Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....

quote:

That is an acceptable distillation of the situation so long as one understands the importance of the three is not 33% each. #2 is more like 99.9%. HST had no duty to Soviet territorial aims nor did he have a duty to the Japanese people. He, like Lincoln, was elected on a wartime ticket, and after the Casablanca conference. The American people knew what they were doing. And it is clear from the sources I quoted, primarily Truman and Churchill's diaries, that they saw the surrender in quite different terms. (As did Stalin.) As I said up-thread, Europeans at the time did not understand the effect of Pearl Harbor on the diplomatic system in play in 1945. Not even the PM who should have known better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

There are three facts regarding Japanese diplomacy prior to the atomic bombs being dropped:

1. The government was willing to surrender on negotated terms.
2. The Americans were only going to accept unconditional surrender.
3. The Soviets acting as intermediates represented the last chance they had of surrendering under terms.

That is an acceptable distillation of the situation so long as one understands the importance of the three is not 33% each. #2 is more like 99.9%. HST had no duty to Soviet territorial aims nor did he have a duty to the Japanese people. He, like Lincoln, was elected on a wartime ticket, and after the Casablanca conference. The American people knew what they were doing. And it is clear from the sources I quoted, primarily Truman and Churchill's diaries, that they saw the surrender in quite different terms. (As did Stalin.) As I said up-thread, Europeans at the time did not understand the effect of Pearl Harbor on the diplomatic system in play in 1945. Not even the PM who should have known better.

If there was a moral obligation to avoid the bombings by negotiating a peace, the Allies can't get out of that obligation by saying "I don't want to and I don't have to". The mood of the nation does not alter what is and what is not moral.

That's a big if, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Au contraire....he's the only poster on this whole #$^&^$@#$%%^&U&$@@ thread THAT has his marbles! Why this thread has been permitted to run for 6 PAGES is beyond me. And I've got to admit , my faith in Matrix and this forum has taken a big hit....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK



Once upon a time in the land of Hushabye
Around about the wondrous days of yore
They came across a sort of box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Decree was issued round about all with a flourish and a shout
And a gaily colored mascot tripping lightly on the fore
"Don't fiddle with this deadly box
Or break the chains, or pick the locks
And please, don't ever play about with war"

Well, the children understood, children happen to be good
They were just as good around the time of yore
They didn't try to pick the locks
Or break into that deadly box
They never tried to play about with war

Mommies didn't either, sisters, aunts, grannies neither
'Cause they were quiet and sweet and pretty
In those wondrous days of yore
Well, very much the same as now, not the ones to blame somehow
For opening up that deadly box of war

But someone did, someone battered in the lid
And spilled the insides out across the floor
A sort of bouncy bumpy ball made up of guns and flags
And all the tears and horror and the death that goes with war

It bounced right out and went bashing all about
And bumping into everything in store
And what was sad and most unfair
Is that it didn't really seem to care
Much who it bumped, or why, or what, or for

It bumped the children mainly, and I'll tell you this quite plainly
It bumps them everyday and more and more
And leaves them dead and burned and dying
Thousands of them sick and crying
'Cause when it bumps, it's really very sore

Now there's a way to stop the ball, it isn't difficult at all
All it takes is wisdom
I'm absolutely sure that we could get it back into the box
And bind the chains and lock the locks
No one seems to want to save the children anymore

Well, that's the way it all appears
'Cause it's been bouncing 'round for years and years
In spite of all the wisdom whizzed since those wondrous days of yore
And the time they came across the box
Bound up with chains and locked with locks
And labeled, "Kindly do not touch, it's war"

Kenny Lascelles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

Churchill's questioning Truman at Potsdam shows that even by August 1945 he, the leader of the Empire, still looked at diplomacy in the "old way." Truman's view was much more linear and visceral. It reflected the POV of the US citizenry. Read a lot of the US media in those years if you want examples.

quote:

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

quote:

What did Japan have to gain by giving up? Their lives. If they didn't value them in a Western way that's a shame, but the US was prepared if it came to it to extinguish them root and branch. At great cost to be sure, but no less the case. Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp. If Vienna had fallen to the Mongols you guys might, but then again we wouldn't be having this conversation if Vienna had fallen. Maybe talk to the ghosts of Babylon's residents?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

AW1Steve I am probably the only moderator following this thread. So if your respect has declined, put that completely on me.

