Why no attacks in Japan after WWII?

[Al Kufr]

Why do we have attacks in Iraq and not in Japan after WWII?

Does anybody know of any study which explains why there were no attacks against Americans after WWII ? My conclusion is that there weren't any attacks for two reasons, the Emperor and the Japanese Culture.

1.Emperor Hirohito:

The japanese thought he was god and since he officially ended the war people went along and followed his orders.

"On July 27, 1945, the Allied powers requested Japan in the Potsdam Declaration to surrender unconditionally, or destruction would continue. However, the military did not consider surrendering under such terms, partially even after US military forces dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, and the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan on August 8.

On August 14, however, Emperor Showa finally decided to surrender unconditionally. "

"When Emperor Hirohito made his first ever broadcast to the Japanese people on 15 August 1945, and enjoined his subjects 'to endure the unendurable and bear the unbearable', he brought to an end a state of war - both declared and undeclared - that had wracked his country for 14 years. Nearly three million Japanese were dead, many more wounded or seriously ill, and the country lay in ruins.

To most Japanese - not to mention those who had suffered at their hands during the war - the end of hostilities came as blessed relief."

Only small groups of Japanese did not stop fighting, but they weren't even in japan, they were overseas in places like the Philippines .

"Other, smaller groups continued fighting on Guadalcanal, Peleliu and in various parts of the Philippines right up to 1948. But the most extraordinary story belongs to Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, who continued fighting on the Philippine island of Lubang until 9 March 1974 - nearly 29 years after the end of the war."

"After early attempts to flush them out had failed, humanitarian missions were sent to Lubang to try to persuade Lieutenant Onoda and his companions that the war really was over, but they would have none of it. Even today, Hiroo Onoda insists they believed the missions were enemy tricks designed to lower their guard. As a soldier, he knew it was his duty to obey orders; and without any orders to the contrary, he had to keep on fighting."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/jap...render_01.shtml

2. Japanese culture:

The influence of Taoism and Confucianism which emphasize harmony and social order have had a major influence on japan. Going against what the Emperor ordered would have gone against their entire culture.

This is why i think we didn't have problems with Japan during the occupation. And the reasons we do have problems in iraq is because the major motivators for the enemy are religious, tribal or nationalistic.

[MisterSwig]

Why do we have attacks in Iraq and not in Japan after WWII?

Does anybody know of any study which explains why there were no  attacks against Americans after WWII ?  My conclusion is that there weren't any attacks for two reasons, the Emperor and the Japanese Culture.

The Emperor and his cabinet were prepared to send millions of kamikazees to their deaths in a final battle for the home islands. But, after the atomic bombs, he must have realized that America had another plan for defeating Japan: utter annihilation from the sky. Kamikazees were of little use against such a tactic.

After the Emperor and his cabinet agreed to surrender, his family and representatives traveled throughout the country to ensure military commanders that it was the Emperor's will to surrender. For the most part, troublemakers were dealt with before the American occupation.

Nothing of this sort happened in Iraq. We never declared war on Iraq. We never threatened them with utter annihilation. We never made their kamikazees (terrorists) obsolete. Thus, they are still under the impression that they are fighting that final battle. They still believe that they have a chance, because we are too cowardly to waste their cities from the sky.

[argive99]

Nothing of this sort happened in Iraq. We never declared war on Iraq. We never threatened them with utter annihilation. We never made their kamikazees (terrorists) obsolete. Thus, they are still under the impression that they are fighting that final battle. They still believe that they have a chance, because we are too cowardly to waste their cities from the sky.

Yaron Brook has made this point repeatedly. He also made an intersting point that shortly after Bagdad was taken and American victory was evident, Iraqis were demanding water and electricity be provided to them. He expressed incredulity at how a war can be fought this way, with the conquered making demands on their conquerors. He raised the point that this did not happen in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in post WWll Japan. This is what happens when the only way you can justify fighting a war is to bring "freedom" to the enemy instead of threatening them with death and destruction.

