

The problem in applying the above is that we will first make the subjective decisions that:
1) militaristic is bad
2) Allied countries are good
3) therefore Allied countries are not militaristic
4) and Axis countries are militaristic

and thus we find setting the definition to where Japan falls to the militaristic category while Allied countries do not. Yes, it's going to be a valid definition. One we could've arrived to by other means as well. But it does bother me because I'm quite certain the above logic was used to arrive to it, therefore invalidating most of the logic there - it's back to emotional and subjective definitions. Also, it bothers me because I don't agree with #2 above, am quite reserved about #1, with #3 and #4 (which set the definition) being products of #1 and #2.
 
1) militaristic is bad
It is. I know that there were certain economic successes under the military dictatorship in Brazil, but I think history and especially the history of WW2 show that a government ruled by the military and a society oriented towards war is a very bad thing. On the other hand, moral judgements about militarism, which I feel perfectly comfortable making, are irrelevant to the topic. It doesn't matter if a military government is good or bad, only whether Japan had one and how this affected options for ending the war.

2) Allied countries are good
Whether the Allied countries were good or not is complicated, but not entirely relevant either. Soviet Russia was a brutal, imperialistic country, and Stalin was Hitler's smarter but equally vicious twin. The United States was just wrapping up a campaign of cultural genocide against the native population and was terribly mistreating blacks, including black servicemen. I assume you know about the treatment of Japanese Americans, since you're obviously a history buff and besides lists of America's flaws seem to be what passes for discussion on the internet these days. England held a large chunk of the world's population in servitude through violence and economic coercion, along with bribery and promoting division. So none of the Allied countries were Camelot. But none of that seems relevant to the question of how best to end WW2.

"3) therefore Allied countries are not militaristic"
None of them had military governments. Roosevelt was a cripple, not a soldier. Churchill had been a disasterous leader in WW1, but had shed his military affiliation on entering politics (unlike Tojo and the rulers of Japan, Pinochet, the Argentinian and Brazilian Juntistas, Castro, etc, i.e. military dictators who are part of and rule through the army). Stalin ruled through violence and a cult of propaganda, but I do not believe he was a member of the military. The USSR is famous for government beaurocrats "political officers" interferring with the military, not the other way around. It's probably true that all three major Allied countries idealized military service and martial values and solutions in a way that Iceland or Luxemburg probably don't, but their governments were unquestionably civilian. But again, irrelevant. The Allies could have been lead by unicorns and Germany by a racoon and it would still be up to the Japanese to surrender or not.

4) and Axis countries are militaristic
Absolutely. The Japanese military took over the country in the first third of the 20th century and dictated economic, industrial, educational, cultural and all other government policy. The military had charge of Hirohito's education. Tojo was simultaneously the prime minister and a general.

As for the emperor having the final say, this turned out to be the case, but only under the extremity of nuclear attack, and then only barely. It's true that the Emperor could not be replaced, but those advisors who gave him 'bad advice' (to surrender) could be and were attacked, and the isolated Emperor could be kept from announcing a surrender. The army tried and very nearly succeeded in doing just that, and if I remember right the recordings of his surrender order only got out because a bombing raid had knocked out communications and kept the army from interdicting and destroying them.

So the question remains, how does Truman convince the Emperor and enough of the government that there is no possibility of victory, of negotiated peace (which was unacceptable because the Allies did not want to see Japan rearm, although we encouraged them to a few years later), or of honorable glorious death (the sick and horrific "shattered jewel" ideal) for Japan? By attacking with a weapon that Japanese suicidal courage and technical ingenuity cannot counter.

As to whether a city should have been the first target for a nuclear attack, I agree that is troubling. I would say that it has been validated by history, since even the horrific destruction of Hiroshima was not enough. But if I were Truman, I would certainly have announced a demonstration of the demolition of something other than a city first. Of course this is discounting the fact that he knew things that we don't know, and didn't know things that we do.

