The only way the Axis could have won WWII, or at least not lost, was to split the Allies. Almost all their mid- to late-war strategy was to this effect, and Hitler maintained his delusion this was just about to happen until very near the end. This was much of the reason for the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, which deliberately targeted the seam between the US and British armies, hoping to do a France 1940 and drive the Commonwealth off the continent again, forcing them to make a separate peace.
The Allies, realising this, and also in order to allay Stalin’s concern of exactly this (he was already convinced that the western Allies were deliberately delaying starting a second front in order to have Russia continue to shoulder the bulk of the war effort), agreed that no-one would make a separate peace. The West for their part were worried Stalin would make a separate peace once they got to the German border, leaving them to face the whole German army.
This in turn required unconditional surrender terms.
The Japaneese were also fighting to death to inflict as many deaths as possable so the Americans back home would want to sue for pease. If they could get the fighting to stop for a while it would give them time to rebuild and rearm. And they could maintain the lands and resources in China.
I agree with this. Although I think the US were too accomodating to Japan in the unfolding of events after surrender. I think it was a mistake to allow the imperial family to continue to be seen as the symbol of the State - the right wingers even today drive through the streets unhindered and blaring their hate propoganda at full volume.
Also I think it was a mistake not to install English as the official language. Various reasons for that, but I don’t want to hijack too much.
That book is an extremely questionable work of scholarship. Alperovitz misrepresents sources, takes quotes out of context, and perpetuates discredited arguments.
For a decent revisionist argument for the use of the atomic bomb, I recommend Hasegawa’s Racing the Enemy.
I disagree. There is no evidence that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was part of a postwar plan. They were what they appeared to be - an attack against a country we were at war with. In the beginning of 1945, the atomic bomb was regarded as just another weapon that would used as it became available. It only obtained its mythic status after it appeared to have single-handedly ended the war.
BS. The Imperial family kneeled symbolically so the Japanese public did as well signalling to everyone ‘they won, it is over’. From '45 to '52 MacArthur traveled from his home to the Diet without bodyguards. If ONE Japanese person thought his holiness wanted MacArthur dead he would have suicided himself into it.
If we had sentenced the Emperor to war crimes we’d now be facing a regime worse than North Korea.
I disagree. (This is really GD material so I’ll keep it short).
I can’t see how anything in your first paragraph pertains to what I said, so I can’t really address it. The imperial family was useful for demonstrating once and for all that the war was over and they lost, yes, if that’s what you are implying, I agree.
However, getting to…
I didn’t say sentence him, but whatever. I said abolish the position of emperor of Japan. Get rid of the tradition and institution of the imperial family, like Hirohito offered to do. Perhaps if they’d done that then maybe the cult of the emperor wouldn’t still be lingering around the sidelines like it is today and people (like the Mayor of Nagasaki in 1990) wouldn’t be getting shot for answering, when asked, that the emperor might have played a part in the tragedy of WWII.
I think MacArthur could have done that and established a democracy with a constitution and judiciary to back it up (like he did), without Japan turning into N. Korea, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Many people think we were to accommodating to the royal family. Originally, we insisted that the Emperor would be held responsible for the war and be charged with war crimes. However, MacArthur was put in charge, and the cold war was reving up. Suddenly, we realized we wanted both Japan and Germany to be up and running as quickly as possible. The Emperor was useful in transforming Japan into a modern, democratic, non-militaristic society, so we ran with that.
Now for your second comment: Why we should insist that a country where a very small minority spoke English should have English as its official language? That would seem to make the government less democratic and answerable to its people. Would you insist that parliamentary debate be in English and all laws and government documents be in English only? Voting only takes place in English?
Official language designations are used in two ways: 1). To show minorities that their culture is appreciated. You usually do this by making that minority’s language one of the official languages such as in Canada where both French and English are official languages. 2). To oppress a minority and keep power in the hands of a single ethnic group. Such as Apartheid South Africa insisting that all government workers speak both Afrikaners and English. That kept power in the hands of the Afrikaners because they could speak both languages while most people of English stock could only speak English.
Your timing’s off. We didn’t start trying to rebuild Japan as a strong nation until a few years after the decisions re: the fate of the imperial family were made.
I’ve always been fond of the proposed plan to have Hirohito abdicate so Japan could start off fresh with a new Emperor, but really our biggest screw-up was leaving the Japanese bureaucracy more or less intact.