Once again the question of Japan, Vicitm or Foe?
Recently news sources around the world began
running stories (yet again) regarding the anniversary of the dropping of "The
Bomb" on Japan.
As you may have noted in my previous posts, I hold to the argument that the liberal media tries to sway you - dear reader - through the use of specific language. I hold the belief that people in the media either (a) are professionals and know exactly what they are saying or (b) idiots who cannot speak and should not be allowed to do so. In either case people in the media tend to be liberal and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is when their biased (liberal or conservative) makes it's way into the news.
So, on August 6, 2005 - The Age ran one such article entitled All too easy to call Truman a war criminal (registration or "bug-me-not" required) in which they waxed poetic on the "prose" which will certainly arise during the anniversary and which will make the claim that such an act was, and is, a war crime "forever attaching shame to those who ordered them". The article continues that "there will be a plethora of dismissive comment from pundits who believe the nuclear assault saved a million Allied casualties".
Notice the language used here - the term "prose" brings to mind a well considered and thoughtful argument for a particular position while the phrase "dismissive comment from pundits" draws to mind political extremists far outside the national PC-norm.
Now I do not know that much about this publication, or it's political slant. However the article continues that planning the invasion of Japan "assumed hundreds of thousands of casualties" while "the other side of the argument is the fact that in the summer of 1945 Japan's economy was collapsing." Also, "the 2005 evidence demonstrates that Japan had no chance of sustaining effective resistance".
The author, Max Hastings, has the benefit of hind-sight, and perhaps slightly rose colored hind-sight at that. Perhaps the Mr. Hastings in his haste to point out that Japan could not have produced a "sustaining" resistance hasn't kept his eyes on the news. It seems that, if one watches closely, every couple of years Japanese soldiers continue to be found, some still believing that the war continues.
For example, About.com recently ran a story entitled The War is Over ... Please Come Out in which they detail the story of Lt. Hiroo Onada who was sent by the Japanese army to the Philippines and didn't surrender until March 19, 1972. Without supplies, Lt. Onada and his men were able to remain hidden in the Phillipines, kill 30 Filipinos and wound 100 others - years after the war had ended. Upon finally surrendering in 1972 and being pardoned of his crimes while in hiding - he returned to Japan where he was hailed as a hero.
Now, I don't have the luxury of having lived in the 1940's but everything I have heard, read and been taught about the Japanese soldier, is that he was quite a fierce enemy - fanatical in fact in the carrying out of his duties, often also quite harsh and what some might even call evil. Obviously one cannot blame Lt. Onada for carrying out his duty - especially not knowing the war was over. However, this is but one example of what a dedicated soldier can do. He didn't have the 'home ground advantage'. He had no supply lines, nor any support of any kind from Japan yet he continued to wage war for 30 years.
Perhaps Mr. Hastings should consider how much worse it would have been fighting hundreds of thousands of such men on their own soil.
I'm sure it isn't Mr. Hastings position that Truman actaully should be considered a war criminal. As I have stated Mr. Hastings has the ability to use hind-sight which Truman did not. But it is this type of reporting that results in the re-writing of history. It is exactly this type of reporting which leads to such political correctness as the Smithsonian exhibit planned for August of 1995 which would have lead visitors to believe that Japan was a "victim" and not an aggressor during WWII. (Many articles have been published on this including Exhibit Distorts Historical Context of the A-Bombing of Japan ).
Such reporting would be irresponsible. Or, perhaps in the language liberals would understand it ... Such from MINIREC would be double plus ungood.
But sadly - this is exactly Mr. Hastings point of view. Mr. Hastins writes - "Oddly enough, Soviet entry into the war on August 8 was more influential than the atomic explosions in convincing Japanese leaders that they must quit." Are you kidding me - or are you just insane? We, sadly, obliterated an entire city not once, but twice! This above all else convinced Japan to surrender.
Even more horrific is the authors suggestion that "There is little doubt that if the US had explicitly promised that the emperor might retain his throne, Japan would have bowed." This little gem just a few scant sentences before Mr. Hastings himself concedes that "Japan's occupation of China had cost 15 million Chinese lives. Civilians had been raped, tortured, enslaved and massacred, while Allied prisoners were subjected to hideous maltreatment. The Japanese had been waging biological warfare in China. Hundreds of prisoners had been subjected to vivisection. Man captured American airmen were beheaded. Some were eaten. A B-29 crew was dissected alive at a Japanese city hospital." And yet Mr. Hasting, in retrospect, has the unmitigated gall to suggest that the US should have allowed the emperor to retain his throne? Well of course he should. He was the leader of Japan, and was controlling his people so well. And while we're at it, let's give Germany to Hitler (who only killed a couple million) and Italy to Mussolini.
In one final insult, the article ends with a byline about the author.
"Max Hastings, author of Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45, is researching a study of the war against Japan"
Once again we see language of the liberal. It wasn't a war against Japan. Such phraseology suggests that we dirty little Americans dragged Japan into the war kicking and screaming - then when those little bastards wouldn't let us trick them into war, we forced them to bomb one of our naval bases. We are tricky sons-of-bitches that way.
Actually dear reader - the bombing of Pearl Harbor never happened. It was simply U.S. propaganda so that Truman could take the U.S. (then an isolationist country) into war with Japan so he could test his dirty little Atomic bomb, leading to the complete removal of a Japanese military and thus leaving that country with billions to invest in electronics futures so we could have smaller radios and TVs. My God - Truman wasn't a war criminal - he was a financial genius!
