- Dec 2010
- Near St. Louis.
I notice you're not providing sources for your copy pasta. That's plagiarism, which is probably against the rules here, I hope.
I think that you and a few others in this thread who have made similar comments are misunderstanding the point of the argument.This is actually an excellent point. The Soviets had not destroyed the Japanese Navy, Japanese airforce, pushed them back from mid Pacific, and put a stranglehold on their economy and merchant marine, to a level that would have made the Kreigsmarine drool.
The British did their part, particularly in West Asia and island fighting near Australia.
The Australians did their part in the island fighting.
The Soviets did their part, invading Manchuria, and moving into stage for their part in an invasion of the home islands.
The Chinese did their part, fighting and dying for a decade.
The subject peoples, to numerous to name, did their part in resisting and just surviving.
The US did its part.
It took ALL of that to finally get Japan to surrender. They may have been "on the brink" as revisionists like to conspiratorially say, but they didn't quit fighting until after all of this was done.
That quote comes from the article that I linked to in the OP.I notice you're not providing sources for your copy pasta. That's plagiarism, which is probably against the rules here, I hope.
And you didn't provide provenance, so it's plagiarism.That quote comes from the article that I linked to in the OP.
Yep, I have better things to do with my time.Can I take the fact that you didn't recognize it as confirmation that you haven't bothered to read it yet?
*sigh*You can prove what didn't happen?
My time is important to me.*sigh*
I'm finding your attitude to be utterly bizarre.
You obviously care about this topic, otherwise you wouldn't be posting on this thread.
Would it really hurt you to read the article, and give consideration to whether or not there is any merit to the arguments, rather than just dismissing them out of hand?
Then their sanity should be questioned, or at least their grasp of simple logic.I think that you and a few others in this thread who have made similar comments are misunderstanding the point of the argument.
The "revisionist" position is not about who did the most to bring the Empire of Japan to its knees militarily and economically. It is essentially to argue that if the atomic bombs had never been dropped, it would have made no significant difference to the time that it took them to surrender.
Of COURSE Japan wanted peace. They had lost and everybody knew it. Nobody has argued that point. The only question for Roosevelt and later Truman was if they (Japan) were prepared to do what was necessary to achieve that peace. Japan suffered from national Multiple-personality disorder. There were doves, but there were also ultra-hawks. Given that the hawks had had unfettered and all-encompassing control of the government for 20 years, why would Washington expect anything different?It's incontrovertible fact, Japan in 1945 was ready to surrender if only Allies were prepared to give some kind of guarantee, they wouldn't exterminate institution of their Emperor. Grotesque fantasies of millions dying in huge invasions which ignorant superpatriots bring up aren't relevant to discussions of this fact.
Allies chose to insist on immoral "unconditional surrender" idea and so alone are responsible for continuing war. Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki was totally unnecessary murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
In another thread I quoted from truthful words of Admiral Zacharias (head of military intelligence of USA) when he described how Japanese sued for peace and were ignored by New Dealers and jingos in Truman Administration. His article had correct title: "How We [USA] Bungled The Japanese Surrender":
One of the first such [peace] moves, proving we were on the right track, came when the Emperor of Japan asked the Holy See to intervene with us on his behalf and seek out our terms in preparation for formal peace negotiations with Pope Pius XII himself acting as intermediary.
Involved in this move, besides the Pope, were Pietro Cardinal Fumasoni-Biondi, head of the Congregazione de Propaganda Fide, the Vatican's own "intelligence service"; His Excellency, Petro Tatsuo Doi, Archbishop of Tokyo; two of the Cardinal's representatives in Tokyo and members of a special mission of the Office of Strategic Services working in Italy on contacts developed through the Vatican.
If we still needed evidence that Tokyo was actually suing for peace, the appeal to the Vatican provided it for us. Unfortunately, nobody outside the Navy Department and the O.S.S. seemed to take the opportunity seriously. In fact the State Department discouraged it altogether and told the O.S.S. to discontinue its efforts, since American public opinion "might never approve of a peace negotiated with the help of the Roman Catholic Church."
To strengthen our knowledge of Japanese sentiments for peace still further, Tokyo---at about this time---also called on the Russians to negotiate peace on its behalf. Here, however, the obstacle was that the Soviet never acted on the request, in fact it never advised us of the Japanese move. We had to learn about it in a roundabout way.
How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender
In fact Zacharias was not quite truthful when wrote this last sentence in 1950. As most Second World War buffs probably now know, USA had broken Japanese codes. In July 1945 they read clearly instructions from Japanese Foreign Ministry to their Ambassador in Moscow Mr. Sato on asking USSR to broke peace. So from several sources USA had crystal clear info Japan wanted peace.
Zacharias was sane and competent man with unquestioned integrity. And hardly can be said was unpatriotic or left wing peacenik. So his words are very potent anti toxin against lies and falsehoods peddled by our chest thumper USA superpatriots.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Question on internal publicaton by the University of Mumbai (Bombay)||Asian 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|
|Question on internal publicaton by the University of Mumbai (Bombay)|
|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?|