|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regarded as divine and the embodiment of the Japanese state, the Emporer supposedly "lived beyond the clouds," above politics and government. In fact, he was interested and well informed. While he did not interfere, he was often present at important meetings. |
Paper King theory supported...he didnt interfere in politics nor try to influence decisions. It wasnt until he saw firsthand the devistation of Tokyo that he stood up and became more than a paper king.
The events leading up to Japans involvement in WWII fully support the fact that Hirohito was a paper king....that he became more later is irrelevant to my post. Nice try though! |
What amuses me here is that the argument you make is very similar to the ones made by Americans at the Tokyo Tribunal that tried Tojo and the gang but did everything to give Hirohito a pass. In other words, here you are standing up for the American noble lie that Hirohito was not involved, despite monumental evidence to the contrary.  |
The reason they gave Hirohito "a pass" is that they felt he was necessary in order to keep the country quiet. Installing a American regime would likely have touched off a massive insurgency that would have made today's insurgency in Iraq look like a children's playground.
The vast majority of Japanese devoutly believed in their Emperor's divinity. I have already illustrated examples of their ability to resist. Christians and Muslims are willing to die for their God, and there is no reason to assume the Japanese (most of them) would do otherwise. |
(1)Yes, I understand the theory. And I certainly think that MacArthur's decision was a safe one. That doesn't mean it was necessary. I don't think a massive insurgency was in order. Fascism could only justify itself through victory, or else it was in contradiction with itself. All the lies the Japanese were force fed (and so many gladly believed) came crashing down when soldiers painted as noble defenders of the Emperor started to scramble over army supplies and get them into the black market. And the Japanese had been acting Western enough since the success of the Meiji Restoration that an occupation by America was much more welcome than any of the alternatives.
(2)As for the belief in their Emperor's divinity, you do understand that in the New Year of 1946, Hirohito was forced to declare in a radio broadcast that he was not divine? Why, after that radio broadcast, did no Japanese assault the occupation authorities?
I agree this is all hindsight, and I am not against what MacArthur did. But its another thing to say that just because MacArthur didn't experience a massive resistence that everything he did was necessary. Indeed, the Ningen-sengen and the peaceful response of the Japanese people seem to suggest that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge MacArthur's theory.
(3)I think the real reason that there was no Japanese resistance was for two reasons. Firstly, the one given above, that the tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of American power towards the end of the war. Secondly, the Japanese had been fighting a perpetual war against many major powers for well over 15 years, not to mention that they had to quell quite a few insurrections. The people were exhausted, and the most militant die-hards were either dead already, saw the signs on the wall, or were in allied custody (the high command in particular) by the end of the war. Moreover, the response by the Japanese to democratic reforms was quite enthusiastic, and the Japanese handled the daily humiliation of the occupation considerably well, which consisted of affronts far more serious than having their Emperor admit that he is human. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Did you read the links? Had the Emperor supported the die-hards millions of women and chilren would also have fought the occupation. In the mind-set at the time dying with honor was preferred to living with dishonor(more on this later.) Some soldiers may have turned to the black market, but I never said ALL Japanese merely the majority. I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of the Japan at that time to die for its Emperor. Japan was willing to negotate surrender earlier on one condition that the Emperor keep his throne. Interestingly enough that was the ONLY condition that was non-negotatable. Again it points to the importance of the Emperor.
2. I understand that. But Hirohito had already told his people not to resist. Conditioned as they were to obeying their Emperor regardless of his proclaimnation of his divinity... Some questions to ask yourself Anyway this was just after the war. How many Japanese had radios and how many were listening at that time? And of those few, how many believed it or thought it was just an American trick?
3. It couldn't be that Hirohito told his people not to resist?
Let's look at your reasons. You say that the "tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of America power towards the end of the war."
This theory though has a huge hole in it. Long before the Americans dropped the bomb, the Japanese forces were being driven from one occupied territory after another. In the end they were hemmed in into their island after suffering a number of quite massive defeats (Midway for one). That would have contradicted such tenets sufficently. Yet the die-hards were conscripting millions of women and children to fight with bamboo spears for the defense of the nation. The majority were prepared to fight and die.
Even the die-hards could see that the battle was lost, yet they were prepared to fight and die with honor. It took the personal intervention of their "god" to tell them to stop. Same goes for the Japanese people.
In the end we will never know who is right, but it's an interesting exchange of views nevertheless |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regarded as divine and the embodiment of the Japanese state, the Emporer supposedly "lived beyond the clouds," above politics and government. In fact, he was interested and well informed. While he did not interfere, he was often present at important meetings. |
Paper King theory supported...he didnt interfere in politics nor try to influence decisions. It wasnt until he saw firsthand the devistation of Tokyo that he stood up and became more than a paper king.
