19
   

Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 07:38 am
Steve, I refer you back to This Post - The Japanese Government on July 28 publically and emphatically rejected the Potsdam Declaration. The Allies reitterated the demand. Over the following days, the Japanese Government pursued their lobbying of the Soviets in the interest of pressing Allied acceptance of a negotiated surrender on terms acceptable to Japan as opposed to the unconditional surrender demanded by The Allies. In the meanwhile, the Japanese Military continued hostile operations against The Allies.

The official Japanese government drumbeat to the populace of The Home Islands, and to the remaining (and considerable) Japanese military was to prepare to defend Japan's honor and dignity to the death. Apart from the abortive effort to secure Soviet assistance with a negotiated surrender, there was, following the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration, no Japanese Government communication of any sort with The Allies.

On August 6, Hiroshima was bombed; there remained no Japanese Government acceptance of Allied surrender terms, despite Allied assurance of more such bombs to come. The Japanese continued - essentially in secret - to press their Soviet initiative. Following the dual shock of first the Soviet breaking of diplomatic relations, declaration of war, and accompanying invasion of Manchuria and second, the bombing of Nagasaki, on August 10, the Japanese Government at last began seriously to consider acceptance of The Potsdam Declaratuon, making no announcement to such effect, but at least debating the idea before the Emperor.

Throughout most of the ensuing several days, the anti-surrender faction, the most powerful in the government, held firm. On the morning of August 14, leaflet bombings throughout Japan informed the populace of the fates of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with promise of more of the same in the face of continued Japanese Government rejection of The Potsdam Declaration. On the same day, the Emperor, over the strenuous and adament objection of the War Faction, decided the end had come and The Japanese Government officially announced its intent to accept the terms of The Potsdam Declaration. This announcement was the first official Japanese Government indication of willingness to accede to Allied demands.

Now, when considering history, it is pointless to conjecture what might have been, what this, that or another individual might have thought or felt. Pursuing that avenue amounts to mere sophistry, based on guesswork and hindsight. All that exists to be examined is what happened - what actually was said and done, and the actuality is that Japan, in the face of their disappointment re efforts to gain a negotiated surrender through Soviet intervention and 2 nuclear bombings officially rejected The Potsdam Declaration untill the afternoon of August 14.

The Japanese Government's actions re the Potsdam Declaration brought about the first 2 bombings before obviating, through its acceptance of Allied demands on August 14, subsequent nuclear devastation of Japan. That is the one, plain, incontravertibly documented, operative fact. That is what happened. All else is moot.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 08:02 am
Don't beat around the bush, Big Bird, tell us what you really think . . .
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 08:16 am
Oh, you know me Set - I'd never wanna seem to be rude Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 09:02 am
It's regrettable that so few of our sources seem to have access to the original Japanese documents in Japanese - I had hopes that Cicerone would be able to read those but it seems Court language of 1945 especially would be inaccessible even to educated Japanese people of today. Seemingly small nuances which also exist in English e.g. "we the Queen of England.." made a difference in the final text - assuming this is a reliable bilingual source, which I don't know:
__________________________________________

" The Japanese delegation was horrified when they were shown a draft of the surrender document. The Japanese version began with, "I Hirohito, Emperor of Japan" using the pronoun "watakushi" for "I." The emperor always referred to himself as "Chin" - the royal "we." The change was made by the Americans as requested.
__________________________________________
http://www.calodges.org/ncrl/MISSOURI.htm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 10:34 am
HofT, I can read a little Japanese, but military language would be as foreign as Greek to me. After all, I just completed only three years of Japanese language school as a child.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 10:42 am
Cicerone - that's a full 3 years more than anybody else here so far, so your participation is our gain Smile

Still I wonder about writings of Japanese historians on their part of the whole story - they must be out there.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 03:11 pm
July 24, 1945: "Japan seeking Soviet good offices to surrender." Ultra intercept, in PRO file HW.1/3784.

July 25, 1945: "Japan seeking Soviet good offices to surrender." Ultra intercept, in PRO file HW.1/3785.

from

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/July_1945.html

So was oralloys statement factually correct?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 03:19 pm
What part of "Unconditional Surrender" don't you get, Steve? Seeking the "good offices" of an intermediary, in the interest of obtaining other than unconditional surrender terms, in no way equates to accepting "Unconditional Surrender". That is the sole, entire, unarguable point. Oralloy's statement stands, as presented, and as documented by historical record.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 06:27 pm
Timberlandko - yes of course intermediation through neutral parties is habitually used by parties not on speaking terms for whatever reason, but there's more to Gen. MacArthur's agreement to keep the Emperor than happenstance. From a German site >

http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/04526212618971201806675068378290,5,0,Historische_Entwicklung.html

>found by the simple expedient of entering "unconditional surrender Japan" in German I got part of the minutes of a 1941 meeting held on September 6 1941 (i.e. prior to Pearl Harbor) between Emperor Hirohito and his senior military commanders.

