• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

swing_voter said:
I do know the emperor's brother was a war criminal. He wasn't tried after the war.
Click to expand...

That was because of something else that was done (which I have already discussed in here - which VG ignored).

The Emperor tried to abdicate, and asked to be put on trial himself for war crimes. That was denied, but what did happen was the Cadet Branches of the Imperial Family were struck. And those who had were about to be tried (and others) were struck from the Imperial Family, and lived out their lives as commoners.

Not one member of the Imperial Line prior to the war was ever tried.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Everybody knew Italy was done in June 1944 when the Allies were at the outskirts of Rome, but they fought on.

The same in Germany in early 1945 when the Soviets and US-UK entered Germany from France and Poland. Yet still Germany fought on.

As somebody keeps ignoring and refuses to answer, why would Japan be any different? And surrender before any Allied solders were marching into Tokyo?

Saddam's case was hopeless even by the end of January 1991. Huge amounts of his offensive capability was eliminated, his air force destroyed, and his offensive capability gone. Yet, he did not surrender. He literally could have turned his forces around on 20 February, and the coalition would have done little but watch them leave. But he did not, and starting on 24 February the Coalition forces moved in, and destroyed what little he had left.

And this was repeated 12 years later.

But Japan was going to surrender because.... who knows why?
Click to expand...



That's a very good point.


Do you remember those Japanese soldiers they found on islands in the Pacific decades after the war was over? They didn't surrender or give up their post.
 
Oozlefinch said:
That was because of something else that was done (which I have already discussed in here - which VG ignored).

The Emperor tried to abdicate, and asked to be put on trial himself for war crimes. That was denied, but what did happen was the Cadet Branches of the Imperial Family were struck. And those who had were about to be tried (and others) were struck from the Imperial Family, and lived out their lives as commoners.

Not one member of the Imperial Line prior to the war was ever tried.
Click to expand...

Dude you are clueless on the war.


You are dismissed
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No we didn't. We tried many Japanese leaders for war crimes and executed several.

Even one who probably shouldn't have.
Click to expand...

Name a member of the royal family tried and found guilty
 
vegas giants said:
Name a member of the royal family tried and found guilty
Click to expand...

What? What does that have to do with that?

The reason we didn't try the Royal Family was because MacArthur and his staff overestimated how important they were to Japan's national psyche.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
What? What does that have to do with that?

The reason we didn't try the Royal Family was because MacArthur and his staff overestimated how important they were to Japan's national psyche.
Click to expand...

Because you did not read what I posted. I said make the offer no member of the royal family is convicted of war crimes.


You misquoted me
 
swing_voter said:
I do know the emperor's brother was a war criminal. He wasn't tried after the war.
Click to expand...

Well, neither of them appear to be criminals.

Prince Chichibu arrived at both Manchuko and Nanking after the atrocities, and spent most of the war in Tokyo.

Prince Takamatsu also spent the entire war at staff positions in Tokyo.

Prince Mikasa was a vocal opponent to Japanese behavior in China, and after clashing repeatedly while clashing with the Army command in China (even forcing his brother to watch film of Japanese atrocities in China) he was moved to a staff position in Tokyo.

I suspect you are thinking of either Prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda, a cousin to the Emperor or Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, an uncle to the Emperor. None of his brothers were ever even brought up in connection to war crimes. But several cousins and other relatives were.
 
vegas giants said:
Because you did not read what I posted. I said make the offer no member of the royal family is convicted of war crimes.
Click to expand...

That was never the source of the debate.

The War Council (big Six) couldn't come to an agreement about the surrender because half of them, led by General Amani, refused to accept any surrender unless it avoided occupation of Japan by Allied troops and all war crimes trials would be held by Japan itself. That was the condition that the Pro-War side would not back down from. These terms would have been unacceptable to the Allies, since it would have let Japan's top war criminals get off scot free.

It's like if Hitler had offered to surrender in December 1944 but on the condition that Germany wasn't occupied and he and the rest of the Nazi Party got to go free.
 
swing_voter said:
That's a very good point.


Do you remember those Japanese soldiers they found on islands in the Pacific decades after the war was over? They didn't surrender or give up their post.
Click to expand...

The last holdout did not surrender until March 1974.

There were even reports of holdouts still into the 1980's, but none were ever found.

Hell, in 1951 18 were "captured" on the Marianas. And even then, their Senior NCO threatened to kill any who tried to surrender, even almost 6 years after the war ended. They finally had to resort to having an official order issued by the government of Japan to them before they would surrender, and hold an official ceremony.

Anybody that thinks Japan would not fight on to the end is an idiot.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
What? What does that have to do with that?

The reason we didn't try the Royal Family was because MacArthur and his staff overestimated how important they were to Japan's national psyche.
Click to expand...

Imperial Family actually. "Royal Family" is like England, where the titles are actually connected (generally) to actual land holdings. And go out for many generations.

In the "Imperial Family, it all connects back to an Emperor. Only males will keep their title for life, for the females it is largely ceremonial, unless they remarry back into another branch of the "Cadet Houses". And in theory each could be the start of a "Cadet Branch", since those were all stricken that is no longer the case. They are only Princesses so long as they are single, and once they are married they leave the Imperial Family forever.

In the Royal Family, that is nowhere near the case. Princess Anne is still a Royal Princess, and always will be.

And it was largely irrelevant, once those (and all others) had that status stripped from them.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
That was never the source of the debate.