The events leading up to Japans involvement in WWII fully support the fact that Hirohito was a paper king....that he became more later is irrelevant to my post. Nice try though! |
What amuses me here is that the argument you make is very similar to the ones made by Americans at the Tokyo Tribunal that tried Tojo and the gang but did everything to give Hirohito a pass. In other words, here you are standing up for the American noble lie that Hirohito was not involved, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. |
The reason they gave Hirohito "a pass" is that they felt he was necessary in order to keep the country quiet. Installing a American regime would likely have touched off a massive insurgency that would have made today's insurgency in Iraq look like a children's playground.
The vast majority of Japanese devoutly believed in their Emperor's divinity. I have already illustrated examples of their ability to resist. Christians and Muslims are willing to die for their God, and there is no reason to assume the Japanese (most of them) would do otherwise. |
(1)Yes, I understand the theory. And I certainly think that MacArthur's decision was a safe one. That doesn't mean it was necessary. I don't think a massive insurgency was in order. Fascism could only justify itself through victory, or else it was in contradiction with itself. All the lies the Japanese were force fed (and so many gladly believed) came crashing down when soldiers painted as noble defenders of the Emperor started to scramble over army supplies and get them into the black market. And the Japanese had been acting Western enough since the success of the Meiji Restoration that an occupation by America was much more welcome than any of the alternatives.
(2)As for the belief in their Emperor's divinity, you do understand that in the New Year of 1946, Hirohito was forced to declare in a radio broadcast that he was not divine? Why, after that radio broadcast, did no Japanese assault the occupation authorities?
I agree this is all hindsight, and I am not against what MacArthur did. But its another thing to say that just because MacArthur didn't experience a massive resistence that everything he did was necessary. Indeed, the Ningen-sengen and the peaceful response of the Japanese people seem to suggest that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge MacArthur's theory.
(3)I think the real reason that there was no Japanese resistance was for two reasons. Firstly, the one given above, that the tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of American power towards the end of the war. Secondly, the Japanese had been fighting a perpetual war against many major powers for well over 15 years, not to mention that they had to quell quite a few insurrections. The people were exhausted, and the most militant die-hards were either dead already, saw the signs on the wall, or were in allied custody (the high command in particular) by the end of the war. Moreover, the response by the Japanese to democratic reforms was quite enthusiastic, and the Japanese handled the daily humiliation of the occupation considerably well, which consisted of affronts far more serious than having their Emperor admit that he is human. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Did you read the links? Had the Emperor supported the die-hards millions of women and chilren would also have fought the occupation. In the mind-set at the time dying with honor was preferred to living with dishonor(more on this later.) Some soldiers may have turned to the black market, but I never said ALL Japanese merely the majority. I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of the Japan at that time to die for its Emperor. Japan was willing to negotate surrender earlier on one condition that the Emperor keep his throne. Interestingly enough that was the ONLY condition that was non-negotatable. Again it points to the importance of the Emperor.
2. I understand that. But Hirohito had already told his people not to resist. Conditioned as they were to obeying their Emperor regardless of his proclaimnation of his divinity... Some questions to ask yourself Anyway this was just after the war. How many Japanese had radios and how many were listening at that time? And of those few, how many believed it or thought it was just an American trick?
3. It couldn't be that Hirohito told his people not to resist?
Let's look at your reasons. You say that the "tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of America power towards the end of the war."
This theory though has a huge hole in it. Long before the Americans dropped the bomb, the Japanese forces were being driven from one occupied territory after another. In the end they were hemmed in into their island after suffering a number of quite massive defeats (Midway for one). That would have contradicted such tenets sufficently. Yet the die-hards were conscripting millions of women and children to fight with bamboo spears for the defense of the nation. The majority were prepared to fight and die.
Even the die-hards could see that the battle was lost, yet they were prepared to fight and die with honor. It took the personal intervention of their "god" to tell them to stop. Same goes for the Japanese people.
In the end we will never know who is right, but it's an interesting exchange of views nevertheless |
Apparently more interesting to us than the thread we are hijacking.
I do want to point out one thing. I agree with you about the necessity of the Emperor to instruct Japan to follow along in surrender. I don't believe I have argued above that Japan wouldn't have fought further had the Emperor not surrendered, and I do not believe that such an argument logically follows from anything else I've claimed. My argument is only that after the surrender, there probably would not have been any major insurrections if Hirohito had been tried and found guilty and been imprisoned (I'm not willing to say that killing him wouldn't have had an appreciable effect, that might have done the trick to inflame Japan).
The massive display of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the huge show of power at the surrender (airplanes filling the sky) is what I am talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regarded as divine and the embodiment of the Japanese state, the Emporer supposedly "lived beyond the clouds," above politics and government. In fact, he was interested and well informed. While he did not interfere, he was often present at important meetings. |
Paper King theory supported...he didnt interfere in politics nor try to influence decisions. It wasnt until he saw firsthand the devistation of Tokyo that he stood up and became more than a paper king.
