Governments don’t start wars they think they will lose. Governments do not choose disaster and misfortune. Governments do not in fact have crystal balls that tell them the future outcomes that will spin out of control based on which choices are made. Governments almost never have all the important information needed to make the best decision. Governments can never read minds and know what other leaders will do, might do, or consider doing in full fact. Most often even on clear matters, they don’t choose the best option because of cost- political, economic, whatever.

Governments are led by flawed, vain, proud men (or women) who gain power by leading in some fashion- exploiting an opportunity to lead, and they are often caught up in circumstances they do not chose, cannot fully understand at the time, and rarely can control completely successfully. Google for “Maximilien Robespierre”. How many overthrown leaders survive to die of old age?

When you have held the kind of awesome power that the U.S Presidents of the 20th century had (for just one example), and seen the kind of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” choices they’ve faced… well then you will have some better understanding of what you speak. Then you will understand that hindsight is 20/20, and what it is to have every choice judged by history not just for what you faced that day, what you knew that day, what you thought you were doing that day, but for everything that ever could be blamed on that choice forever after as well.

Until then, you can bring up every little flaw, lesser-evil, and bad choice ANY government has made in the past. If you want to…. it’s called a rant. It doesn’t mean people have to take you seriously.

And by the way, I hope to God that nuclear weapons are never again used under any circumstances. However, notice what I said about governments above, and the historical precedent that we haven’t learned to live together peaceably yet. I wish nobody had ever invented the damn things. If somebody hadn’t started WW2 maybe it would have taken a lot longer, who knows.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Willing to surrender, perhaps. But not necessarily willing to surrender on terms we would find even remotely acceptable.

And more to the point, despite their willingness to surrender, they didn’t actually try to surrender to us until after Nagasaki.

>Historians seem to be moving towards an interpretation of events that explains the dropping of the a-bombs as a show of force to the Soviet Union, rather than something which was believed necessary to ensure Japanese surrender.

Just the opposite. Historians have soundly rejected that interpretation.

It is true that the US government hoped the bombs would intimidate the Soviets. However, the primary reason for dropping the bombs was the hope it would shock Japan into surrender.

>I’ve read Racing the Enemy, and it doesn’t out and say that the Japanese would surrender, but it makes lengthly mention of the Japanese desire to surrender and their many attempts to talk to the allies.

Many???

For about a month before the bombs, Japan attempted communications with the Soviets.

Japan hoped that, in exchange for warm post-war relations between Japan and the Soviets, Stalin would be willing to take the role of mediator and then bully us into giving Japan’s better terms.

But aside from that, the government of Japan made no attempt whatsoever to communicate with the allies.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

I’m surprised that the idea that the Japanese government was completely unwilling to surrender before or after Hiroshima still continues to survive in the minds of so many people.

What a lot of ignorant revisionist bollocks! Read this book and educate yourself. Japan wasn’t on the verge of surrendering to anybody before Nagasaki was nuked, and even afterwards it took Hirohito’s personal intervention to override the fanatics in the cabinet.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Historians seem to be moving towards an interpretation of events that explains the dropping of the a-bombs as a show of force to the Soviet Union, rather than something which was believed necessary to ensure Japanese surrender.

Rate this comment: 0  0

The Hiroshima Myth

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

…The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945…..continued:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Rate this comment: 0  0

Hindsight and second-guessing is all very good, but the notion that there was no reason for Nagasaki, or that it was the result of some implacable “force” other than the need to end the damn war, is simply stupid.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Case in point was the use of the term “ground zero”. If history has changed the definition of the term to mean something akin to the “epicenter of a disaster”, why has a public enquiry on the basis for the bombing of Nagasaki never been opened? Why have no officers been held accountable for what could have been a crime against humanity? On a related note, why does the US refuse to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and why did it back Asian Authoritarian regimes despite their dismal human rights record during the cold war?

One would think that a skewed set of morality would have no place in International Relations, but apparently the maintenance of being the status quo hegemony demands it.

By the way, how is this entry is related to the “more interesting aspects of Japan”?

Rate this comment: 0  0