It’s me again, E.
I know I said I wouldn’t continue our discussion, but here it is turning out that I lied. I’ll
just say a bit more that I’ve been thinking about, beginning with my reactions to a couple
of things you said. (It’s inherently unfair to seize upon particular words or phrases used
in a long correspondence, given that deep reflection is not accorded every single word
one says, so that is a disclaimer in what follows. But, hey, we’re just talking here).
The "will of the people" can be manipulated, and was. Lies were promulgated by
local politicians and the Hearst press to stir the people into a deluded, cruel and ignoble
frenzy.
Not once, but twice, you dismiss “the people” as fools, dupes, or worse. If you stand by
these claims, E, then you can only be described as an intellectual elitist. Surely you do
not count yourself as one of “the people” who could be so easily misled and
manipulated. Elitists cannot be reasoned with, certainly not by one of the lowly
constituents of “the people” such as myself.
My posts are clear, and have made a few simple points more than once
You can say that again. Mucho repetition. Not only that, but you frequently
employ bold print, the cyberspace equivalent of shouting,, along with a
lot of !!!!!!. This tells me the following: If you and I were carrying on this
discussion on a Larry King panel, you would be shouting me down at every turn. If I was
speaking on a stage, and you were in the audience, you would be still be shouting me
down, but doing so by loudly chanting your favored mantras over and over. Likely they
would be printed on placards that you would hold up in my face. Do correct me if I am
wrong, E, but I believe this would be your versions of “discussion” and “free speech” if
views are being espoused contrary to your own.
If you want to convert the beliefs of others to your own, try more suggesting and less
haranguing. The soft sell always works better.
You took great umbrage at my use of the phrase “Chopped off their heads for the fun of
it.” My expression was off-handed, and not worthy of the kind of deep analysis you
subjected it to. These atrocities were not known until near the war’s end, so they had no
connection to the J-A internment years before. But you are correct that when they were
revealed, they greatly inflamed public opinion about the Japanese (this method of
dispatch was essentially peculiar to the Japanese Army). The phrase itself does curdle
the blood, just as “slit their throats” does with respect to our present-day terrorists.
Nonetheless, they did happen. Decapitation is not very practical on the battlefield, so
most of these incidents occurred among POWs held by the Japanese. In one particular
incident in the Philippines, 12 of our POWs were forced to dig a mass grave and were
then methodically decapitated one by one by sword (it was common for Japanese soldiers
to carry swords, in the Samurai tradition). Survivors of the Bataan Death March told
many stories of prisoners being decapitated for falling down, or bolting toward a spring
for water. When these reports began to surface late in the war, you can only imagine the
outrage and heartbreak felt by the parents or wives of men thought to be captives in the
Pacific theatre. The Japanese military, with their ancient codes of warfare, were utterly
contemptuous of enemy soldiers who surrendered rather than fighting to the death.
Japanese soldiers themselves were absolutely forbidden to surrender. Understandably,
they were not inclined to show pity for their captives. Peculiarly, there was also a more
practical reason for the beheading method of execution, namely that the far-flung
Japanese military always was conscious of the need to jealously hoard supplies, including
ammunition.
I don’t know how you feel about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but a reasonable guess would
be that you condemn our government for dropping atomic bombs. In general, the
American public then supported the bombings. With invasion of the Japanese home
islands impending, the militarist Japanese government of the time was publicly
commited to mass suicide under the slogan, “A 100 million to Die with Honor.” The
idea was to take as as many American lives with them as possible. Thus, a wide range of
suicide weapons had been produced for men and women of all ages, as well as children,
an example being bomb packs to be strapped on by children who would then throw
themselves in front of tanks. Estimates of American deaths in the invasion approximated
100,000 or more. And, yes, public opinion here was highly inflamed by the continuous
revelation of Japanese cruelty and atrocities. Japan was given every opportunity to
surrender, but only on an unconditional basis, as Germany had. That was the climate
under which the decision had to be made. A familiar slogan on the home front at the
time was, “The Only Good Jap Is a Dead Jap.” I doubt that many people of the time
particularly objected to it (which will not surprise you, given your estimation of the
capacity for thought on the part of “the people”). Still, I believe that what was primarily
on everyone’s mind at the time was simply to bring the war to the swiftest conclusion
possible as to save American lives, with scant interest in the means to that end. There
can be no doubt that the mood of the American public on V-J day was unbridled joy and
relief, absent of any bloodthirsty lust for revenge and retribution. Had Truman opted for
invasion instead of the bombs, and thus prolonged the war for perhaps as much as
another year, we are left to guess what the public reaction would have been. It would not
have been salubrious for HST or anyone else responsible for making that choice.
Circling back to the internment issue ... I want you to know that I don’t mind at all that
you use me for target practice in venting your feelings on the subject. That’s what this
thread stands for. I believe that in my post which led to this discussion, I stated that there
were excesses and injustices in the implementation of the program. And that’s how I
view it. What I won’t do is to condemn the individuals who made that decision in the
heat of wartime, especially not Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although I am a Republican
(surprise!), FDR stands alongside Abraham Lincoln in my mind and heart as the greatest
of our presidents. My parents were Republicans and FDR-haters, so during the war years
I had “Wilkie” and “Dewey” buttons pinned to my puny adolescent chest at election
times. So, sometime thereafter I did manage to think things out for myself. I don’t think
people today have any real appreciation of how dicey things were for us in 1941, not to
mention for the world, and I believe it was a God-send that Roosevelt and Churchill were
there to lead us through those times. Like all others before and after them, they made
their share of mistakes and misjudgments, but their place in history is secure. I will
always defend them when their decisions are second-guessed by late-comers who live in
a more comfortable and secure environment, largely thanks to them.
No hard feelings,
JC |