The events leading up to Japans involvement in WWII fully support the fact that Hirohito was a paper king....that he became more later is irrelevant to my post. Nice try though! |
What amuses me here is that the argument you make is very similar to the ones made by Americans at the Tokyo Tribunal that tried Tojo and the gang but did everything to give Hirohito a pass. In other words, here you are standing up for the American noble lie that Hirohito was not involved, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. |
The reason they gave Hirohito "a pass" is that they felt he was necessary in order to keep the country quiet. Installing a American regime would likely have touched off a massive insurgency that would have made today's insurgency in Iraq look like a children's playground.
The vast majority of Japanese devoutly believed in their Emperor's divinity. I have already illustrated examples of their ability to resist. Christians and Muslims are willing to die for their God, and there is no reason to assume the Japanese (most of them) would do otherwise. |
(1)Yes, I understand the theory. And I certainly think that MacArthur's decision was a safe one. That doesn't mean it was necessary. I don't think a massive insurgency was in order. Fascism could only justify itself through victory, or else it was in contradiction with itself. All the lies the Japanese were force fed (and so many gladly believed) came crashing down when soldiers painted as noble defenders of the Emperor started to scramble over army supplies and get them into the black market. And the Japanese had been acting Western enough since the success of the Meiji Restoration that an occupation by America was much more welcome than any of the alternatives.
(2)As for the belief in their Emperor's divinity, you do understand that in the New Year of 1946, Hirohito was forced to declare in a radio broadcast that he was not divine? Why, after that radio broadcast, did no Japanese assault the occupation authorities?
I agree this is all hindsight, and I am not against what MacArthur did. But its another thing to say that just because MacArthur didn't experience a massive resistence that everything he did was necessary. Indeed, the Ningen-sengen and the peaceful response of the Japanese people seem to suggest that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge MacArthur's theory.
(3)I think the real reason that there was no Japanese resistance was for two reasons. Firstly, the one given above, that the tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of American power towards the end of the war. Secondly, the Japanese had been fighting a perpetual war against many major powers for well over 15 years, not to mention that they had to quell quite a few insurrections. The people were exhausted, and the most militant die-hards were either dead already, saw the signs on the wall, or were in allied custody (the high command in particular) by the end of the war. Moreover, the response by the Japanese to democratic reforms was quite enthusiastic, and the Japanese handled the daily humiliation of the occupation considerably well, which consisted of affronts far more serious than having their Emperor admit that he is human. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Did you read the links? Had the Emperor supported the die-hards millions of women and chilren would also have fought the occupation. In the mind-set at the time dying with honor was preferred to living with dishonor(more on this later.) Some soldiers may have turned to the black market, but I never said ALL Japanese merely the majority. I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of the Japan at that time to die for its Emperor. Japan was willing to negotate surrender earlier on one condition that the Emperor keep his throne. Interestingly enough that was the ONLY condition that was non-negotatable. Again it points to the importance of the Emperor.
2. I understand that. But Hirohito had already told his people not to resist. Conditioned as they were to obeying their Emperor regardless of his proclaimnation of his divinity... Some questions to ask yourself Anyway this was just after the war. How many Japanese had radios and how many were listening at that time? And of those few, how many believed it or thought it was just an American trick?
3. It couldn't be that Hirohito told his people not to resist?
Let's look at your reasons. You say that the "tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of America power towards the end of the war."
This theory though has a huge hole in it. Long before the Americans dropped the bomb, the Japanese forces were being driven from one occupied territory after another. In the end they were hemmed in into their island after suffering a number of quite massive defeats (Midway for one). That would have contradicted such tenets sufficently. Yet the die-hards were conscripting millions of women and children to fight with bamboo spears for the defense of the nation. The majority were prepared to fight and die.
Even the die-hards could see that the battle was lost, yet they were prepared to fight and die with honor. It took the personal intervention of their "god" to tell them to stop. Same goes for the Japanese people.
In the end we will never know who is right, but it's an interesting exchange of views nevertheless |
Apparently more interesting to us than the thread we are hijacking.
I do want to point out one thing. I agree with you about the necessity of the Emperor to instruct Japan to follow along in surrender. I don't believe I have argued above that Japan wouldn't have fought further had the Emperor not surrendered, and I do not believe that such an argument logically follows from anything else I've claimed. My argument is only that after the surrender, there probably would not have been any major insurrections if Hirohito had been tried and found guilty and been imprisoned (I'm not willing to say that killing him wouldn't have had an appreciable effect, that might have done the trick to inflame Japan).
The massive display of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the huge show of power at the surrender (airplanes filling the sky) is what I am talking about. |
Technically speaking we are not hijacking the thread merely following an offshoot of the thread...an offshoot which I might mention Sir that youbegan. 