He only read a poem written by his grandfather, Meiji (he of the restoration which was greatly assisted by Commodore Perry, USN) which, by my translation from the German as I unfortunately have no Japanese, reads:
_____________________________________________________________

"The oceans circle the entire world
And my heart cries out to the peoples of the earth
Why is it then that winds and waves of discord destroy the peace
That rules between us?"


[Die Meere umgeben die ganze Welt
Und mein Herz schreit zu den Völkern der Erde
Warum denn zerstören Winde und Wellen der Zwietracht den Frieden,
der zwischen uns herrscht?]

_____________________________________________________________

Hirohito's wishes were therefore made known to his military commanders at an early date. His role seems identical to that of the British monarch as described by Bagehot, btw, the right to be consulted, the right to warn, and so on.

The minutes of the Sep. 6, 1941 meeting were not unknown to the U.S.; pls also see previous post for replacing "I, Hirohito,..." with "We,..." in the text signed on the USS Missouri.

It is my belief - finding myself in agreement with Steve - that the Emperor would have been disobeyed by his hardliners even after the two nuclear attacks unless some "nod and wink" communications on his continuing status had been relayed to the Japanese military (aka government) prior to the September 2nd 1945 signature of unconditional surrender.

Can I prove it? Only those who were there can. I still say we should look for Japanese sources.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 08:35 pm
HofT wrote:
It is my belief - finding myself in agreement with Steve - that the Emperor would have been disobeyed by his hardliners even after the two nuclear attacks unless some "nod and wink" communications on his continuing status had been relayed to the Japanese military (aka government) prior to the September 2nd 1945 signature of unconditional surrender.

Can I prove it? Only those who were there can. I still say we should look for Japanese sources.


"The Hardliners" in fact did disobey the Emperor, launching the abortive coup of the night of August 14/15.

Here's a longish, but precise, detailed, and accurate summation of the events of the final days of the war, drawn from an old usenet newsgroup post (I knew I had it somewhere, just couldn't figure out where ... finally tracked it down)

Quote:
From: [email protected] (Thomas Hamilton)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: How and Why Japan Surrendered (long)
Date: 10 Aug 1995 10:10:52 GMT

This is a brief account of how and why Japan surrendered.
The best account of these events is found in _Nihon no Ichiban
Nagai Hi_ by the Pacific War Research Society. The Society was
a group of 14 Japanese historians who spent years interviewing
every Japanese survivor involved in any way with the decision,
except Hirohito. Their book was published in 1965. It was
translated into English and published by Kondansha with the
title _Japan's Longest Day_ [JLD]. This is still the
authoritative book on the subject. This post is condensed from
JLD. If you have read JLD, don't bother with this post.
Otherwise, here are the Cliff notes.


Japan in the summer of 1945 was governed, in the name of the
emperor, by the Supreme War Council or Big Six. The SWC
consisted of representives of the Army, the Navy and the
civilian government. This body ruled by consensus. That is
the six would debate amoung themselves until they all agreed
on a course of action which could be presented to Hirohito.
The most powerful person on the SWC was the Army Minister.
It had become a rule of Japanese politics that the Army Minister
was chosen by the Army and no cabinet could exist without an
Army Minister. This meant that the Army could veto any decision
by having its Minister resign.

The issue on the table in late summer of 1945 was the surrender
of Japan. The SWC could not, did not achieve consensus.

It is a remarkable fact about the crisis which overtook the SWC
in August 1945 that no one changed their opinion. The SWC
members who advocated immediate acceptance of the Potsdam
declaration stayed pro-peace throughout. More amazingly, the
SWC members who opposed surrender before Hiroshima, continued
to oppose it right up till August 14.


SWC DOVES:

Foreign Minister Togo (the leader of the doves)
Prime Minister Admiral Suzuki (77 and very flaky)
Navy Minister Admiral Yonai

SWC HAWKS

Army Minister General Anami (the leader of the hawks)
Army Chief of Staff General Umezu
Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda


It is a curious fact that the Navy was so important, even though
it only had a few destroyers left.

Since these six people were unable to agree to end the war,
there were two other sources of authority which could possibly
break the deadlock, although, since Japan was already at war,
the hawks had no desire to break the deadlock.

THE ARMY

The Army was in physical control of the country and Tokyo. The
Army had a tradition of murdering political opponents. Many
middle level officers in the Army believed that the Army should
murder all the doves and take control of the country. This
would mean, in effect, kidnapping Hirohito. Many officers
viewed this as preferable to surrender. Everyone believed
that a surrender order would be followed by an immediate coup
attempt and assasination spree.

THE EMPEROR

Hirohito strongly wanted peace. In principle, he could have
ordered the Army to surrender at any time. Under the Meiji
Constitution he was explicitly Commander and Chief. However,
it was not clear that the Army would obey him. If he ordered
the Army to surrender, a successful coup would leave him a
prisoner. He knew he only had one shot. He would have to
stake his position and the lives of his fellow doves on one
attempt to bulldoze the Army. The question was, when to try it.
Hirohito was not isolated, he had the help of many senior
politicians. He had friends in the Army. It just wasn't clear
that he had enough to ride out a coup.