As much as I love America, I don't believe that I could serve in her Armed Forces. My stomach would turn with the alturistic crusades that I would be commanded to risk my life on. In all probability I would spit on the Geneva Convention and shoot everything in my path not wearing an American Flag. I would be sent to Guantanamo and be locked away forever. Al Queda terrorists would be released before I would ever see the light of day. Such is the perversion of our time.

[punk]

Japan had been trying to surrender for a couple weeks prior to dropping the atomic bomb. The only demand was that the US not do away with the Emperor and the Imperial throne.

When the US finally got around to accepting the surrender, it met that demand.

The atomic bomb itself was irrelevant.

In fact by the end of the war there wasn't much left in Japan to bomb. The US had to deliberately not bomb a couple of cities so there would be something left to drop the atomic bomb on.

It was similar in Germany. There were a couple of major cities in Germany that were never bombed: Heidelberg, Regensburg, maybe another couple. Germany surrendered before they could drop the atomic bomb there.

[Citizen Publius]

Japan had been trying to surrender for a couple weeks prior to dropping the atomic bomb.

Where is it recorded that the United States military would not let Japan surrender? Who, on behalf of the Japanese government, approached who, on behalf of the American government, and was not allowed to surrender?

The atomic bomb itself was irrelevant.

It was estimated that the United States military would take 1,000,000 casualties in an all out assault on the Japanese mainland. Is this figure incorrect? If it is, then how many more dead Americans was it morally correct to sacrifice? One? Ten? One Hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? More?

[tommyedison]

Japan had been trying to surrender for a couple weeks prior to dropping the atomic bomb.  The only demand was that the US not do away with the Emperor and the Imperial throne.

When the US finally got around to accepting the surrender, it met that demand.

The atomic bomb itself was irrelevant.

The dropping of the atom bomb was and still is a highly controversial decision. No sane president would have dropped the bomb if Japan had been willing to surrender.

Do have any references for this statement?

[Inspector]

Do have any references for this statement?

Howard Zinn? Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore? The more I see Punk's vision of history, the more I think that he must have learned it from the looney left.

[Al Kufr]

Howard Zinn? Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore? The more I see Punk's vision of history, the more I think that he must have learned it from the looney left.

No, he sounds more like a libertarian to me, maybe even an anarchist.

[punk]

The dropping of the atom bomb was and still is a highly controversial decision. No sane president would have dropped the bomb if Japan had been willing to surrender.

Do have any references for this statement?

It wasn't nearly that controversial in 1945. It was widely viewed as proper revenge for Pearl Harbor. This is my father's recollection things, so take it with that grain of salt.

The fact of the matter is that more people died in many conventional bombing raids prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden among others). The only difference was that the atomic bomb could destroy cities much more efficiently.

The atomic bomb only started really getting a bad reputation when people began to appreciate the effects of radiation, and how this caused illness and a lingering death well into the future. Once it became clear that one effect of atomic bombs was to poison the survivors, then it began to be classed with chemical weapons and so on.

The fact was by the end of WWII in Japan the US was already bombing cities to oblivion at will and daily without the Japanese being able to do anything about it.

The real issue was that Truman wanted to be able to impress Stalin with the new device to help smooth over differences in the post-WWII world order. The atomic bombing had more to do with US-Soviet diplomacy than with US-Japanese diplomacy.

See Richard Rhodes: "Making of the Atomic Bomb", and "Dark Sun". Also that recent documentary interviewing McNamara. I've read some other books on this subject, but the titles are eluding me at the moment.

[Al Kufr]

The real issue was that Truman wanted to be able to impress Stalin with the new device to help smooth over differences in the post-WWII world order.  The atomic bombing had more to do with US-Soviet diplomacy than with US-Japanese diplomacy.

Instead of trying to impress Stalin he should have dropped a bomb on Moscow.