As for inflaming Japan the disgrace and massive "loss of face" for the nation of having their Emperor going on trial, being found guilty and imprisoned (probably for life) seems like a pretty good reason to be inflamed. I believe you are employing too much of a Western mindset here. And remember too religion also plays a role. Most people who devoutly believe in a God would gladly give their lives to free him. I know many people who would, myself included.
As for the massive display of American power...even after Nagasaki the diehards wanted to fight on (literally to the last man) American power did not impress them all that much. They would rather have died then surrendered. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a number of generals or advisors committed suicide after Hirohito surrendered.
But to get back on topic there is one thing that I do agree with you on and that is Belefonte IS a "deliberate moron". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regarded as divine and the embodiment of the Japanese state, the Emporer supposedly "lived beyond the clouds," above politics and government. In fact, he was interested and well informed. While he did not interfere, he was often present at important meetings. |
Paper King theory supported...he didnt interfere in politics nor try to influence decisions. It wasnt until he saw firsthand the devistation of Tokyo that he stood up and became more than a paper king.
The events leading up to Japans involvement in WWII fully support the fact that Hirohito was a paper king....that he became more later is irrelevant to my post. Nice try though! |
What amuses me here is that the argument you make is very similar to the ones made by Americans at the Tokyo Tribunal that tried Tojo and the gang but did everything to give Hirohito a pass. In other words, here you are standing up for the American noble lie that Hirohito was not involved, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. |
The reason they gave Hirohito "a pass" is that they felt he was necessary in order to keep the country quiet. Installing a American regime would likely have touched off a massive insurgency that would have made today's insurgency in Iraq look like a children's playground.
The vast majority of Japanese devoutly believed in their Emperor's divinity. I have already illustrated examples of their ability to resist. Christians and Muslims are willing to die for their God, and there is no reason to assume the Japanese (most of them) would do otherwise. |
(1)Yes, I understand the theory. And I certainly think that MacArthur's decision was a safe one. That doesn't mean it was necessary. I don't think a massive insurgency was in order. Fascism could only justify itself through victory, or else it was in contradiction with itself. All the lies the Japanese were force fed (and so many gladly believed) came crashing down when soldiers painted as noble defenders of the Emperor started to scramble over army supplies and get them into the black market. And the Japanese had been acting Western enough since the success of the Meiji Restoration that an occupation by America was much more welcome than any of the alternatives.
(2)As for the belief in their Emperor's divinity, you do understand that in the New Year of 1946, Hirohito was forced to declare in a radio broadcast that he was not divine? Why, after that radio broadcast, did no Japanese assault the occupation authorities?
I agree this is all hindsight, and I am not against what MacArthur did. But its another thing to say that just because MacArthur didn't experience a massive resistence that everything he did was necessary. Indeed, the Ningen-sengen and the peaceful response of the Japanese people seem to suggest that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge MacArthur's theory.
(3)I think the real reason that there was no Japanese resistance was for two reasons. Firstly, the one given above, that the tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of American power towards the end of the war. Secondly, the Japanese had been fighting a perpetual war against many major powers for well over 15 years, not to mention that they had to quell quite a few insurrections. The people were exhausted, and the most militant die-hards were either dead already, saw the signs on the wall, or were in allied custody (the high command in particular) by the end of the war. Moreover, the response by the Japanese to democratic reforms was quite enthusiastic, and the Japanese handled the daily humiliation of the occupation considerably well, which consisted of affronts far more serious than having their Emperor admit that he is human. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Did you read the links? Had the Emperor supported the die-hards millions of women and chilren would also have fought the occupation. In the mind-set at the time dying with honor was preferred to living with dishonor(more on this later.) Some soldiers may have turned to the black market, but I never said ALL Japanese merely the majority. I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of the Japan at that time to die for its Emperor. Japan was willing to negotate surrender earlier on one condition that the Emperor keep his throne. Interestingly enough that was the ONLY condition that was non-negotatable. Again it points to the importance of the Emperor.
2. I understand that. But Hirohito had already told his people not to resist. Conditioned as they were to obeying their Emperor regardless of his proclaimnation of his divinity... Some questions to ask yourself Anyway this was just after the war. How many Japanese had radios and how many were listening at that time? And of those few, how many believed it or thought it was just an American trick?
3. It couldn't be that Hirohito told his people not to resist?
Let's look at your reasons. You say that the "tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of America power towards the end of the war."
This theory though has a huge hole in it. Long before the Americans dropped the bomb, the Japanese forces were being driven from one occupied territory after another. In the end they were hemmed in into their island after suffering a number of quite massive defeats (Midway for one). That would have contradicted such tenets sufficently. Yet the die-hards were conscripting millions of women and children to fight with bamboo spears for the defense of the nation. The majority were prepared to fight and die.
Even the die-hards could see that the battle was lost, yet they were prepared to fight and die with honor. It took the personal intervention of their "god" to tell them to stop. Same goes for the Japanese people.