If it makes you feel any better, it is widely assumed that American negotiators whispered to the Japanese that Hirohito could be retained. I suspect that was the case, so you have a de facto condition to the surrender.
 
When taking a narrow definition of militarism, then yes - it's most likely bad. At least I can't think of highly positive examples.

Broader definitions make things less clear. Military tradition has been deeply ingrained in most countries, with many statesman having military upbringing during some part of his youth. In modern world, it's often expected that the successors to throne (in case of monarchies) attain an officer rank for example. Earlier it stemmed at least to some degree from the fact that statesmen came from rich families which had historically provided military to the crown. Under these premises, many countries had governments with upper echelon having strong military ties, whether through their own accomplishments or the ties of the family.

These ties have slowly been breaking down, with broader education, broader division of wealth, both of which contribute towards broader class of people being interested and capable of attaining political power under representative democracy. It's still a long road - we haven't walked that to the end yet, but we're definitelly making progress.

Apart from the ruling class, some amount of idolization is still present. Often the military has ties to civilian part of the society and effects civilian development in many ways. Even the boy scouts are part of idolizing the military (and yes, I was a boy scout in my youth).

Part of the issue is of course that military is required for survival of a nation. Can't really deny this, not today, most likely not in the forseeable future either. Lack of military is seen as a weakness, and while it might not lead to outright conquer of the weaker country today, it leads to lesser influence globally. A country's influence in global matters is strongly tied to the military force it can field. In the extreme end this means having nuclear weapons today - eg. India owns a lot of its political influence to having them. Apart from the very small minority of countries with nuclear weapons, each country still needs to be able to field a military force strong enough to deter potential aggressors, and by having forces that can be sent to abroad, participating in conflicts not directly linked to the survival of the nation in any way, is a big factor in global politics.

Note that in case of nuclear weapons we do not know which nations of those who have them would be ready to use them. Or rather, what would be the treshold for each. And we hope that we never need to find that treshold - even "primitive" ones today would be way more destrutive than the early bombs that were used.

And so as military is an important part of sovereign nations' ability to affect issues pertaining to the civilian population of the nation, some amount of militarism is most likely to stay.

While your analysis is nice, the reason I prefer a narrow definition is that I believe too many people would choose to draw the line more due to emotional reasons that objective analysis.


I didn't know that the military tried to intercept the speech announcing the surrender to the public. Given this fact, it seems clear that a military coup in effect was in progress. With Emperor reduced to a puppet and generals in charge, the country would indeed be purely militaristic, as the generals are unlikely to consider civilian matters without having a military agenda related (that's what makes militarism bad - the order should be considering matters with civilian issues priorized over the military agenda while having military agenda still as part of the whole). This would indeed complicate matters a lot. I was under the assumption that the chain of command was intact and loyalty held, with no credible threat to any action by the Emperor existing. Also, the control of the militaristic faction may have been stronger than I had assumed. Even if Tojo was loyal to the Emperor (I believe he was, and that Tojo would have been ready to take the blame), maybe too many others were not loyal enough. It was only a couple of decades since the modernization of the government, and the successors to families in power during the former military government were still the strong.

With this considered, a peace treaty might have been harder to negotiate than I had assumed, and the result still might have been forcing unconditional surrender by military actions.


The next question could be, "how did we come to this?".

First of all, the wars Japan was in before declaring war on some of the Allied nations had little in common to the war in Europe. Korea was in unfortunate geopolitical location, with the pretty much eternal enmity between China and Japan. Of course you could say that the nationalism would link Germany and Japan, but nationalism in itself isn't all that uncommon. Even the extreme views of Japanese could easily be related to the views of many nations in the history - although indeed the things had been changing towards modern views more in Europe and US.