I did almost lock this thread a few days ago, but the participants got more polite and it is about a period subject, though mostly tangential to the game. I've debated locking it every day though.

People can PM me privately if they want it locked. So far the only complaints I have seen have been public ones here.

Bill

quote:

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In all fairness, I don't think anybody really understood how different the diplomatic game had became, not just the Europeans.

It all comes back to the demand for unconditional surrender. It had advantages and disadvantages, and one of the big disadvantages was that the Japanese had nothing to gain by giving up.

Churchill's questioning Truman at Potsdam shows that even by August 1945 he, the leader of the Empire, still looked at diplomacy in the "old way." Truman's view was much more linear and visceral. It reflected the POV of the US citizenry. Read a lot of the US media in those years if you want examples.

That is a very good point. The "traditional" conduct of wars in Europe were fought until it was evident that one side had a clear advantage and was going to win, at which point the losing side gave up and tried to hack out some terms. Even WW1 was not an exception to this, though the Central Powers were excluded from talks.

You don't see the same with the Pacific War - it's not until after the fall of Saipan that the Japanese recognized even the possibility of defeat, and not till 1945 for the Japanese government to realize that defeat was a certainty.

quote:

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

That depends on your opinion of who sunk the USS Maine. :)

quote:

What did Japan have to gain by giving up? Their lives. If they didn't value them in a Western way that's a shame, but the US was prepared if it came to it to extinguish them root and branch. At great cost to be sure, but no less the case. Again, not sure something Europeans, with their history of ebbs and flows, can grasp. If Vienna had fallen to the Mongols you guys might, but then again we wouldn't be having this conversation if Vienna had fallen. Maybe talk to the ghosts of Babylon's residents?

Again, another good point. We tend to view the war from a Western perspective, which (even now) treats large numbers of casualties quite differently from that of the Asian perspective.

It's an interesting difference in perspective that is a recurring theme, not just with the Japanese. It re-appears again in the Chinese Civil war, Korea, and in Vietnam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There are reasons why the declaration was late in D.C. and they're of interest to diplomatic historians. But on the ground and in the American mind it was a vicious backstab, a breaking of the rules of diplomacy and warfare. And afterward there was not going to be any quarter given Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

warspite1

More to the point is why it is even relevant to the discussion?

There are - judging by this unrepresentative sample - as many Americans that do/do not believe that the dropping of the bomb was necessary/justified/sensible as there are Europeans.

The Pacific War was, to all intents and purposes, the US vs Japan. Sure there were notable contributions from others - particularly the Commonwealth countries in Burma/PNG etc or the Dutch in NEI (and I do not in anyway belittle those that fought and died) - but it was the US that got that theatre won.

Equally, the Commonwealth forces earmarked for the invasion of the Home Islands was negligible in comparison to the US.

So in a discussion about America's choices and what she would do re a decision to end, what was essentially America's war, constant references to Churchill and "Europeans" is pointless. America, quite rightly, would have done (and did) what her President considered was best for her.

Suggesting any Europeans have never been subject to war without an official declaration is absurd - but equally not relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Not assuming that everyone fits in the basket I lump them in but;

Europe has an immensly long history of warfare, most conflict ended in a Treaty which took land from the loser and added to the victor. Future generations would be back at war to regain their heritage or to get some more land. They are more accepting to peace treaties as they have to live with their neighbours (and plan revenge)

The USA does not have this background, even its Civil War was fought with a ferocity which had not been seen in Europe at that stage, victory didnt involve capturing the CSA Capital, but when its main army was finally made ineffective.

Europe may have seen 7/12 & 11/9 as a case of "getting in first" wheras the USA saw it more as a case of Rape, and therefore its reaction was more of getting revenge rather than "just another of those wars which happen every second generation. IMVHO, the mindset in the USA is more Black & White whereas Europe see a lot more shades of gray.

Therefore we get different views about the same event, what one groups sees as "the government attempting to surrender" is also seen as "an ineffective group offering something it cannot deliver"

In the end, I see it that the million odd American, Indian, Australian, British, Chinese, Filipino etc Servicemen were far happier at an immediate end to hostilities rather than a drawn out campaign waiting for politicians to sign a piece of paper.

End result was a beatan & compliant Japan instead of a "Weimar in the Pacific"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were).

Just pointing out...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were).

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:


Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were).

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.