RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific?

RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

gamer78 -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 1:09:35 AM)
Ottoman casualties for Wikipedia gives 4,492,848 total perished, but Enver Pasha requisition of grain itself caused 2 million civil deaths in Anatolia in WW1. But army still fight on. Anyway I think any army in good shape will fight despite civilian deaths. It has been in thousands of years before and in the last early century tradition.

RangerJoe -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 2:17:09 AM)
Well, you could say that Japan has outlasted the Soviet Union so Japan won that war . . . [8\|]

Chickenboy -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 2:58:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GaryChildress What ended the war must have been whatever motivated the Emporer to throw his hat in the ring. Sorry, Gary, but one of my pet peaves is broken metaphors. The Emperor threw in the towel. He didn't throw his hat in the ring. That would suggest his interest in competition, rather than abject surrender. Sorry for the brusque tone, but we must be clear on the meaning of our idioms, axioms, metaphors and-of course-our analogies. [:)]

gamer78 -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 3:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Well, you could say that Japan has outlasted the Soviet Union so Japan won that war . . . [8\|] Yes, imagine 'we didn't surrender but Germany surrender so we've surrendered in WW1' It was in educational program; country who was one of the countries defeated in that war. No one accepts to be defeated. US and the Commonwealth citizens don't need this and have self esteem as they've won cheers.

FAA -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 5:36:10 AM)
I think that being invaded by the Soviet Union was the issue - facing a possible occupation by a genocidal totalitarian state is not a very happy prospect, especially if you know you can’t really fight them with your weak, tired and ill-supplied forces. I doubt they would react the same way to a British invasion on a similar scale.

Simulacra53 -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 6:35:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FAA I think that being invaded by the Soviet Union was the issue - facing a possible occupation by a genocidal totalitarian state is not a very happy prospect, especially if you know you can’t really fight them with your weak, tired and ill-supplied forces. I doubt they would react the same way to a British invasion on a similar scale. If your are saying that certain elements of Japanese society feared communism (Soviet and internal) more than US occupation, you are probably right, as history has shown Japan v2.0 was quick to reboot with some help of the Korean war.

GaryChildress -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 11:05:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: GaryChildress What ended the war must have been whatever motivated the Emporer to throw his hat in the ring. Sorry, Gary, but one of my pet peaves is broken metaphors. The Emperor threw in the towel. He didn't throw his hat in the ring. That would suggest his interest in competition, rather than abject surrender. Sorry for the brusque tone, but we must be clear on the meaning of our idioms, axioms, metaphors and-of course-our analogies. [:)] I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was thinking in terms that the emperor didn't take an active role in conducting the war except in the end when he stepped in to end it. But I suppose that may not be true either.

RangerJoe -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 11:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FAA I think that being invaded by the Soviet Union was the issue - facing a possible occupation by a genocidal totalitarian state is not a very happy prospect, especially if you know you can’t really fight them with your weak, tired and ill-supplied forces. I doubt they would react the same way to a British invasion on a similar scale. The Japanese government had already sent out peace feelers - some of them through the Soviet Union. So I doubt if the Soviets attacking was the reason for the surrender.

Lobster -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 11:36:25 AM)
"Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off an Allied invasion from the south, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the north. Furthermore, the Japanese could no longer hope to achieve a negotiated peace with the Allies by using the Soviet Union as a mediator with the Soviet declaration of war. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[39][16] Others with similar views include the Battlefield series documentary,[2][11] among others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event." The Japanese had very little in the north part of the country's islands to counter a Soviet landing. Make of it what you will. Seems to me everyone here is right and everyone here is wrong. [:D]

