Some have suggested that Stalin ordered his agents in the United States to create an environment that would cause Japan to attack the United States. That would remove Japanese pressure from the eastern part of the Soviet Union.Not only courage, but great skill. One must also recognize, whether in negotiation or in battle, when tactics are not working.
I just finished reading “The Reluctant Belligerent” a history book by Robert Divine, by no means a war monger. The book treats almost exclusively of the politics and diplomacy in the U.S. preceeding WW-II. The nation tried a policy of neutrality in the European war, showing great reluctance to get involved, even going so far as to pass neutrality legislation.
For Winston Churchill, who had been hoping against hope for American entry into the war, Pearl Harbor was a gift from Japan. And Hitler provided another gift a few days later by declaring war on the United States. Ultimately, the author thinks that the U.S. may have added to the severity of the war, and thus added to the totality of the death and destruction, by waiting too long to enter the war.
:whacky:Specifically, here would be my strategy and this would actually work with the least amount of casualties.
Analyze the reason the enemy continues to do battle even though their allies have all fallen. The result would be over honor and a mislead belief in the divine nature of their supreem leader.
Dispell those beliefs by getting the truth out there, that there is no honor being served by continuing the battle/war, that the person they think is divine by nature is in fact only a mere mortal with mortal frailities. Prove this to the people by bringing to the surface that individuals (the emperor) is indeed corrupt, that from the very beginning, honor was not being served through the very tactics of how they were waging their war.
Furthermore, show the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s, this clearly will show the Japanese people their alliance was with an evil empire, that their ascociation with them was dishonoring them by it’s very nature.
Open up communication to the point where the public in general has access to unfiltered media, thus proving to them exactly what is and has been going on.
Furthermore, make it very clear that our intentions are not about dominating their society, that we prefer a free and peacful Japan rather then it’s present regime, of which has led them down this dark path.
Bottom line, let the people themselves decide if they desire peace or if they desire dishonor.
Deliver these messages through what ever means we have at our disposal, the war ends peacfully, no need for the nukes, it is ended.
Yeah, if we were in the land of make-believe.This looks like a pretty good plan.
Well, Uncle Joe seemed to have agents everywhere, and there were a lot of people in the U.S. in those days who seemed unreasonably enamored of the soviet revolution.Some have suggested that Stalin ordered his agents in the United States to create an environment that would cause Japan to attack the United States. That would remove Japanese pressure from the eastern part of the Soviet Union.
The problem is that Buchanan is gravely mistaken. World War II was clearly a necessary war, but he’s right that it could’ve been avoided had the French and the British developed a backbone when Hitler first started violating the Treaty of Versailes, especially considering they forced the punitive measures on Germany after WW1, even though Woodrow Wilson was for a more generous resolution.Well, Uncle Joe seemed to have agents everywhere, and there were a lot of people in the U.S. in those days who seemed unreasonably enamored of the soviet revolution.
Now, Pat Buchanan, archconservative yet isolationist, has written a book called Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. I haven’t read it yet, but his point seems to be that WW-II was avoidable but for mistakes made by Britain and others. (Of course the Treaty of Versailles bears some responsibility.) Apparently he also blames Britain for giving a (not requested) security guarantee to Poland, thereby ensuring that Britain would have to go to war with Germany.
The idea apparently is that “entangling alliances” lead to unnecessary wars over minor events. And looking at August of 1914, that certainly has some validity.
Buchanan warns against similar unnecessary Nato alliances on the perimeter of Russia. I guess I’ll read the book.
I’ve been waiting for this to come out in trade paperback. Though I admire much of Hasting’s writings, I was not impressed with a quick scan of the pertinent material in RETRIBUTION, and decided not to spring for the hardback.I think that is a correct understanding of Catholic moral teaching. In that case, much of the conduct of WW-II was not in accord with Catholic moral teaching. Neither side at that time, gave so much weight to the use of nuclear weapons as we do today. It was a new weapon, more destructive than others; most did not see it as a qualitative difference in warfare.
Max Hastings has a new book on the final days of the war with Japan; “Retribution,” I think, is the title. He mentions that the U.S. experience in the invasion of Okinawa and the horrendous casualties suffered endowed everyone with thoughts of what the invasion of the homeland would entail.
(I haven’t read it, but saw his interview on BookTV. Currently I am reading his account of the D-Day invasion, “Overlord,” which is interesting in that he provides accounts of the situation from both the Allied and German viewpoints.)
Agreed. This shows no conception of how the world of the Yamato operated, 1945. What the people thought in Japan was of no consequence whatsoever during the war. What the four hardline members of the committe for the direction of the war decided was. Which, until 15 August, was to continue the war. Until the Emperor spoke to them on the matter. The Voice of the Crane said to end the war. Following the 2nd bomb.:whacky:
Yeah, if we were in the land of make-believe.
The Treaty of Versailles did have one effect on WWII. It was the major object lesson that ensured that the war would not be ended by armistice, but by surrender.The problem is that Buchanan is gravely mistaken. World War II was clearly a necessary war, but he’s right that it could’ve been avoided had the French and the British developed a backbone when Hitler first started violating the Treaty of Versailes, especially considering they forced the punitive measures on Germany after WW1, even though Woodrow Wilson was for a more generous resolution.
I’m sorry I missed the show. Since you drew my attention to the concept, I have been intriqued. Highly dubious, but intrigued.I was just channel surfing looking for something else and just happened to find that there will be two rebroadcasts of “Japan’s Atomic Bomb”.
They will be on HISTI on Friday 15 August 2008 at 1pm and 7pm Eastern. History Channel International
Check your listings for your local time.
I was unable to find a schedule on the internet, but didn’t have much time and wanted to post this ASAP.
Try here:
historyinternational.com/global/listings/listings_weekly.jsp?NetwCode=HCI&timezone=1
Here is the text from the History Channel International:
Friday, August 15 @ 7pm ET/PT
A revealing look at the untold story of Japan’s atomic bomb, and how they may have detonated a nuclear device just two days before surrender. Since the end of WWII, conventional wisdom claimed that Imperial Japan was years away from building an atomic weapon–this special shatters this view. Using once secret Japanese wartime documents, we provide evidence that Japan had world-class nuclear physicists, access to uranium ore, and cyclotrons to process it. They devised an innovative way to deliver the bombs using 400-foot long Sen Toku submarines, capable of carrying and launching airplanes. Most startling–just six days after Hiroshima, Japan tested its own atomic device on a small island 20 miles off the Korean coast. The sobering conclusion is that Japan may have been just weeks behind the US in the race for the bomb. TVPG V cc
Prior to World War II, Germany was building up its U-Boat submarine fleet. My memory of some readings is that the German Navy was planning to have 100+ U-Boats ready for deployment when the war would commence.The problem is that Buchanan is gravely mistaken. World War II was clearly a necessary war, but he’s right that it could’ve been avoided had the French and the British developed a backbone when Hitler first started violating the Treaty of Versailes, especially considering they forced the punitive measures on Germany after WW1, even though Woodrow Wilson was for a more generous resolution.
Hitler’s Plan Z for the composition of the German fleet, in total, is even clearer evidence of his plans. And it supposed a start to hostilities a few years later, in the late 40s, when the fleet was in being. Bismark and Tirpitz were to be surpassed by even larger surface units, and Graf Zeppilin would have been completed and joined by other carriers.Prior to World War II, Germany was building up its U-Boat submarine fleet. My memory of some readings is that the German Navy was planning to have 100+ U-Boats ready for deployment when the war would commence.
However, Hitler started the war earlier than planned, so they only went to sea with something like 60.
[the numbers are from memory; not sure of the exact figures]
So, Buchanan’s notion that if only Britain and France had allowed Germany to swallow Poland without protest and that would have avoided WWII is false. Germany would have started WWII later and would have had a U-Boat fleet large enough that would have forced England to capitulate early in the later-starting-war.