In the end we will never know who is right, but it's an interesting exchange of views nevertheless |
Apparently more interesting to us than the thread we are hijacking.
I do want to point out one thing. I agree with you about the necessity of the Emperor to instruct Japan to follow along in surrender. I don't believe I have argued above that Japan wouldn't have fought further had the Emperor not surrendered, and I do not believe that such an argument logically follows from anything else I've claimed. My argument is only that after the surrender, there probably would not have been any major insurrections if Hirohito had been tried and found guilty and been imprisoned (I'm not willing to say that killing him wouldn't have had an appreciable effect, that might have done the trick to inflame Japan).
The massive display of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the huge show of power at the surrender (airplanes filling the sky) is what I am talking about. |
Technically speaking we are not hijacking the thread merely following an offshoot of the thread...an offshoot which I might mention Sir that youbegan.
As for inflaming Japan the disgrace and massive "loss of face" for the nation of having their Emperor going on trial, being found guilty and imprisoned (probably for life) seems like a pretty good reason to be inflamed. I believe you are employing too much of a Western mindset here. And remember too religion also plays a role. Most people who devoutly believe in a God would gladly give their lives to free him. I know many people who would, myself included.
As for the massive display of American power...even after Nagasaki the diehards wanted to fight on (literally to the last man) American power did not impress them all that much. They would rather have died then surrendered. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a number of generals or advisors committed suicide after Hirohito surrendered.
But to get back on topic there is one thing that I do agree with you on and that is Belefonte IS a "deliberate moron". |
Can we take up a whole page just by quoting an entire thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regarded as divine and the embodiment of the Japanese state, the Emporer supposedly "lived beyond the clouds," above politics and government. In fact, he was interested and well informed. While he did not interfere, he was often present at important meetings. |
Paper King theory supported...he didnt interfere in politics nor try to influence decisions. It wasnt until he saw firsthand the devistation of Tokyo that he stood up and became more than a paper king.
The events leading up to Japans involvement in WWII fully support the fact that Hirohito was a paper king....that he became more later is irrelevant to my post. Nice try though! |
What amuses me here is that the argument you make is very similar to the ones made by Americans at the Tokyo Tribunal that tried Tojo and the gang but did everything to give Hirohito a pass. In other words, here you are standing up for the American noble lie that Hirohito was not involved, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. |
The reason they gave Hirohito "a pass" is that they felt he was necessary in order to keep the country quiet. Installing a American regime would likely have touched off a massive insurgency that would have made today's insurgency in Iraq look like a children's playground.
The vast majority of Japanese devoutly believed in their Emperor's divinity. I have already illustrated examples of their ability to resist. Christians and Muslims are willing to die for their God, and there is no reason to assume the Japanese (most of them) would do otherwise. |
(1)Yes, I understand the theory. And I certainly think that MacArthur's decision was a safe one. That doesn't mean it was necessary. I don't think a massive insurgency was in order. Fascism could only justify itself through victory, or else it was in contradiction with itself. All the lies the Japanese were force fed (and so many gladly believed) came crashing down when soldiers painted as noble defenders of the Emperor started to scramble over army supplies and get them into the black market. And the Japanese had been acting Western enough since the success of the Meiji Restoration that an occupation by America was much more welcome than any of the alternatives.
(2)As for the belief in their Emperor's divinity, you do understand that in the New Year of 1946, Hirohito was forced to declare in a radio broadcast that he was not divine? Why, after that radio broadcast, did no Japanese assault the occupation authorities?
I agree this is all hindsight, and I am not against what MacArthur did. But its another thing to say that just because MacArthur didn't experience a massive resistence that everything he did was necessary. Indeed, the Ningen-sengen and the peaceful response of the Japanese people seem to suggest that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge MacArthur's theory.
(3)I think the real reason that there was no Japanese resistance was for two reasons. Firstly, the one given above, that the tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of American power towards the end of the war. Secondly, the Japanese had been fighting a perpetual war against many major powers for well over 15 years, not to mention that they had to quell quite a few insurrections. The people were exhausted, and the most militant die-hards were either dead already, saw the signs on the wall, or were in allied custody (the high command in particular) by the end of the war. Moreover, the response by the Japanese to democratic reforms was quite enthusiastic, and the Japanese handled the daily humiliation of the occupation considerably well, which consisted of affronts far more serious than having their Emperor admit that he is human. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Did you read the links? Had the Emperor supported the die-hards millions of women and chilren would also have fought the occupation. In the mind-set at the time dying with honor was preferred to living with dishonor(more on this later.) Some soldiers may have turned to the black market, but I never said ALL Japanese merely the majority. I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of the Japan at that time to die for its Emperor. Japan was willing to negotate surrender earlier on one condition that the Emperor keep his throne. Interestingly enough that was the ONLY condition that was non-negotatable. Again it points to the importance of the Emperor.
