To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (30796 ) 2/15/1999 7:27:00 AM From: nihil Respond to
A little symplistic. McArthur had a civiliqn staff who wrote a constitution that provided for democracy and protected many rights, including equality for women which is a bit beyond ours. The Japanese leadership agreed to it, think they could easily replace it when they were back in power. They aren't and they haven't. The most important thing about Japan's constitution is that it banned warfare except in defense of its homeland, and banned atomic weapons.
IMO, the reason the Japanese constitution "works" is that Japan is a giant conspiracy to ignore the law. When someone actually goes to work to enforce rights, it works. There are a few dedicated lawyers who struggle to establish the justice that the American political scientists and officers wrote into law.
As to the atomic bombing of China, you must check the records of the AEC to see how many bombs and materials there were in 1950. Recall the the Republican Congress has slashed the military budgets to the bone and we lacked combat ready divisions to deploy to Korea. The Marines didn't have a division in June 1950 but landed in Division force that fall at Inchon, liberated Seoul and were creamed on the East Coast in
November. Indian diplomats warned that China would intervene, and "volunteers" were captured early on but Mac said he'd have the boys home by Christmas and he ignored the field intelligence that the Chinese would attack. When the 8th Army collapsed in the West and largely bugged out and the 7th Division was creamed and the 1stMarDiv (reinforced) attacked in a new direction MacArthur wanted to bomb Manchuria widening the war even more.
I don't know of the intelligence assessments of the time, but Mao had guaranteed NK, and Stalin had called for reason, but even with the limited bombs and delivery that Stalin had, an attack on China, I believe would have been met by a walse through Europe by USSR (no NATO forces yet). Too uncertain a chance. My comrades who died in Korea were very brave because they were led by an uncertain trumpet. In retrospect, we should have bluffed ourselves to world hegemony in 1945. but American people and soldiers were not ready for that. We should have strengthened Europe far earlier. We should have somehow found something to support in China other than Chiang. I happen to believe the Marshall plan could have worked. The Chicoms were desperate and USSR wasn't very interested. But it was politically impossible. During the Korean War we knew we were fighting people just like our allies, and almost everyone hated the idea. The idea of fighting the Chinese people for whose peace we had entered World War II was bitter indeed. We referred to them as "those people over there"
We had to fight them and their leadership, but we were not taught to hate them.
People who study history must abandon their predispositions if they are to learn. On each side there are moderates and haters. On each side there are those who think of what the eventual peace must be. Some of the most dangerous enemies become the most reliable friends. Some of the most needed allies become enemies to peace. Bridges need not be burned to keep one's troops from retreating. They can allow the bringing up of reinforcement. Retreat is not always a disaster. He who fights and runs away, may live to fight another day. But he who is in battle slain, will never live to fight again. Admittedly, I'd rather be found dead with a bullet in my heart, than with a bullet in my back. but all in all it makes very little difference to me or to my loved ones. I suppose cowards are loved as much by their friends than are heroes -- it just takes more courage on their parts.