Lobster -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 12:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GaryChildress I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was thinking in terms that the emperor didn't take an active role in conducting the war except in the end when he stepped in to end it. But I suppose that may not be true either. Erp...From the Atlantic:GLOBAL The Radio Broadcast That Ended World War II In 1945, Emperor Hirohito overcame a military coup to announce Japan’s surrender. Which raises a question: Who decides when a war is over? THOMAS B. ALLEN and NORMAN POLMAR AUGUST 7, 2015 There was no way that Japanese civilians could petition Emperor Hirohito to accept the terms of the July 26 Potsdam Declaration outlining the Allies’ surrender demands—among them the complete disarmament of Japanese forces and the elimination “for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest.” But the leaflets reflected reality: Only the emperor could end the war. To do that, though, he would have to defy his military leaders, knowing that his call for peace would almost certainly inspire a military coup. When news of the Nagasaki bombing came on August 9, the Supreme War Direction Council reacted not by moving toward peace but by declaring martial law throughout Japan. With the cabinet unable to reach a consensus on whether to accept the surrender terms, and War Minister Korechika Anami leading the opposition, its members finally turned to the emperor for a decision. Shortly before midnight, Hirohito, a weary, sad-eyed man, walked into the hot, humid air-raid shelter 60 feet below the Imperial Library where his 11-member cabinet was gathered. He sat in a straight-backed chair and wore a field marshal’s uniform, ill-fitting because tailors were not allowed to touch this man revered as a god. The gathering itself was an extraordinary event known as a gozen kaigin—“a meeting in the imperial presence.” Hirohito had been emperor since 1926 and, as commander in chief of the Japanese armed forces, had often been photographed in his uniform astride his white horse during the war. But U.S. propaganda portrayed him as a figurehead and blamed the generals for prolonging the war. Hirohito patiently listened as each cabinet member presented his argument. At 2 a.m. on Friday, August 10, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki did something that no prime minister had ever done: He asked Hirohito for an imperial command—known as the Voice of the Crane since the sacred bird could be heard even when it flew unseen. Speaking softly, Hirohito said he did not believe that his nation could continue to fight a war. There is no transcript of his address, but historians have pieced together accounts of his rambling words. He concluded: “The time has come when we must bear the unbearable. ... I swallow my own tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation.”

Ekaton -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 1:36:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: FAA I think that being invaded by the Soviet Union was the issue - facing a possible occupation by a genocidal totalitarian state is not a very happy prospect, especially if you know you can’t really fight them with your weak, tired and ill-supplied forces. I doubt they would react the same way to a British invasion on a similar scale. The Japanese government had already sent out peace feelers - some of them through the Soviet Union. So I doubt if the Soviets attacking was the reason for the surrender. I remember reading a book about the politics of late Imperial Japan, though I can't remember the author or the rather generic title. Apparently, the Japanese political elite with its cliques, odd vassal-like relations and extreme views within cabinets, commitees and boards, meant that it was very unpredictable and actions of one agent of government didn't necessarily reflect the stance of the ultimate decision-makers or the cabinet as a whole. Hachiro Aita, IIRC, tried to better the relationship with the Allies, against many members of his cabinet. When Americans asked him (or the ambassador, can't remember precisely) whether he was able to speak for the government, he said no, he could only speak for himself and the prime minister. I'm not saying that this is necessary true here, but sending envoys doesn't necessarily mean that the cabinet as a whole wanted peace, or that they could prevail against the military influences.

Chickenboy -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/24/2020 4:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ekaton I'm not saying that this is necessary true here, but sending envoys doesn't necessarily mean that the cabinet as a whole wanted peace, or that they could prevail against the military influences. Great point. There was confusion, duplication of efforts and inability on the part of envoys to enact peace treaties before the war too. Such was the chaos of Japanese politics throughout the first half of the 1940s.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? (6/25/2020 12:04:40 AM)
I imagine the prospects of being atom-bombed and being partially occupied by the Soviets were both terrifying. (The capture of Berlin was followed by an appalling number of rapes.) But the atom bomb was an unprecedented weapon, and gave Hirohito a face-saving reason to "bear the unbearable". True, even then there was an attempted palace coup, but there might not have been enough soldiers still loyal to the Emperor if there had not been something beyond conventional warfare to face. And for whatever it's worth, I think the demand for unconditional surrender was correct. Wars that end without a complete victory are wars that will very likely have to be fought again. It was necessary to completely break the power of the Japanese military, and remake the government.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.765625