2. I understand that. But Hirohito had already told his people not to resist. Conditioned as they were to obeying their Emperor regardless of his proclaimnation of his divinity... Some questions to ask yourself Anyway this was just after the war. How many Japanese had radios and how many were listening at that time? And of those few, how many believed it or thought it was just an American trick?
3. It couldn't be that Hirohito told his people not to resist?
Let's look at your reasons. You say that the "tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of America power towards the end of the war."
This theory though has a huge hole in it. Long before the Americans dropped the bomb, the Japanese forces were being driven from one occupied territory after another. In the end they were hemmed in into their island after suffering a number of quite massive defeats (Midway for one). That would have contradicted such tenets sufficently. Yet the die-hards were conscripting millions of women and children to fight with bamboo spears for the defense of the nation. The majority were prepared to fight and die.
Even the die-hards could see that the battle was lost, yet they were prepared to fight and die with honor. It took the personal intervention of their "god" to tell them to stop. Same goes for the Japanese people.
In the end we will never know who is right, but it's an interesting exchange of views nevertheless |
Apparently more interesting to us than the thread we are hijacking.
I do want to point out one thing. I agree with you about the necessity of the Emperor to instruct Japan to follow along in surrender. I don't believe I have argued above that Japan wouldn't have fought further had the Emperor not surrendered, and I do not believe that such an argument logically follows from anything else I've claimed. My argument is only that after the surrender, there probably would not have been any major insurrections if Hirohito had been tried and found guilty and been imprisoned (I'm not willing to say that killing him wouldn't have had an appreciable effect, that might have done the trick to inflame Japan).
The massive display of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the huge show of power at the surrender (airplanes filling the sky) is what I am talking about. |
Technically speaking we are not hijacking the thread merely following an offshoot of the thread...an offshoot which I might mention Sir that youbegan.
As for inflaming Japan the disgrace and massive "loss of face" for the nation of having their Emperor going on trial, being found guilty and imprisoned (probably for life) seems like a pretty good reason to be inflamed. I believe you are employing too much of a Western mindset here. And remember too religion also plays a role. Most people who devoutly believe in a God would gladly give their lives to free him. I know many people who would, myself included.
As for the massive display of American power...even after Nagasaki the diehards wanted to fight on (literally to the last man) American power did not impress them all that much. They would rather have died then surrendered. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a number of generals or advisors committed suicide after Hirohito surrendered.
But to get back on topic there is one thing that I do agree with you on and that is Belefonte IS a "deliberate moron". |
Can we take up a whole page just by quoting an entire thread? |
Let's try, why don't we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Where is your information on the alleged Shackley-Powell link coming from? How and when did they meet, particularly given that Shackley was out of govt service long before Power was Reagan's national security advisor? How do you support this claim? |
Frankly it doesn't matter where facts come from. People who think this way are constantly committing the same genetic fallacy. I'm assuming Gopher that, rather than fall victim to this, you prefer to think along logical lines.
A fact IS a fact.
You've never heard of this connection? The lineage in fact goes back even further. Not surprisingly, Shackley's mentor was THIS lovely guy ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorzeny
Otto Skorzeny (June 12, 1908 - July 5, 1975) was a Obersturmbannfuhrer in the German Waffen-SS during World War II. He is best-known as the commando leader who rescued Benito Mussolini from imprisonment after his overthrow, and for his involvement in organizing one of ODESSA's most important base in Franco's Spain.
After Operation Greif, Otto Skorzeny was labelled "the most dangerous man in Europe".
Socrates, PLATO, Aristotle
Skorzeny, Shackley, Powell
Despite his retirement in 1979, controversy continued to surround Shackley over alleged involvement in the ��October Surprise�� of 1980, and also the "Iran-Contra�� affair of the mid eighties. |
I will not argue with you over this.
I merely state here that what you say above is possibly the most absurd collection of false allegations that I have seen yet on this board. All of what you say here. |
Well, you know what? I was wrong. My apologies. Seems i got my infamous high-ranking Nazis mixed up.
It wasn't Skorzeny who took Shackley under his wing: it was THIS guy.
General Reinhard Gehlen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen
From Gehlen to Shackley (member of the infamous Gehlen org. ), who in turn mentored Powell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Congratulations, Inspector, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Colin Powell almost once-could-maybe-have-been mentored by an almost-pseudo-ex-neo-Nazi-type person.
Astounding work!
How do you it?
Just remember folks- igotthisguitar, the guy who posts all the nutty political stuff, doesn't even bother to vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry. I know a little about the Gehlen Organization, a little about post-war intelligence in Germany and Eastern Europe, quite a bit about Shackley (public record stuff), and a thing or two about Powell.
And what Igotthisguitar is saying is nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Grotto wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Regarded as divine and the embodiment of the Japanese state, the Emporer supposedly "lived beyond the clouds," above politics and government. In fact, he was interested and well informed. While he did not interfere, he was often present at important meetings. |
Paper King theory supported...he didnt interfere in politics nor try to influence decisions. It wasnt until he saw firsthand the devistation of Tokyo that he stood up and became more than a paper king.
The events leading up to Japans involvement in WWII fully support the fact that Hirohito was a paper king....that he became more later is irrelevant to my post. Nice try though! |
What amuses me here is that the argument you make is very similar to the ones made by Americans at the Tokyo Tribunal that tried Tojo and the gang but did everything to give Hirohito a pass. In other words, here you are standing up for the American noble lie that Hirohito was not involved, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. |
The reason they gave Hirohito "a pass" is that they felt he was necessary in order to keep the country quiet. Installing a American regime would likely have touched off a massive insurgency that would have made today's insurgency in Iraq look like a children's playground.
The vast majority of Japanese devoutly believed in their Emperor's divinity. I have already illustrated examples of their ability to resist. Christians and Muslims are willing to die for their God, and there is no reason to assume the Japanese (most of them) would do otherwise. |
(1)Yes, I understand the theory. And I certainly think that MacArthur's decision was a safe one. That doesn't mean it was necessary. I don't think a massive insurgency was in order. Fascism could only justify itself through victory, or else it was in contradiction with itself. All the lies the Japanese were force fed (and so many gladly believed) came crashing down when soldiers painted as noble defenders of the Emperor started to scramble over army supplies and get them into the black market. And the Japanese had been acting Western enough since the success of the Meiji Restoration that an occupation by America was much more welcome than any of the alternatives.
(2)As for the belief in their Emperor's divinity, you do understand that in the New Year of 1946, Hirohito was forced to declare in a radio broadcast that he was not divine? Why, after that radio broadcast, did no Japanese assault the occupation authorities?
I agree this is all hindsight, and I am not against what MacArthur did. But its another thing to say that just because MacArthur didn't experience a massive resistence that everything he did was necessary. Indeed, the Ningen-sengen and the peaceful response of the Japanese people seem to suggest that we shouldn't be afraid to challenge MacArthur's theory.
(3)I think the real reason that there was no Japanese resistance was for two reasons. Firstly, the one given above, that the tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of American power towards the end of the war. Secondly, the Japanese had been fighting a perpetual war against many major powers for well over 15 years, not to mention that they had to quell quite a few insurrections. The people were exhausted, and the most militant die-hards were either dead already, saw the signs on the wall, or were in allied custody (the high command in particular) by the end of the war. Moreover, the response by the Japanese to democratic reforms was quite enthusiastic, and the Japanese handled the daily humiliation of the occupation considerably well, which consisted of affronts far more serious than having their Emperor admit that he is human. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Did you read the links? Had the Emperor supported the die-hards millions of women and chilren would also have fought the occupation. In the mind-set at the time dying with honor was preferred to living with dishonor(more on this later.) Some soldiers may have turned to the black market, but I never said ALL Japanese merely the majority. I think you seriously underestimate the willingness of the Japan at that time to die for its Emperor. Japan was willing to negotate surrender earlier on one condition that the Emperor keep his throne. Interestingly enough that was the ONLY condition that was non-negotatable. Again it points to the importance of the Emperor.
2. I understand that. But Hirohito had already told his people not to resist. Conditioned as they were to obeying their Emperor regardless of his proclaimnation of his divinity... Some questions to ask yourself Anyway this was just after the war. How many Japanese had radios and how many were listening at that time? And of those few, how many believed it or thought it was just an American trick?
3. It couldn't be that Hirohito told his people not to resist?
Let's look at your reasons. You say that the "tenets of racial superiority and national power that form the backbone of fascism were contradicted by the massive display of America power towards the end of the war."
This theory though has a huge hole in it. Long before the Americans dropped the bomb, the Japanese forces were being driven from one occupied territory after another. In the end they were hemmed in into their island after suffering a number of quite massive defeats (Midway for one). That would have contradicted such tenets sufficently. Yet the die-hards were conscripting millions of women and children to fight with bamboo spears for the defense of the nation. The majority were prepared to fight and die.
Even the die-hards could see that the battle was lost, yet they were prepared to fight and die with honor. It took the personal intervention of their "god" to tell them to stop. Same goes for the Japanese people.
In the end we will never know who is right, but it's an interesting exchange of views nevertheless |
Apparently more interesting to us than the thread we are hijacking.
I do want to point out one thing. I agree with you about the necessity of the Emperor to instruct Japan to follow along in surrender. I don't believe I have argued above that Japan wouldn't have fought further had the Emperor not surrendered, and I do not believe that such an argument logically follows from anything else I've claimed. My argument is only that after the surrender, there probably would not have been any major insurrections if Hirohito had been tried and found guilty and been imprisoned (I'm not willing to say that killing him wouldn't have had an appreciable effect, that might have done the trick to inflame Japan).