As you may have noted in my previous posts, I hold to the argument that the liberal media tries to sway you - dear reader - through the use of specific language. I hold the belief that people in the media either (a) are professionals and know exactly what they are saying or (b) idiots who cannot speak and should not be allowed to do so. In either case people in the media tend to be liberal and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is when their biased (liberal or conservative) makes it's way into the news.
So, on August 6, 2005 - The Age ran one such article entitled All too easy to call Truman a war criminal (registration or "bug-me-not" required) in which they waxed poetic on the "prose" which will certainly arise during the anniversary and which will make the claim that such an act was, and is, a war crime "forever attaching shame to those who ordered them". The article continues that "there will be a plethora of dismissive comment from pundits who believe the nuclear assault saved a million Allied casualties".
Notice the language used here - the term "prose" brings to mind a well considered and thoughtful argument for a particular position while the phrase "dismissive comment from pundits" draws to mind political extremists far outside the national PC-norm.
Now I do not know that much about this publication, or it's political slant. However the article continues that planning the invasion of Japan "assumed hundreds of thousands of casualties" while "the other side of the argument is the fact that in the summer of 1945 Japan's economy was collapsing." Also, "the 2005 evidence demonstrates that Japan had no chance of sustaining effective resistance".
The author, Max Hastings, has the benefit of hind-sight, and perhaps slightly rose colored hind-sight at that. Perhaps the Mr. Hastings in his haste to point out that Japan could not have produced a "sustaining" resistance hasn't kept his eyes on the news. It seems that, if one watches closely, every couple of years Japanese soldiers continue to be found, some still believing that the war continues.
For example, About.com recently ran a story entitled The War is Over ... Please Come Out in which they detail the story of Lt. Hiroo Onada who was sent by the Japanese army to the Philippines and didn't surrender until March 19, 1972. Without supplies, Lt. Onada and his men were able to remain hidden in the Phillipines, kill 30 Filipinos and wound 100 others - years after the war had ended. Upon finally surrendering in 1972 and being pardoned of his crimes while in hiding - he returned to Japan where he was hailed as a hero.
Now, I don't have the luxury of having lived in the 1940's but everything I have heard, read and been taught about the Japanese soldier, is that he was quite a fierce enemy - fanatical in fact in the carrying out of his duties, often also quite harsh and what some might even call evil. Obviously one cannot blame Lt. Onada for carrying out his duty - especially not knowing the war was over. However, this is but one example of what a dedicated soldier can do. He didn't have the 'home ground advantage'. He had no supply lines, nor any support of any kind from Japan yet he continued to wage war for 30 years.
Perhaps Mr. Hastings should consider how much worse it would have been fighting hundreds of thousands of such men on their own soil.
I'm sure it isn't Mr. Hastings position that Truman actaully should be considered a war criminal. As I have stated Mr. Hastings has the ability to use hind-sight which Truman did not. But it is this type of reporting that results in the re-writing of history. It is exactly this type of reporting which leads to such political correctness as the Smithsonian exhibit planned for August of 1995 which would have lead visitors to believe that Japan was a "victim" and not an aggressor during WWII. (Many articles have been published on this including Exhibit Distorts Historical Context of the A-Bombing of Japan ).
Such reporting would be irresponsible. Or, perhaps in the language liberals would understand it ... Such from MINIREC would be double plus ungood.
But sadly - this is exactly Mr. Hastings point of view. Mr. Hastins writes - "Oddly enough, Soviet entry into the war on August 8 was more influential than the atomic explosions in convincing Japanese leaders that they must quit." Are you kidding me - or are you just insane? We, sadly, obliterated an entire city not once, but twice! This above all else convinced Japan to surrender.
Even more horrific is the authors suggestion that "There is little doubt that if the US had explicitly promised that the emperor might retain his throne, Japan would have bowed." This little gem just a few scant sentences before Mr. Hastings himself concedes that "Japan's occupation of China had cost 15 million Chinese lives. Civilians had been raped, tortured, enslaved and massacred, while Allied prisoners were subjected to hideous maltreatment. The Japanese had been waging biological warfare in China. Hundreds of prisoners had been subjected to vivisection. Man captured American airmen were beheaded. Some were eaten. A B-29 crew was dissected alive at a Japanese city hospital." And yet Mr. Hasting, in retrospect, has the unmitigated gall to suggest that the US should have allowed the emperor to retain his throne? Well of course he should. He was the leader of Japan, and was controlling his people so well. And while we're at it, let's give Germany to Hitler (who only killed a couple million) and Italy to Mussolini.
In one final insult, the article ends with a byline about the author.
"Max Hastings, author of Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-45, is researching a study of the war against Japan"
Once again we see language of the liberal. It wasn't a war against Japan. Such phraseology suggests that we dirty little Americans dragged Japan into the war kicking and screaming - then when those little bastards wouldn't let us trick them into war, we forced them to bomb one of our naval bases. We are tricky sons-of-bitches that way.
Actually dear reader - the bombing of Pearl Harbor never happened. It was simply U.S. propaganda so that Truman could take the U.S. (then an isolationist country) into war with Japan so he could test his dirty little Atomic bomb, leading to the complete removal of a Japanese military and thus leaving that country with billions to invest in electronics futures so we could have smaller radios and TVs. My God - Truman wasn't a war criminal - he was a financial genius!
Posted: Sun - August 7, 2005 at 10:01 PM If this blog entry was of use to you, why not show your appreciation by donating to support the site? Just click on the MAKE A DONATION button on the right hand side of the page! It's all handled by PAYPAL.
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Current Poll
Donations via PAYPAL
Donate to support the site!
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 30, 2006 06:55 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Aug 30, 2006 06:55 AM