tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3898155794458194057..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Was Truman wrong?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23367753927233891842016-05-31T16:50:48.088-04:002016-05-31T16:50:48.088-04:00Regarding point #16, the US did drop millions of l...Regarding point #16, the US did drop millions of leaflets across Japan warning the Japanese that they were in danger. Granted Hiroshima wasn't listed, but the Japanese were given notice. zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50155007759361148962016-05-30T23:21:42.950-04:002016-05-30T23:21:42.950-04:00As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned:
1...As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned:<br /><br />1. The Soviets had been planning to move into Manchuria in China (Manchukuo). They wanted a piece of Asia including Japan for themselves. So there was a significant time factor involved. If we hadn't dropped the bombs and forced a surrender from Japan, it could've been a much longer and drawn out end to WW2, and the Soviets could've occupied a lot of Asia by the time it was over. Asian geopolitics might have looked very different under Soviet occupation at the end of WW2.<br /><br />2. Also, my understanding is most average Japanese soldiers were largely committed to serving the emperor, as interpreted through the militarism of the Japanese leadership at the time. Bushido, etc. We had to destroy this emperor worship as well. However, we couldn't do so by directly attacking the emperor or military leadership since that would take a land invasion. The nukes were the next best thing, I suppose. The nukes led to a coup in the Japanese military leadership, and the new leadership immediately surrendered to the US.<br /><br />3. And, of course, the Japanese committed many atrocities such as Unit 731, the Burma Railway, the Rape of Nanking (where about 300k Chinese died, most of whom were civilians or soldiers who had already surrendered, and of course many, many women were raped), the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor as a surprise ambush, etc. It's conceivable more atrocities would've been committed had we not stopped the Japanese with the bombs.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28339108912816843002016-05-30T02:08:04.338-04:002016-05-30T02:08:04.338-04:00Thank you for writing this Steve.Thank you for writing this Steve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66867179742588569612016-05-29T21:37:56.495-04:002016-05-29T21:37:56.495-04:0018. The strongest objection I've seen to nukin...<i>18. The strongest objection I've seen to nuking Nagasaki is that this was the center of Christianity in Japan. Christianity only had a toehold in Japan to begin with, and nuking Nagasaki decimated what little Christian presence there was in Japan. </i><br /><br />For those who don't know later this year Martin Scorsese is releasing a remake of the 1971 movie titled Silence which is based on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_%28novel%29" rel="nofollow">Shusaku Endo's book by the same title</a>. The book and movies are about the persecution of Catholics and Christianity in Japan during the 17th century. I saw the 1971 movie last week and wasn't impressed. I trust Scorsese will add his usual liberal Catholic spin to his version. ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com