DOVE arguments:

Everyone agreed on the importance of protecting the 'national
polity'. Doves emphasized the importance of the Monarchy.
They argued that immediate surrender to the US was the best way
to preserve the Monarchy. Peace feelers to the US from doves
had been broken off at hawks insistence, but not before the US
had communicated to the doves that Japan could surrender and
keep an emperor. The doves also didn't like the Russians and
would have preferred ending the war before they occupied any of
Japan. (Even though Japan was still at peace with Russia,
indeed trying desperately to negotiate with Stalin, Japan could
see the Russians deploying massive forces on the border. The
Russian attack was not a big surprise.)

HAWK arguments:

The hawks accepted that the war, and empire, were gone. They
believed that the US would allow Japan to retain its government
structure and independence if it were clear that the price of
insisting on occupation was too high. They advocated a guerilla
war. They believed that even if the emperor were hiding in
the mountains with a few soldiers, that was preferable to
having the public humiliation of the emperor subordinated
to foreigners.

However, the hawks didn't think it would come to that. After
all, all they wanted was a little area around Tokyo where the
emperor and his soldiers could wave the flag unmolested. Was
this too much to ask in exchange for thousands of US lives?
The hawks thought US diplomatic concessions would be coming.

The hawks also thought the Soviets would help. They could
pressure the US directly, although that was unlikely. More
usefully, the Soviets could overrun Manchuria and Korea, scaring
the US into coming to terms.

However, the hawks main hope was for a US invasion. Until the
US invaded, Japan had no good way to kill Americans. However,
if the US fought Japan's 2 million man home army in Japan's
rugged terrain, Japan would kill plenty of Americans.


So, given this backdrop, lets look at some events:

POTSDAM PROCLAMATION:

The July 26 PP explicitly called for the "unconditional surrender
of the Japanese Armed Forces". The cabinet correctly interpreted
this as saying that the monarchy would not be eliminated. The
foreign office pressed for immediate acceptance. The Army
was unmoved. The SWC reached a consensus to do and say nothing.
(This was there most common approach to all problems).
Unfortunately, PM Suzuki said to reporters that the cabinet
would 'mokusatsu' the PP. This harsh language, which was a slip
from a well-meaning but senile dove, infuriated Togo because
he knew it would get a bad reaction from the US. How bad, he
couldn't imagine.

HIROSHIMA

Hiroshima was bombed on Aug 6. Nothing happened in Tokyo on
the 6th or 7th. On Aug 8, Hirohito informed PM Suzuki that
the war must be ended immediately. Suzuki was instructed to
call an immediate SWC meeting for that purpose, "but the
meeting had to be postponed because one of the members was
unavoidably detained by 'more pressing business' elsewhere."
[I, also, find this incredible, so I just quoted what JLD says]

RUSSIA

Russia declared war the afternoon of the 8th.

AUGUST 9

The doves woke up early this Thursday. Furious about the
meeting that had been blown off, leading to Russian entry, Togo
et al. managed to get an SWC meeting going by 10:30 AM.
Immediately, the SWC split into its two familiar factions
and started going over the familiar arguments. Halfway through
the meeting a message arrived saying that Nagasaki had been
bombed at 11:00 that morning. This changed no opinions.
The SWC meeting broke up at 1:00 PM with no decision having
been made.

That afternoon the arguments were repeated in a full cabinet
meeting lasting from 2:30 to 10:00 PM. The Home Minister
explicitly predicted that a coup would likely happen if the
government ordered surrender. The meeting had no result.

Suzuki then, after consultation with Hirohito, called a
SWC meeting for 11:50 PM, to be held _in the presence of the
emperor_, an unprecedented, although perfectly legal, procedure.

AUGUST 10

For two hours the SWC went over the same arguments it had been
arguing non-stop since mid-morning the day before. At 2:00 AM
Suzuki turned to Hirohito, saying "your decision is requested".
Hirohito said he supported Togo. He then left the room.

Suzuki then convened a cabinet meeting to prepare the formal
note of surrender. By 4:00 AM the note had been approved
by the cabinet and sent to the Foreign Office for translation
and transmission. The FO had one last trick. The cabinet had
demanded that the US respect "the powers of His Majesty".
The FO translated that to English reading "the prerogatives of
His Majesty." Since few hawks spoke English, they got away with
it.

Anami returned to the Army Ministry where he addressed senior
personnel and explained the developments. A young officer
demanded, "Is the Army Minister actually considering surrender?"
Anami silenced the officer by smashing the table with his
swagger stick. However, the young officers could still hope
that the Allies would reject the note and a coup would be
unnecessary.

The US delivered a massive bombing raid on Tokyo.

