What's your point of view in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb?

[bazmeistergen]

KichiVerde said:

The Japanese did not have to attack territories within the US sphere of influence. They could have focused on French, Dutch and British colonial interests instead, and America aside from imposing their embargo likely would have cared less. The average American at the time had an isolationist view on the war and did not want to get involved. It would have been very difficult to get public support behind a war effort had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor. There was plenty of oil and other resources in South East Asia the Japanese could have exploited without starting a full scale military conflict with the US.

Japan attacked America because it felt threatened and thought that by eliminating the US' largest Naval presence in the Pacific, that it would A, set America back at least a year logistically, and B, possibly deter them from becoming involved in continued violence. Interestingly, Isoroku Yamamoto, the man who designed the attack, was against it because he knew Japan could never defeat America in an all out war, but his superiors insisted on carrying out the plan anyway.

Plain and simple. Japan was not provoked. They could have made due with Southeast Asia and China. They were imperialists. They tried to take what was not theirs at the expense of others. Over 20 million Asians victims perished as a direct result. The 300,000 Japanese that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki pales in comparison. America had to put a stop to the carnage that the Japanese started. They brought it upon themselves.

Sure the Japanese could have avoided war with America for a while, but their interests had been in conflict for years and I would argue it was war that had been coming. The US can hardly be exonerated on the imperialistic front. You are also seeing it from a very American point of view rather than how the Japanese would have seen it. The Japanese (like the Germans) would have seen American support of their enemies as provocation.

It doesn't matter if you think embargoing oil, supporting the Chinese was not provocative, the Japanese did. You even admit as much yourself when you say 'the Japanese felt threatened'. Whether the American government intended to be provocative is irrelevant.

It is mythical to think that the US would not have entered the war, but for Pearl Harbor. Sure the US was isolationist to some degree, but the so-called US national interest lay in supporting the UK and China (from the political classes point of view, at least) and by doing this it leads to the clear view within the Axis powers that the US was an enemy. Its like saying Lend Lease, Cash and Carry and so on were neutral when they weren't.

I don't think it is as simple as saying 'the Japanese started the war'

Japanese started the war throughout Asia once they chose to become imperialistic following the Meiji Restoration. They went and fought the Russians. They won. They fought the Chinese and Koreans. They won. They fought the British, the Dutch and the French and won. They fought the Americans and lost.

By going and  expanding through direct military conflict they provoked America in to action. What was America supposed to do? Were they going to say, "Yeah, sure, go ahead and attack our allies, and have our oil while you are at it." They took measures as a direct response to Japan's aggressive behavior. Your argument is like saying if you poke me and I push back, then you punch me in the face, it was me who provoked you. It doesnt work like that. Sure the Western powers probably had no business meddling around in Asia, but never did a foreign power directly attack Japan soil (before World War II) since Kublai Khan sent his failed fleets. And even when Japan rose to become a military power and started screwing over other Asians they were given several concessions.

Japan got greedy. They wanted more and more. Of course their actions were going to bring them in to conflict with the other military powers of the world. And whats worse, they were exceptionally cruel in how they took land from others. To this day many Chinese and Koreans still hate the Japanese for what they did over 60 years ago.

I'm not saying they deserved to be nuked. No one does. There should have been a better way, but given the circumstances America made the right call, and Japan suffered the consequences of something they brought among themselves.

We could go back to Commodore Perry for the start of this, of course.

Japan became imperialistic, I'm not denying that, nor am I blaming the Americans or Japanese for what happened. I am saying that American behaviour was interpreted as provocative (I'm sure the Japanese were quite aware that they were jumping over US interests, of course). In the spirit of the imperialistic age all of this is understandable as the ideology of the period was quite different, though much of it including manifest destiny remains 'til this day.

America was imperialistic too, remember.