I think it's a fact, that's what my grandpa said too, long ago, and he was in WWII. RIGHT in it, his ship was hit by a kamakaze in the Pacific. He was a Naval officer. I've gathered that impression from reading about the Japanese and other Asian culture, WWII, and from hearing other veterans say the same. Many militaries don't retreat untill they absolutely have to, what that meant back then and what that means now may be 2 different things. Especially when you're talking about the level of knowledge of (repercussions of) atomic bombs from now to then.
That's true. Surrender was unthinkable to the Japanese. So unthinkable that Suzuki literally fell on his sword. But that's not to say they didn't consider it before their cities were leveled. They approached China late in 1944 and Russia in the early summer of 1945. In the latter case, Russia was persuaded by the US not to accept Japan's surrender. There were multiple reasons for this.
- Russia was, at the time, in a better position to "acquire" Japanese spoils. Japan knew a surrender would be desirable to the Russians which is why they offered
- The US was close to developing a weapon which would avenge Pearl Harbor
- That same weapon would establish US dominance (over Russia) once war ended
I understand what the Japanese did during the war but, because one country commits atrocities, that doesn't mean every other country has automatically acted supremely ethically. The first casualty of war is the truth.
Was the use of atomic bombs in WWII necessary?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I think it's a fact, that's what my grandpa said too, long ago, and he was in WWII. RIGHT in it, his ship was hit by a kamakaze in the Pacific. He was a Naval officer. I've gathered that impression from reading about the Japanese and other Asian culture, WWII, and from hearing other veterans say the same. Many militaries don't retreat untill they absolutely have to, what that meant back then and what that means now may be 2 different things. Especially when you're talking about the level of knowledge of (repercussions of) atomic bombs from now to then.
--
marron
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's true. Surrender was unthinkable to the Japanese. So unthinkable that Suzuki literally fell on his sword. But that's not to say they didn't consider it before their cities were leveled. They approached China late in 1944 and Russia in the early summer of 1945. In the latter case, Russia was persuaded by the US not to accept Japan's surrender. There were multiple reasons for this.
- Russia was, at the time, in a better position to "acquire" Japanese spoils. Japan knew a surrender would be desirable to the Russians which is why they offered
- The US was close to developing a weapon which would avenge Pearl Harbor
- That same weapon would establish US dominance (over Russia) once war ended
I understand what the Japanese did during the war but, because one country commits atrocities, that doesn't mean every other country has automatically acted supremely ethically. The first casualty of war is the truth.