AUGUST 11

In Tokyo the leaders waited for the US reply. Anami made a
belligerent public proclamation. Young officers began drawing
up lists of doves to be killed.

AUGUST 12

The Byrnes reply came at 00:45. The FO diplomatically
mistranslated it as well, substituting "controlled by" for
Byrnes' "subject to" in the crucial phrase describing the
Hirohito's relation with MacArthur.

This was the signal to start the same arguments all over again.
There was now the added edge that the coup planning was in
full process. Anami hoped to use the threat of the coup to
prevent acceptance of the Byrnes note, but he also wanted to
make sure there was no actual coup.

AUGUST 14

The Allies dropped leaflets describing the exchange of notes.
This terrified the government. They were sure this would lead
to a coup. So by 10:00 AM the SWC and cabinet were assembled
for an Imperial Conference down in Hirohito's bunker. Hirohito
announced his decision to accept the Byrnes note. He asked the
cabinet to prepare an appropriate rescript for him to read to
the nation.

That afternoon Hirohito recorded the rescript

Anami forced the top Army officers to sign a statement of
loyalty. Anami was still consorting with the coup planners
but Umezu definitely decided he was against a coup.

That night Anami went to his house and committed sepukku.

The coup began with junior officers seizing the Imperial Guards
Division and the Imperial Palace. General Mori, commander of
the Guards, was murdered. Meanwhile, a series of assasinations
was attempted. PM Suzuki barely got out of his house alive before
soldiers came, searched it, and burned it in frustration. He went
into hiding at a friend's house.

AUGUST 15

Although the rebels had held the palace all night, the coup ran
out of steam in the morning. General Tanaka of the Eastern
District Army showed up at the palace. Hirohito and his
hosehold were safe. Most of the plotters killed themselves.

At 12 noon, Hirohitos voice read the rescript ending the war
on NHK.

Although sporadic mutinies contined for a few days, the
situation was stable when the US arrived. General Umezu signed
on the Missouri.

****************************************************************

John Ongtooguk ([email protected])



Edit to add - having read the book from which the above quoted writer drew his information, I differ slightly regarding a few of Ongtooguk's assessments (see my sidebar post next following this one), but overall have no major quarrel with the thrust of his article - timber
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 08:39 pm
A sidebar -

The "Immediate and unconditional surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces" was the core of the Potsdam Declaration. The Peace Faction within the Japanese cabinet, desperate to end the war, interpreted this to mean the monarchy would not be terminated, and lobbied for acceptance. The War Faction remained adamantly opposed to capitulation on Allied terms. The official cabinet response to the Allied demand, delivered by Prime Minister Suziki speaking with the authority of the Emperor and the Government, was that Japan would "mokusatsu" the ultimatum. The term has no direct English equivalent, but was translated at Allied Headquarters as meaning roughly "ignore" or "dismiss. The word actually is rather harsher than than that; it embodies the concept of "to kill with silence", and psycholinguistically translates as "dismiss with contempuous silence", the idea being more or less "that's absolutely unacceptable, and will not be considered. What else have you got?" (See This). Following the Suzuki announcement, no further direct governmental response to or acknowledgement of the Potsdam Declaration was offered. Had the Allies read "mokusatsu" not as "ignore", but as the more accurate "contemptuously dismiss", one wonders if Truman would have delayed the first bombing untill August 6th. All that is little more than an interesting sidebar, though clearly it indicates no Japanese willingness to accept the Potsdam Declaration.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 01:53 am
Setanta wrote:
Note to Mouse--i have not once used the term interpret. If you're going to try to make a case about what i wrote, then don't try to make it based upon something which i did not write. I don't believe in the "interpretation" of history. History is not a foreign language which need be translated for the ignorant. I believe in ascertaining, as best one is able, the course of events, and the character of the people influencing events, and then offering one's own opinion. Having offered as faithful a description of said course of events and the characters of those involved as i am able, i fully expect that any reasonably intelligent person--which is to say, the great majority of the population--are as capable of coming up with an informed opinion as am i. If they filter their opinions through a politically partisan agenda, or their "social position," so much the worse for their understanding.

Revisionist did not in fact first arise with regard to the study of history. It was a term first applied to Socialists who were revising Marxist dialectic--most notably, Vladimir Ulyanov, known as Lenin. That term was only applied to historians much later by those who objected to denials of the holocaust in Germany in the Second World War. The term "court historian" was applied to historians by other (alleged) historians in the creation of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy thesis--those individuals only had the name revisionist applied to them retrospectively. So in fact, you have got it completely wrong. The Pearl Harbor conspiracy writers first applied the term court historian, just as you used it here, before anyone had even had the opportunity to have commented on what you'd written. These people only came to be known as revisionists long after they had attempted to do what you attempted to do--immunize themselves against criticism by condemning in advance any who might disagree with them, through the use of "court historian" as an epithet.

You preen yourself, apparently, on your knowledge of historiography. Yet you seem not to have done some basic work to find out the origin of the term court historian, nor that of revisionist as applied to (alleged) historians. Basic historiographical practice makes such homework necessary for those who would be taken seriously. I have less and less reason to take what you write seriously. Political and ideological "tugs-of-war" only take place between those who "interpret" history, and have an agenda to forward in the process. Those who do such things are propagandists, and they have poisoned their own wells of knowledge with the "history as tool" concept embodied in Marxist dialectic--one thing they assuredly are not is historians. I haven't denied that there might be an "official" version of events--i've just denied that such a thing constitutes history. Those who wish to forward their political agenda by issuing an "official version" of events are propagandists, not historians. Those who make it their business to forward their own agenda by denying such "official versions" are very likely to be engaged in the same sort of propagandizing. You have fun "interpreting" history for the ignorant masses. I intend to continue to work from the assumption that literate people are as capable as i am, and as you are, of coming to their own reasonable conclusions based on the available evidence.
you
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 03:35 am
Anonymouse wrote:
If you can't take me seriously, then why have you continued to respond repeatedly?


You display again your penchant for altering what i've written, in order to create what you may believe is a clever response. I wrote that i have less and less reason to take what you write seriously, which is not at all to say that i am unable to take what you write seriously. This sort of quasi-strawman on your part doesn't even rate a "nice try."

Quote:
As far as historiography, if it merely involved spitting out facts and dates then we wouldn't need to go through a painful process of the study of history and its cause and effect relationships and explaining the reasons for those events.


This is another strawman. At no time have i even remotely suggested that historiography involves "spitting out facts and dates." How very silly of you. It involves the entire process whereby one vets the sources for alleged facts. It is the means of judging the value of the testimony. I did quite clearly state that having offered as reasonably reliable a narrative as possible, i then offer my opinion. Stating what historical cause and effect is in action is stating one's opinion. I continue to consider that any reasonably literate person has as valuable an opinion on such a subject as my own, if they have informed themselves. I continue to assert that forming such an opinion through an ideological filter, or one based upon one's social opinion, lessens the value of the exercise to the person concerned.

Quote:
To think that history merely stands out in itself is a naïve assumption, and if that were so then we wouldn't have historians to begin with.


Inasmuch as i've not asserted that "history merely stands out in itself"--implying that this is what i've said is another pathetic attempt at a strawman. We have historians for the simple reason that the great majority of people have neither the time nor the inclination to do the hard work of research, and the application of standards of evidence to the material available, and much prefer to resort to secondary sources if they have any interest in history at all. They then form their own opinions on the matter at hand, whether or not you believe they should. Historians are not Moses coming down from the mount with the tablets inscribed upon high, they are merely reporters, essayists who have viewed the evidence, and provided an account of what they've discovered; and among the best of them, statements of which testimony they value and why. Any attempt to suggest anything more for historians is silly, in that intelligent people will form their respective opinions without regard to what the historian thinks they should believe. Any attempt to control what people will believe through the manipulation of historical narrative and reporting departs from history to the extent that such a method is practiced, and is to that extent is propaganda and not history.

Quote:
History is given meaning by man looking into the past and interpreting it as he was not a part of that past.


This is an unwarranted statement--if you wish to believe that history needs to be interpreted, you are of course free to do so. That does not make it axiomatic--you are not an authority to be consulted in such matters. Once again, intelligent people aren't going to buy that proposition anyway--intelligent people will always decide for themselves what the meaning of events and persons currently is or once was.

Quote:
You mentioned "study of history" and "historical analysis" in your earlier post which I responded to. What do you suppose "historical analysis" and "study of history" entail, if not studying and interpreting the cause and effect relationships of events.


The study of history is quite patently the consulting of primary sources, and secondary sources which refer to the primary material used, in order to obtain the wherewithal to construct a reasonable narrative. Tediously, i must point out once again that this is an exercise to which intelligent individuals will respond by forming opinions of their own. I do not suppose anything about historical analysis other than what i have written, which is that it is the means of forming an opinion. I have avoided the verb to interpret, because only those seeking to have their opinions retailed to them rather than forming opinions on their own will want an interpretation.

Quote:
Any historian who claims that history is not based on interpretation is insulting the same profession he claims to represent.


Nonsense--i've already stated quite a while ago that historians offer their opinion after having offered the data. Anyone who claims that the purpose of the historian is to interpret for others is insulting the intelligence of those who resort to secondary sources and narratives to learn something of history.

Quote:
Numbers, dates and events don't mean anything themselves. Only when they are put into a context, and the causal relationships are observed and the ramifications interpreted that we begin to understand history, which is, after all, a story that is being told.


It isn't necessary to to interpret anything for anyone in order to tell a story. The case you are attempting to make that an historian is somehow duty-bound to interpret is a feeble attempt, and you are chiefly relying upon a single statement from authority on your part that this is so. I have absolutely no reason to believe as much. Events certainly do mean something of themselves, without your interpretation. Intelligent individuals will decide for themselves what the meaning of an event is when provided sufficient information to make the judgment. Putting things into context is only a matter of providing sufficient information for that judgment reasonably to be made. "Interpreting ramifications" is once again within the purview of the reader, and not the writer. That historians offer opinions on such matters is not to be wondered at; that the consumers of historical narrative take such opinions with a grain of salt and choose to view the meaning of events as they assess them is a sign of healthy scepticism.

Quote:
And stories are told in a variety of ways based on different people and different interpretations. As I mentioned earlier, our knowledge and perception of the world is based on our own subjective experiences and thoughts.


Your having said as much, early or late, doesn't make it so. Our perceptions and knowledge are colored by our subjective judgment, but not formed by them. Two people might disagree about what the color of a bird's plummage is, but not that they both refer to a bird.

Quote:
Thus anyone who claims to be "objective" is expressing a great leap of faith. While we do live in an objective world, I believe we can never know that as all our experiences are subjective.


This is an exceedingly silly statement--you believe that we live in an objective world but cannot know as much because of an unconquerable subjectivity? How absurd--were that so, you'd not be capable of making the statement because you'd not be capable of the realization. At all events, i've not armored my statements in any claim to have always been objective. I've simply stated that to strive for objectivity is a laudatory goal, and that one does well to attempt to recognize one's own subjective influences and overcome them. And i feel again compelled to point out that having presented the historical record as faithfully as possible, the historian is in no postition to control how each individual will interpret the course of events presented--and that to attempt to do so is to propagandize.

Quote:


This is a very weak attempt to rationalize your use of the term "court historian"--you, after all, first indulged in what you are now pleased to refer to as name-calling. Your original response was to suggest that "court historians" called their critics "revisionists" and therefore deserved what they got. I simply pointed out to you that those who first deployed the term "court historian" did so absent any categorization of themselves, and only became known as revisionists after the fact. Your self-justiification rings very hollow. It doesn't explain at all why you felt the need to use such a term as "court historian" in the first place, unless you are attempting to suggest in advance that those who choose not to agree with you are "court historians."

Quote:
If you again claim history is not based on interpretation, then what do you suppose is it based on?


History exists independently of your interpretation. Historical research and the resultant reporting--historical narrative--are based upon the evidence to which an historian will be obliged to refer if said historian is to be taken seriously.

Quote:
Analysis? What is analysis based on? The evidence? How do we analyze the evidence?


Substituting the word analysis for interpretation doesn't alter cases.

Quote:
Individually, using our own subjective perceptions of the mind.


You are, apparently, either unwilling or unable to recognize that the historian is a reporter, usually offering an opinion after the fact of having offered an account of the evidence and how it was obtained, and why the reporter in question considers it reliable evidence. Your subjective perceptions don't change the contents of a document, they do not change the archaeological record. The only influence of your subjective perceptions is in the opinion you form as regards the meaning of the evidence. An exercise open to all who examine the evidence.

Quote:
I apologize I cannot agree but as chaos theory suggests, this is a complex world and not everything is lowered to the common denominator.


This is meaningless to me, as nothing i have written suggests that the world is not complex, or that anything of any description ought to be lowered to any common demoninator. You'll need to give a better explanation of what particular murky thought process lead you to include such a statement.

Quote:
You also chose not to address the point I raised about conspiracy, perhaps you thought it is marginal or childish and not worth your time as a "serious" historian, I do not know.


That is a plain falsehood. Before ever you introduced the subject of putative conspiracy, i acknowledged that there is such a thing as an "official version" of events, and that it is an exercise in propaganda and not history. Oh how you suffer for your virtue! I have not at any point described myself as an historian, serious or otherwise. This involves two points. The first is whether or not i am a serious individual--to which i respond "rarely." The second is whether or not i am an historian. I have not anywhere in this thread or at this site described myself as an historian, and when on those few occassions upon which i have felt compelled to explain my relationship to history, i have never described myself as anything other than a student of history.

Quote:
History is either accidental, or purposeful, i.e. conspiratorial.


Nonsense--such a statement might be made about accounts of history, but not of history itself, as history is the aggregate of events which occurred in the past, and it is the accounts of those events, not the events themselves, which may involve conspiracy. Otherwise, this is a very-ill expressed statement.

Quote:
The latter view is based on the premise of human action because man is rational. All action is planned as all action is the endpoint of all thought. Human action cannot exist without human thought. Hence humans plan and act purposefully.


Your faith in the rational character of people is quite refreshing--and quite naïve. People act everywhere, every day, on impulse and without the least glimmer of a thought process. It is fortunate for us all that this is true--otherwise, the death toll would rise dramatically on the freeways until soon the few remaining bands of hunter gatherers would be the only survivors, left to ponder the meaning of the twisted hunks of metals found on the highways everywhere.

Quote:
History would be nothing with out human action, as there would be no one to set the gears in motion. So what I said is true if you approach it from this point of view. And the dropping of the A Bomb would certainly qualify as a planned and conspiratorial event, as it was a classified project. As Truman stated "Men make history and not the other way around."


So we can assume, then, that you consider the use of the atomic bomb to have been conspiratorial event? Unless your use of the word conspiratorial is meaningless, what is it that you contend constituted the conspiracy? You're grasping at straws here. As the topic of this thread is the use of atomic weapons and not your views or my views on history, it would be nice to see you explain yourself in this matter.

Quote:
Marxism is the antithesis of individual thought. I am very much a believer in the individual and the limits to which he/she can rise to. As far as what constitutes history, like I said before I will say it again, it is always been and always will be open to interpretation and argument as different people, different groups, will have different ideas and interpretations.


Lord, you're tedious. It has taken you this much discursus to arrive at a point at which you attempt to lecture me with a restatement of what i've already pointed out.

Quote:
That you


Not agree with it? This is what i've hammered on since the begining--that when the historian has made his or her best effort to have presented the evidence and the sources of the evidence, individuals will then make their own judgment as the value of the evidence and what meaning it may have. I have claimed no monopoly on anything, i've simply pointed out that no matter what efforts you or anyone else make at "interpretation," people will arrive at their own conclusions. I've futher pointed out that to the extent to which one falsifies the historical record one is indulging in propaganda and not historical narrative. I will state once again that there is only one history, and referring to an "official history" is a reference to propaganda, and not to an historical narrative, or at any event, not an historically reliable narrative. What a tortured path you follow.

Quote:
There is no holy writ as to what constitutes history as different approaches and interpretations will get different results.


There cannot be more than one history; there can many different opinions as to the meaning of what has transpired in the past, but what transpired is immutable.

Quote:
I like to think that it is always in a state of conflict and it never subsides. Disraeli once said you shouldn't read anything but biography, for that is life without theory. Thus theories are merely interpretations in a cloak. Anyone who has seriously studied history can testify to the amount of theories that are minced with the facts and events to weave together a narrative. Thus, if anything, all history is, is propaganda, as Gerald Ford said all history is bunk.


This nonsense lumps together everyone who has ever studied history and used that study to produce a narrative as propagandists. Quite a blanket condemnation you've got there. Did you then study history with a view to hanging out your shingle as a propagandist?

Quote:
That you choose to think you are immune from exposing your subjective views to history, is understandable, but I disagree.


Your statements so often lack coherence. To what is it that you allege i am claiming immunity in the exposition of my subjective views of history?

Quote:
If you deny we are social beings, then you deny the humanity in man, as he cannot exist alone and independently of his social world.


This is meaningless--i've made no such denial.

Quote:
Throughout the growth and upbringing of individuals, they are subjected to different families, cultures, schools, religions, countries, governments, institutions, philosophies and ideologies. To think that these leave no imprint on the thinking of an individual is short sighted in my opinion. To further think that historians are somehow impervious to extending their subjective views and experiences on interpreting history is even more so.


This is also meaningless, as i've already pointed out that i disagree that the purpose of historical research and historical narrative is to interpret events for others, but rather that these are intended to report events to others.

Quote:
And I am not interpreting history for anyone but myself, as I am not a court historian, i.e. an official historian who interprets for the masses as you suggested.


I'm so very happy for you!
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 01:55 pm
Timberlandko - thank you very much for this summary of the book written by the 15 Japanese historians.

I had heard - from Mrs. MacArthur, whose evidence was really third-hand - that the extreme nationalists had occupied the imperial palace overnight to search for the Hirohito radio tape in order to destroy it before it could be taken to the radio station; seems it had been hidden by a maid inside a linen closet used for storing heavy kimonos and so escaped discovery until the next day, when it was duly delivered and broadcast.

Your account confirms the general overnight occupation of Hirohito's quarters as well as respect shown to his person and household.

Thank you also for your translation of so many "interpreted" Japanese words in the back-and-forth communications just preceding the August 15 radio broadcast.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 02:08 pm
If I may add a (non-historian's) note to the Setanta and Anonymouse debate here:
__________________________________________

"...a 2003 survey of seniors at the top 55 liberal arts colleges found that over half thought Germany, Italy or Japan had been a U.S. ally in World War II. The concern about historical amnesia crosses the political spectrum."
__________________________________________
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006877
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 02:12 pm
Perhaps their instructors are too busy interpreting for them to have given them a solid basis in mere facts, dates, etc.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 03:20 pm
"finding myself in agreement with Steve"

now we are making progress (Smile)

thanks hoft, I never thought anyone anywhere ever in anyway (apart from Walter and Set when they are being kind) did.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 08:19 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>opinions are interesting, but facts are sacred.

>all we can ever do is build up a picture from what we know to be factual (in so far as truth can ever be known for certain).

>Now oralloy wrote

>"Before August 2nd, 1945, Japan wasn't willing to surrender at all."

>It might be unfair to pick out this one sentence and examine it, but in order for me to better understand the question under discussion, I would like to know is that statement true?



I should add a little context. By "Japan", I was referring to the government of Japan.

There were people trying to surrender for Japan before that date. However, these people did not represent the Japanese government.


If, after Pearl Harbor, a group of Republican congressmen had tried to surrender to Japan, without FDR's knowledge, would it have counted for anything???

(I'm not picking on Republicans. They just were the party out of power at the time.)

The "Japanese" attempts to surrender before August 2nd were of a similar nature.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2005 08:53 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
>July 24, 1945: "Japan seeking Soviet good offices to surrender." Ultra intercept, in PRO file HW.1/3784.

>July 25, 1945: "Japan seeking Soviet good offices to surrender." Ultra intercept, in PRO file HW.1/3785.

>from

>http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/July_1945.html

>So was oralloys statement factually correct?



ULTRA???

The ULTRA intercepts were for military communications.

I would have thought such an intercept would be from MAGIC.



Anyway, at this time there was a high-level delegation to the Soviets seeking a mediated surrender. But this delegation only represented the Emperor and the peace faction of the Japanese government. It did not have the backing of the military faction of the government.

The significance of August 2nd is, that is when we have the first indication that the military faction of the government decided to back the Soviet-negotiation gambit. Once the military faction also backed it, "the Japanese government" was actually supporting the policy.

The addition of the military faction brought a setback though. Before, they were seeking only a guarantee of the Emperor's sovereignty. When the military faction got on board, they also brought three other demands:

No occupation of the home islands.
Japan be in charge of trying their own war criminals.
Japan be in charge of demobilizing their own deployed forces.


Once the Soviets actually declared war and overran Manchuria, the Japanese government recognized that there was no hope of having them mediate negotiations, and Japan then tried to surrender to us with just a guarantee for the Emperor.

Nagasaki happened mere hours after the Japanese government realized that the Soviets had declared war and were attacking, so this offer of surrender came after Nagasaki.


Truman responded to the surrender offer by ordering a halt to A-bombing. The military then added to this order by ordering a halt of the shipment of the next plutonium core to Tinian. The next core had actually left the building at Los Alamos when the order to stop came, but it hadn't left the parking lot (there were already implosion assembles waiting at Tinian). At the time it was halted, the planned date for dropping the next A-bomb was August 17-18, a few days ahead of schedule.

We replied to the Japanese by telling them that MacArthur would have the power to depose the Emperor.


On August 14, Truman ordered the plutonium core to be shipped to Tinian, for a planned bombing on August 20-21 (the original schedule anyway). Later that day we got word that Japan had accepted our terms as we had given them. The plutonium core had reached a military base on the coast of California by then, but it was recalled again as the war was over.


Later, one of the two guys who wrote the book on safety at the labs foolishly killed himself by bringing this core to the edge of criticality by hand, and slipping.

Shortly afterwards, the other of the two did the same. (Despite their folly, they apparently did draft decent safety standards, which were finally followed after their deaths.)


This plutonium core was later exploded at Operation Crossroads (which came up earlier in the thread when someone mentioned their father worked there).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2005 07:41 am
Oralloy, I dont think these INTERCEPTED messages between Togo and Sato were the equivalent of a "group of republican congressmen trying to surrender to Japan without FDR's knowledge." According to Douglas Long


http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

* July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
* July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
* July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
* July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
* July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
* July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
* July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

----------------------------------------------------

All above was known to Truman. Stimson wanted to embolden the Japanese doves by offering something on the Emperor, but it was excluded from Potsdam Declaration, which I find strange.

quoting from Long

On July 2, 1945, Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894).

However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand, known as the Potsdam Proclamation, that was broadcast on July 26th, in spite of Stimson's eleventh hour protestations that it be left in (Diary of Henry L. Stimson, 7/24/45, Yale Univ. Library, New Haven, Conn). Pacific war historian Akira Iriye explains, "One reason for this change [the removal of the Emperor retention line] was the growing influence within the State Department of men like [Sec. of State] Byrnes, Acheson, and MacLeish - with no expertise on Japanese affairs but keenly sensitive to public opinion - and the president's tendency to listen to them rather than to Grew and other experts." (Iriye, pg. 255-256). In regard to his disagreement with Under Sec. of State Grew over allowing Japan to retain the Emperor, Dean Acheson later admitted, "I very shortly came to see that I was quite wrong." (Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation, pg. 112-113).

---------------------------------------------

now I accept your detailed knowledge of this time, but at risk of being called a revisionist, the more I delve into this topic, the more I come to the conclusion that some revision of the "official" line, (i.e that the bombings were necessary to end the war and avoid invasion) is indeed called for.

------------------------------------------------

Regarding the plutonium core incident...they deliberately approached criticality BY HAND? Were they mad?

It sounds as if the bomb core was left lying around unwanted and unloved. Didnt the cupboard door have a lock on it or even a little warning sign

"Danger...atomic bomb plutonium core assembly do not hit with hammer"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 09:03:27