The massive display of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the huge show of power at the surrender (airplanes filling the sky) is what I am talking about. |
Technically speaking we are not hijacking the thread merely following an offshoot of the thread...an offshoot which I might mention Sir that youbegan.
As for inflaming Japan the disgrace and massive "loss of face" for the nation of having their Emperor going on trial, being found guilty and imprisoned (probably for life) seems like a pretty good reason to be inflamed. I believe you are employing too much of a Western mindset here. And remember too religion also plays a role. Most people who devoutly believe in a God would gladly give their lives to free him. I know many people who would, myself included.
As for the massive display of American power...even after Nagasaki the diehards wanted to fight on (literally to the last man) American power did not impress them all that much. They would rather have died then surrendered. I seem to remember reading somewhere that a number of generals or advisors committed suicide after Hirohito surrendered.
But to get back on topic there is one thing that I do agree with you on and that is Belefonte IS a "deliberate moron". |
Can we take up a whole page just by quoting an entire thread? |
Let's try, why don't we? |
OK, Bobster. I'm up for that. I don't give a shit about this thread either. I'm just along for the ride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
And what Igotthisguitar is saying is nonsense. |
This deserves repeating.
What Igotthisguitar is saying is nonsense.
Is there a post of his where this doesn't apply?
We could simply call it the igotthisguitar postulate.
It would work like this:
Whenever igotthisguitar posts something like:
| igotthisguitar, in his Lee Harvey Oswald thread, wrote: |
| Indeed, this seems to indicate Kennedy's driver WILLIAM GREER was in fact the one who delivered the final fatal head shot. |
We wouldn't have to go through the time-consuming and pointless task of showing him what a complete moron he is to be repeating here every idiotic thing he comes across on the internet; We could simply say "igotthisguitar postulate" and leave it at that.
No more wasting time, no more frustration that the signal is not penetrating all the noise.
And just remember folks- igotthisguitar, the guy who posts all the nutty political stuff, doesn't even bother to vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
This deserves repeating.
What Igotthisguitar is saying is nonsense.
Is there a post of his where this doesn't apply?
We could simply call it the igotthisguitar postulate. |
You've got my vote. Let's make a rubber stamp, and anytime he posts something in the future, we'll just stamp it with the "Igotthisguitar postulate" stamp...
And then we wouldn't really even need to read them anymore, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
This deserves repeating.
What Igotthisguitar is saying is nonsense.
Is there a post of his where this doesn't apply?
We could simply call it the igotthisguitar postulate. |
You've got my vote. Let's make a rubber stamp, and anytime he posts something in the future, we'll just stamp it with the "Igotthisguitar postulate" stamp...
And then we wouldn't really even need to read them anymore, right? |
Just because he has yet to post something useful, doesn't mean it isn't interesting. I think he brings a bit of flavour to the board, sort of like the wacky guy down the hall back in uni. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's just because you haven't paid attention to him for very long. Eventually he'll say something offensive and repulsive and his true colours will shine through. He pretends to be an intellectual dilettante but in reality his veneer of eccentricity hides a hate-monger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| He pretends to be an intellectual dilettante... |
Ummmmmm ... so what's a dilletante? My guess it's a little pickle you toss into the centre of the poker table before each deal.
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Just because he has yet to post something useful, doesn't mean it isn't interesting. I think he brings a bit of flavour to the board, sort of like the wacky guy down the hall back in uni. |
Thanks lao ...
I appreciate the angle portrayal you sugest.
Unlike some posters here, it further seems you clearly appreciate FLAVOUR! 
Some are ( for whatever reason ) intensely keen to keep things all too bland & boring. Zzzzzzzzz ...
Merely "One-Dimensional" Men i guess: hmmmmmm ...
Anyways, going back to this nasty business of Gehlen / Shackley / POWELL ala Socrates, Plato, Aristotle.
Ever hear of Operation Phoenix? Shackley & Powell both "played" pivitol roles 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Phoenix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Shackley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| He pretends to be an intellectual dilettante... |
Ummmmmm ... so what's a dilletante? My guess it's a little pickle you toss into the centre of the poker table before each deal. |
Teach English much?
No, I didn't think so.
Anything else you can't understand that you'd like to make fun of?
Maybe one of your 'students' can lend you a dictionary.
igotthisguitar postulate, and how!
And since you're a Canadian, remind me again: did you vote?
Remember how you implied that Zionists deliberately encouraged the Holocaust in order to ensure they would acheive their goals?
Remember how people got offended by your asinine remarks? Remember how people saw how hateful your ridiculous pet conspiracy theories could be?
You're not entertaining- you're loathesome.
You can't spell, probably can't teach, you certainly can't reason, and you don't bother to vote- you're completely useless.
I hope at least you've signed your donor card so your life won't be a complete waste.
And get that vasectomy NOW, before you have children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
