Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

From: John Clark (
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 09:36:14 MST

Technotranscendence <> Wrote:

>By 1945, the Japanese military was damaged beyond repair. At home,
>I'm sure this would have meant non-military and non-militaristic factions
>reasserting control.

By 1918 (or 1991) the German (or Iraqi) military was damaged beyond repair. At home,
this did not mean non-military and non-militaristic factions reasserting control.

> In fact, part of the reason the militarists got power in the first place was
> because of FDR's heavy handed diplomacy with Japan.

FDR was not heavy handed enough, read the book "The Rape Of Nanking".
Japan invaded China and butchered millions years before Pearl Harbor.
Considering the magnitude of the crime the American response was anemic,
If the Chinese were blond and blue eyed I bet the outrage in the Western
World would have been larger and more appropriate.

> So, I don't think Japan would have been ready to go to war again in five years.

We will never know, but it's not unreasonable to think that they might and after
4 years of horrible war it was inevitable the winning side would want to finish it and
take no chances.

> The Soviets were too busy grabbing Manchuria to start an invasion of Japan itself.

If you said that to FDR or Churchill they would have said baloney, so would I. Years
before Stalin had told FDR that 3 months after the end of the war with Germany he would
invade Japan, and the Americans were delighted with the idea. After it became apparent
that the Atomic Bomb would actually work and Soviet help was not needed this idea
seemed less delightful.

>Would the Japanese be able to fend off an American invasion but not a Soviet one?

They would be able to fend off neither and there would have been a sea of blood,
Japanese Soviet and American.

> this [keeping the Emperor] was a minor, last minute concession.

Not minor to the Japanese mind, nothing was more important.

>>It seems to me that with thousands dying every day it was their responsibility
>>to eliminate baffle gab.

> Without an invasion, how would more US soldiers have died?

I was referring to Japanese deaths. Their own people were dying in huge numbers
from conventional bombs and a even larger number would soon start to die from
starvation, this was no time to give elliptical ambiguous speeches.

             John K Clark

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:22 MDT