US didn't really care about the lives of Koreans or Chinese. Afterall, the primary purpose of the government is to look after its own citizens, not of those in some faraway country. What US did care about was the commercial interests in China. These commercial interests might have taken a blow should Japanese expansion there become permanent. This lead to US cutting trade with Japan which was reliant on importing many raw materials - including oil. Negotiations come to nothing. Now in this case it's likely that the military leaders had highly optimistic views of their capability when they recommended the declaration of war to the Emperor. I'm not even sure what they expected to gain in the war - Alaska and oilfields in there? Still, war was declared. Japan had now split its forces to multiple fronts, which sounds quite ludicurous to me. What chance is there anymore for them? At least Germany controlled enough raw materials for its own warmachine unlike Japan.

So the war became due to formerly isolationist Japan going for expansion via military means, interfering with the commercial interests of US.


Now assuming that forcing unconditional surrender was the only way, the question is "how?".

To begin with, ending a war sooner rather than later will always save lives. The lives US would care about were those of its own citizens, and considering they were on the offensive this meant mainly soldiers. I can't fault them in this - the primary responsibility of the government is afterall to its own citizens.

Carrying the war to Japanese soil and forcing surrender by conventional war there would have cost a lot of US soldiers. So indeed, a show of force capable of annihilating the country without effective countermeasures was to US preferable in this regard. In the end the biggest fault I can find in this case would be the choice of targets for nuclear bombing. Targeting civilians first with military goals being secondary is the inexcusable part here.

Now assuming that US would have chosen military targets with lower civilian impact, would this have lead to unconditional surrender? Or would US would have needed still to bomb a civilian target after military target for Japan to get the point? I would always hope that bombing military targets would have been enough. But if not, given the choice of bombing civilian target versus invasion using conventional military, could the former be excused under the premise of higher overall losses in the latter, possibly higher civilian losses due to war continuing longer? It's a very hard choice, but I still have to stay my ground: even all things considered, targeting civilians first with possible secondary military goals can not be excused, and invasion using conventional military should have had to take priority.

WWII was a total war. Civilians were targeted and suffered more than ever before (by direct acts in war, it's very hard to count indirect effects in earlier wars where civilians were not targeted that much). In many ways, it was more brutal and far less civilized (if war can ever be considered civilized) than wars before. Ending the war with the ultimate brutality was in many ways fitting :(


PS. I don't really consider myself a history buff. I've found many things interesting during my life, including issues in history, politics, economics.. The only thing that has held my interest all the time since early youth has been mathematics and to some degree physics. I've certainly studied many of these subjects more than most others, but the foundations were laid in the school. Having good teachers and a good school library definitelly helped :)
 
Tojo himself was replaced as Prime Minister sometime in 1944. If I said he was still in direct command at the end of the war I misspoke. And he and others did 'fall on their swords' at the end of the war and colloborate in the American & Japanese conspiracy to absolve Hirohito of all blame, since the Americans had decided that he was a necessary component of a peaceful occupation of Japan. But that doesn't mean those same military leaders were willing to surrender unconditionally and face the noose before the atomic bombs proved that they could not fight on even futilely.

As to why Japan attacked the United States, it was sheer lunacy. The Imperial Army believed they could defeat any foe (they even managed to convince themselves that General Zhukov hadn't handed them their heads at Nomohan a few years before). The Imperial Navy had wiser, more wordly, and less religiously fanatical leaders like Yamamoto who knew war with the United States was insane, but the Army controlled the Emperor. I was told by a history teacher in Japan that the Army and Navy headquarters in Tokyo had tanks and machine gun emplacements before the war - to protect from eachother! Sounds a little like the Health and Education Ministeries in Bagdad. Anyway, Japan 'needed' to go to war with the Dutch to recolonize the East Indies and take the oil. They also decided to go after the United States and Britain and Australia for some reason, I guess they thought we would come to the aid of the British even though we weren't at war with the Germans who were bombing London!

As to whether Americans cared about Koreans and Chinese, I disagree. The (fictional) heroic resistence of Chang Kai-shek was idolized in America, and the Rape of Nanjing and bombing of Chinese cities horrified Americans before we were ever at war with Japan. In fact, as you pointed out, we cut off their oil and scrap metal supplies. We also sent the magnificant "Flying Tigers" to help defend China. So I don't think it's true that America cared nothing for Chinese lives (honestly most Americans had probably never heard of Korea). I'll believe that saving Chinese lives didn't figure much into the equation, and that saving hundreds of thousands of American lives was much more important to Truman than saving millions of Japanese. But that doesn't matter either, the question is whether those lives were saved by the atomic bombs, not whether the desire to save them contributed to their use. I admire Harry Truman so I hope he gave a damn about all those people, but it's the actions that determined if they lived or died.

As for Total War, I guess it's fair to say that white Europeans (including Americans) hadn't practiced it against eachother, although we sure did it to native populations, America to the Indians and the Europeans to the native populations of many colonized areas. And Stalin and Hitler had already begun waging Total War on certain fo their own people . . .

Here's what Wikipedia says about the hardliner revolt, from the article "Surrender of Japan"

Military reaction

Late on the night of August 12, 1945, Major Hatanaka Kenji, along with Lieutenant Colonels Ida Masataka, Takehorsehockya Masahiko, and Inaba Masao, and Colonel Arao Okitsugu, the Chief of the Military Affairs Section, spoke to War Minister Anami Korechika, hoping for his support, and asking him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would or would not help the young officers in treason. As much as they needed his support, Hatanaka and the other rebels decided they had no choice but to continue planning and to pull off the 'coup' on their own.

Hatanaka spent much of the 13th and the morning of the 14th gathering allies, seeking support from the higher-ups in the Ministry, and of course perfecting his plot. Around 9:30 on the night of the 14th, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. The Second Regiment of the First Imperial Guards had entered the palace grounds, doubling the strength of the battalion already stationed there, presumably to provide extra protection against Hatanaka's rebellion. However, Hatanaka, along with Lt. Col. Shiizaki Jiro, now convinced the commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guards, Colonel Haga Toyojiro, of their cause, and (untruthfully) that the War Minister, Army Chief of Staff, and the commanders of the Eastern District Army and Imperial Guards Divisions were all in on the plan.

Originally, Hatanaka hoped that by simply occupying the Palace, by simply showing the beginnings of a rebellion, the rest of the Army would be inspired and would rise up against the move to surrender. This philosophy guided him through much of the last days and hours, and gave him the blind optimism to move ahead with the plan, despite having little support from his superiors. Having set all the pieces into position, Hatanaka and his co-conspirators decided that the Guard would take over the Palace at 2 AM. The hours until then were spent in continued attempts to convince their superiors in the Army to join the 'coup'. At about the same time, General Anami committed seppuku, leaving a message that, "I—with my death—humbly apologize to the Emperor for the great crime." Whether the crime involved losing the war, or the coup, remains unclear.

At some time after one o'clock that morning, Hatanaka killed Lt. General Mori Takeshi, Commander of the 1st Imperial Guards Division, when Mori refused to side with him. Hatanaka feared that Mori would order the Guards to stop the rebellion. Lt. Col. Shiizaki and Captain Uehara Shigetaro of the Air Force Academy were also present in the room, and Uehara is presumed to have killed Lt. Col. Shiraishi Michinori, Staff Officer of the 2nd General Army. These were the only two murders of the night. Hatanaka then used General Mori's official stamp to authorize Strategic Order No. 584, a false set of orders created by his co-conspirators, which would greatly increase the strength of the forces occupying the Imperial Palace and Imperial House Ministry, and "protecting" the Emperor. The Palace police were disarmed, and all the entrances blocked; but as of yet, no one in the Imperial House Ministry was aware of what was transpiring. Over the course of the night, Hatanaka's rebels captured and detained eighteen people, including Ministry staff, and NHK workers sent to record the surrender speech.

The rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next several hours searching for the Imperial House Minister, the Lord of the Privy Seal, and the recordings of the surrender speech. They never found the recordings, which were hidden among pieces of bedding in an emergency cupboard. The search was made more difficult not only by a blackout, caused by Allied bombings, but also by the archaic organization and layout of the Imperial House Ministry. Many of the rooms' names were unrecognizable to the rebels. During their search, the rebels cut nearly all of the telephone wires, severing communications between their prisoners on the Palace Grounds and the outside world.

Around 3 AM, Hatanaka was informed by Lt Col Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the Palace to stop him, and that he should simply give up. Finally, seeing his plan crumbling to pieces around him, Hatanaka tried to plead with the Chief of Staff of the Eastern District Army to be given at least ten minutes on the air (on NHK radio), to explain to the people of Japan what he was trying to accomplish and why. He was refused. Colonel Haga, commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guards, now discovered that the Army was not, in fact, in support of this rebellion, and he ordered Hatanaka to leave the Palace Grounds.

Just before five in the morning, as his rebellion continued its search, Major Hatanaka went to NHK studios, and, brandishing a pistol, tried desperately to get some airtime, to explain his actions. A little over an hour later, after receiving a phone call from the Eastern District Army, Hatanaka finally gave up. He gathered his officers, and walked out of the NHK studio.

By 8 AM, the rebellion was entirely dismantled, having succeeded in holding the Palace Grounds for much of the night, but ultimately failing to find the recordings. Hatanaka, on a motorcycle, and Lt. Col. Shiizaki on horseback, rode through the streets, tossing leaflets that explained their motives, and their actions.

Within an hour before the Emperor's broadcast, sometime around 11 AM, August 15, Major Hatanaka placed his pistol to his forehead, and pulled the trigger. In his pocket was found his death poem: "I have nothing to regret now that the dark clouds have disappeared from the reign of the Emperor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
 
to try and get back on topic I agree I would like to see Brazilor the moche
 
Come on guys... the nice thing about History is that you can learn what happened, but then you have to use your brains to try to understand why it happened...

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a mean to end the war, yes. But it was far more than that. It was a clear message for Stalin.

Do you really think that Stalin would have stopped in the middle of the defeated Germany if it weren't for the nukes? Ha!

He had a force of 30,000 thanks in April 1945. 30,000!!!! Do you think he needed that much of a force to defeat the crumbling Germany? Nope. Stalin was preparing the takeover of Europe; he would have stopped at the shores of the Atlantic, if at all. As Phantom said, and I agree absolutely, Hitler and Stalin were two faces of the same coin.

The nukings were sad. Yes, absolutely. The question is: what would have happened with Europe under Stalin's rule? If he killed millions of his own people AFTER WW2, how many would have died in a Red Europe? Would Stalin have stopped there, or would he have tried to "continue" Hitler's plan of domination through force?

That is the kind fo question that an intelligent person asks. Accusing the US of uncivilized behavior is too simplistic, too flat, like some brains, apparently...

As for the accusation of Imperialism coming from the brazilian guy, my answer is:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have lived for 37 years in one of your borders, rapaiz... I know exactly what you do. I don't know of a country in modern history that is more imperialistic than Brazil. So, please, cut the BS.

A brazilian accusing anyone else of imperialism is nothing but a bad joke...

c-ya,
 
RicardoJahns,
You know something about history, but clearly you do not know the etiquette of internet chats. The United States and Israel are Imperialist. No one else is.


As to whether Stalin was preparing to attack British and American forces in Western Europe, I don't know. I don't think he was ready, and I think he was more interested in instilling his absolute rule in Russia and Eastern/Central Europe than launching a new World War. This is not because of any lack of bloodthirstiness or ambition, but only because he was pragmatic and his priorities were to build a wall of vassals around Russia and to rule like a Tsar.

As to what degree diplomacy with our soon to be former allies the Soviets played in the decision to use nuclear weapons, that is a huge topic of debate, and one that depends mostly on guessing at Truman's psychology. I do know that he did not take a more hardline tone in negotiating with Stalin after the attacks.
 
Top Bottom