- Mar 2012
Of course you wouldn't, and you wouldn't be the architect who designed the building either.If I hammer down one nail and beat to a pulp all my fingers in the process I would not count myseld a great carpenter
I'm aware there was a peace party, but everything I've read gives the impression they were more radical than you believe. Here's an example from my most recent read on the Pacific War, that being Hastings' book.That was the line which was taken by the militarist hard-liners, who at that point were in control of the government.
There was a substantial body of politicians and industrialists who were convinced that continuing the war was a folly, and who were prepared to accept pretty much any surrender conditions that didn't degrade the Emperor, or significantly imperil them in a prospective occupation (as Soviet involvement certainly would have).
If the U.S. had held out an offer in the right way, there is a good chance that the chain of events which culminated in Hirohito's intervention (which he would not have taken without considerable political backing for his decision) would have been accelerated.
Here's an article from the author of Downfall.From the winter of 1944 onwards, a significant part in Tokyo was seeking a route by which to end the war, and to overcome the army's resolve to fight to the last. Even the most dovish, however, wanted terms that were not remotely negotiable, including the preservation of Japanese hegemony in Korea and Manchuria, freedom from Allied military occupation, and the right for Japan to conduct any war crimes trials of its citizens. As late as May 1945, the emperor clung to a belief that a victory was attainable on Okinawa, which would strengthen Japan's negotiation position-in other words, that military resistance was still serviceable.
What sources are you primarily relying on? Because it seems our information directly contradicts each other.When a complete set of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary for the war years was first made public in 1978, the text contained a large number of redacted (literally whited out) passages. The critics reasonably asked whether the blanks concealed devastating revelations. Release of a nonredacted complete set in 1995 disclosed that the redacted areas had indeed contained a devastating revelation--but not about the use of the atomic bombs. Instead, the redacted areas concealed the embarrassing fact that Allied radio intelligence was reading the codes not just of the Axis powers, but also of some 30 other governments, including allies like France.
The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government.
Try 20,000 unarmed conscripts. There was barely enough weapons to arm even a fifth of the 40,000 soldiers at Hiroshima, and they could barely feed them.The Japanese estimated that 20,000 soldiers died at Hiroshima. That would count as a military defeat in my book.
If you want to quibble about the status of the soldiers I get to point out that the civilians were engaged in activities supporting the war.Try 20,000 unarmed conscripts. There was barely enough weapons to arm even a fifth of the 40,000 soldiers at Hiroshima, and they could barely feed them.
I didn't even refer to you or your post. I appreciate that you actually provided some evidence for your argument, though I don't appreciate how you think anyone that disagrees with you is a ''superpatriot'' blinded by their nationalism. Granted, I've done my share of name calling in this thread, but I wasn't engaging in a serious argument, I just wanted to poke fun at Maribat because he's a boob.Warhouse means I or Admiral Zacharias is the "fat clown" with no arguments?
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|how Much did the strategic bombing campaign help the Allies in WW2?||Military History|
|Why didn't the Americans & Brits produce so powerful long-range ww2 heavy bomber like the ME-264 strategic bomber?||Military History|
|Why didn't the Germans use anti personnel bombs on D Day?||Military History|
|Why didn't the USA use atomic bomb like indimidation on USSR after ww2?||General History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|how Much did the strategic bombing campaign help the Allies in WW2?|
|Why didn't the Americans & Brits produce so powerful long-range ww2 heavy bomber like the ME-264 strategic bomber?|
|Why didn't the Germans use anti personnel bombs on D Day?|
|Why didn't the USA use atomic bomb like indimidation on USSR after ww2?|