The War Council (big Six) couldn't come to an agreement about the surrender because half of them, led by General Amani, refused to accept any surrender unless it avoided occupation of Japan by Allied troops and all war crimes trials would be held by Japan itself. That was the condition that the Pro-War side would not back down from. These terms would have been unacceptable to the Allies, since it would have let Japan's top war criminals get off scot free.

It's like if Hitler had offered to surrender in December 1944 but on the condition that Germany wasn't occupied and he and the rest of the Nazi Party got to go free.
Click to expand...

We could have offered them the condition we ended up giving them anyway. But Truman did not want them to surrender too soon.


He had a message for Russia first
 
ObamacareFail said:
Learn the history. Japan's initial offers of surrender were their attempts to gain surrender terms favorable to them.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. The Japanese wanted to retain their existing form of government. FDR and Truman wanted to dictate Japan's form of government, so they refused to accept surrender offers that would deny them that power.

That's the same thing I said in the post you quoted.
 
AmNat said:
Well yeah. The Japanese wanted to retain their existing form of government. FDR and Truman wanted to dictate Japan's form of government, so they refused to accept surrender offers that would deny them that power.

That's the same thing I said in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

There was no way that was going to be allowed to happen.

One thing about WWI, the Allies learned their mistake. They were not about to allow a defeated nation to rebuild itself into an even more horrible nation than the one it replaced.

WWI ended with an Armistice, and there was never an occupation of Germany. And we all know how that turned out 20 years later. They were not about to make the same mistake twice.

Japan wanted to keep all captured territory, have no occupation, no war crime trials (other than those they held themselves), and no change in government. Does anybody with more than 5 working brain cells think that the results of that would have been anything other then another war within 10 years?
 
AmNat said:
Well yeah. The Japanese wanted to retain their existing form of government. FDR and Truman wanted to dictate Japan's form of government, so they refused to accept surrender offers that would deny them that power.

That's the same thing I said in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

Truman refused to accept anything at the end because he wanted to use those bombs. He wanted to show Russia who the big dog is
 
vegas giants said:
We could have offered them the condition we ended up giving them anyway.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been accepted. General Amani and the pro-war side refused any surrender offer unless it meant no occupation of Japan and that the Japanese would conduct their own war crimes trial.

The pro-peace side was open to the Postdam declaration under the assumption that they would keep the Emperor, but surrender could only be agreed to by a unanimous decision.

The pro-war side refused to change their opinion even after the atomic bombing, only coming to after the Emperor made it clear his desire to surrender.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It wouldn't have been accepted. General Amani and the pro-war side refused any surrender offer unless it meant no occupation of Japan and that the Japanese would conduct their own war crimes trial.

The pro-peace side was open to the Postdam declaration under the assumption that they would keep the Emperor, but surrender could only be agreed to by a unanimous decision.

The pro-war side refused to change their opinion even after the atomic bombing, only coming to after the Emperor made it clear his desire to surrender.
Click to expand...

Well that is your opinion. Mine is if we were going to do it anyway why not offer it as a condition of surrender. We wont try the imperial family.


The reason we did not offer it was truman did not want a surrender until he got to use his bombs. He wanted japan in the war so he could use them to send a message to russia....and start the cold war
 
vegas giants said:
Well that is your opinion.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's recorded fact that the War Council's terms as dictated by General Amani would have been. Do you really think the Allies would have let Japan conduct her own war crimes trial and not occupy the Home Islands, after everything that happened? Don't be daft.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, it isn't. It's recorded fact that the War Council's terms as dictated by General Amani would have been. Do you really think the Allies would have let Japan conduct her own war crimes trial and not occupy the Home Islands, after everything that happened? Don't be daft.
Click to expand...

The emperor was never even charged. All we needed to do is put that in writing and the war is over


Dont be moronic.


Isnt polite debate fun!
 
For example, the Commentaries on the Constitution of 1889 said, “The Emperor is Heaven descended, divine and sacred… He must be reverenced and is inviolable… the law has no power to hold him accountable."

The Rescript also listed Confucian virtues and stated, “Should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the State; and thus guard and maintain the prosperity of Our Imperial Throne coeval with heaven and earth.”

The controlled press continued the call to “die gloriously” in defense of the nation and began a daily “die for the emperor” campaign, states historian Herbert P. Bix. Or more sharply put, in the words of Dower, there was “increasingly hysterical rhetoric exhorting the ‘hundred million’ to die gloriously in defense of the nation and its emperor-centered ‘national polity.’”

Japanese Mass Suicides | Atomic Heritage Foundation
 
swing_voter said:
For example, the Commentaries on the Constitution of 1889 said, “The Emperor is Heaven descended, divine and sacred… He must be reverenced and is inviolable… the law has no power to hold him accountable."

The Rescript also listed Confucian virtues and stated, “Should emergency arise, offer yourselves courageously to the State; and thus guard and maintain the prosperity of Our Imperial Throne coeval with heaven and earth.”

The controlled press continued the call to “die gloriously” in defense of the nation and began a daily “die for the emperor” campaign, states historian Herbert P. Bix. Or more sharply put, in the words of Dower, there was “increasingly hysterical rhetoric exhorting the ‘hundred million’ to die gloriously in defense of the nation and its emperor-centered ‘national polity.’”

Japanese Mass Suicides | Atomic Heritage Foundation
Click to expand...

That makes the case for us telling japan we will not try their God for war crimes if they surrender
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom