Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxh.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxh!stu3
From: stu3@mhuxh.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: U.S. inhumane v/v Japan & A-bomb?
Message-ID: <224@mhuxh.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Oct-84 15:46:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxh.224
Posted: Fri Oct 12 15:46:25 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 07:51:17 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Summit, NJ
Lines: 46

<..>

>
>To say that the Japanese were inhumane and irrational because they did
>not surrender quick enough shows a lack of understanding of the Japanese
>culture.  The US demanded a totally unconditional surrender, including the
>removal of the Emperor.  The Japanese hesitated on this one point.  If the US
>would have been willing to guarentee the sovereignty of the Emperor, then
>the Japanese would have surrendered without the second bombing.  If one
>of the two parties can be said to have been irrational and inhumane, it must 
>be the US.
>
To be entirely accurate, the U.S. did NOT demand the removal of the
emperor.  In fact, I do not believe the original surrender demand
even mentioned the emperor (I will check).  I think this is so,
because the Japanese made an inquiry about the emperor's sovreignity
after the second bomb had been dropped.  There had been no response
to the Americans after the first bomb had been dropped.  The inquiry
came only after the second bomb was used.  The Americans refused
to guarantee
anything, but the Japanese surrendered anyway, with the proviso that
the Emperor remain on the throne. ($&%&^!!! Why couldn't the Japanese
just have had a king? It's easier to spell :-) )  He did, despite
the American refusals to guarantee anything.  There was precedent
for this situation in that Shoguns at one time had ruled Japan:
although the Emperors were in nominal control, the Shoguns were the
real authority in the country.  There is also, as I have said
before, some evidence that Hirohito was willing to stop the war even
earlier than he did (this is what happened for all practical purposes),
but that he was unwilling or unable (due to custom, NOT lack of
time) to do so before the A-bombs had been dropped.

As I have said in another article, the speed with which the Japanese
began to make inquiries about, and preparation for, surrender
suggest that they had plenty of time to think about surrendering
after the first attack.  

I really think the U.S. was NOT inhumane in choosing to use the
A-bomb. The Allies simply took a realistic and pragmatic view from
their perspective of the situation.  I think their understanding of
the situation was better than most of us think, and our
understanding of what happended and why is not as good as we like to
think.

Mark Modig
..ihnp4!btlunix!mom