Starting the premature submarine campaign allowed Britain to develop effective hunter-killer and effective wolf-pack avoidance techniques.
It was a near thing, as it was.
It has always been my contention that if the Allies had made one more mistake or if the Germans had made one fewer mistake, the war would have gone the other way.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that WW2 was a close thing.
If the Germans had detected the U.S. fleet that landed in North Africa, the North African campaign might have gone the other way and the Germans might have seized the Suez Canal. And then moved with the Arab League up through India to link up with the Japanese. They would have been able to seize the mid-ease oil fields.
The Germans had an effective jet fighter early in the war that would have wiped out the U.S. B-17 and B-24 bombers, but they delayed fielding them for a critical year or so. The Allied bombing campaign diverted millions of German men, and huge quantities of artillery and munitions away from the Eastern front.
It’s easy to hypothesize.
Etc.
There is little of historical accuracy in here, but if the point is related to whether the atomc bombs should have been used on Japan in WWII, than a specific major point is missed.As I sit here reading everyones thoughts, I have to wonder if the meaning of war really sinks in? I do see postings that tell if America didn’t drop the big one first, someone else would have, and this is justification for total elimination. I see postings concluding that everyone from Japan to Germany were always just hours and minutes away from dropping theirs. But this my friends, is all complete speculation and book sales. You’ll notice that woulda, shoulda and coulda never make it into the history books. Fear cannot lead wisdom. A-Bomb tests by America were seen and recorded by spies from around the world and everyone knew their capabilities. This is what I fear the most, knowing once it begins, there cannot be any chance of survival.
We were successful but America did risk an all out nuclear war and the response we thank God, did not recieve. If other countries did have a nuclear response, they though more of survival on the planet than retaliation.
I think what we should be looking at are only the facts of what really happened in our past and learn from it. We need to learn to negotiate and live together or perish. Kindness and understanding are not signs of weakness. The bottom line is: No one can win a nuclear war. Praise the Lord and bury the ammunition.
I beleive that according to Catholic teaching it is wrong to kill one child in order to save 100 million lives.It saved lives, by a factor of 10 to 20.
I sugggest some reading, as in Rhodes MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB or Richelson’s SPYING ON THE BOMB. Yes, Stalin knew we were trying for a nuclear weapon, thanks to Klaus Fuchs. The Sovet’s on development program had been ongoing about 5 years when Trinity went off. Some of de Toledano’s books would be illuminating here.**“There is little of historical accuracy in here, but if the point is related to whether the atomc bombs should have been used on Japan in WWII, than a specific major point is missed. It saved lives, by a factor of 10 to 20. And you may observe that no atomic bombs have been used since. I refer to this entire thread for discussions; I’m unlikely to do that much educating again”.
GKC **
What historical accuracy was I referring to? The papers from WWII are declassified and can be viewed. You can bet your boots that Germany and the Soviet Union knew about it all. Most of the scientists were flipped immigrants that just happened to be looking for asylum to include but not limited to German and Russian decent. You were able to get away with much more back then. There were more double agents at that time that would have filled a party room because information bought and sold was a lucrative business.
Once again, no one really knows what would have happened and is speculation.
I really want to get to the lesson learned instead if furious flag waving.
That would be in the case of murder, not military action in a just war. The U.S. was attacked by Japan, ergo the war was in self-defense and just.I beleive that according to Catholic teaching it is wrong to kill one child in order to save 100 million lives.
I am certainly willing to believe that is RC teaching.I beleive that according to Catholic teaching it is wrong to kill one child in order to save 100 million lives.
Please see the Catholic discussion of what constitutes a just war:That would be in the case of murder, not military action in a just war. The U.S. was attacked by Japan, ergo the war was in self-defense and just.
Once the war has started, it is the responsibility of the government to conclude the war favorably with as little loss of life and suffering as possible.
Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima contained legitimate military targets: troops, headquarters, war industries, etc. In fact, the Japanese were intentionally dispersing war industries among the civilian population to make them harder to destroy.
God Bless