
08-23-2010, 09:47 PM
|
Approved Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,715
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splitter
I agree with much of that. I would just say that the indoctrination of the population, and the training of civilians to resist invasion, took the form of kamikaze attacks and mass suicides/murder-suicides on Okinawa. It is one thing to train citizens to resist invasion, it is another to encourage them to blow up their families with grenades to avoid capture.
The only point to that paragraph is to show once again that the Japanese were not going to give up willingly under the terms of the Allies.
The terms of the surrender offer were set forth at the Potsdam Conference. They were pretty straight forward and on re-reading, did not mention the Emperor. The last part of the surrender demand stated that it had to be unconditional and, short of that, Japan would be annihilated.
Japan rejected this and sought conditions to the terms, such as the retention of the Emperor as head of state (basically) among others. Even after two A-bombs and Soviet invasion, the Japanese hierarchy was split on surrender. Some in the military actively resisted.
A very determined people to say the least.
BTW, I have absolutely no doubt that military leaders in the west (the US) wanted to use the bomb as soon as it was deployable. It's what they do: kill people, break things, occupy territory. They are the sharp end of the spear.
I will also say that one can tell a lot about a culture by the way they treat those they have conquered. MacArthur and the Allies treated the Japanese much better than they expected.
Splitter
|
Fair points made all around, which i have no problem conceding. Reasonable debate? On my internets? Unbelievable!
|