…What really happened was that the United States had begun to treat Japan with antipathy and this over time was reciprocated. The London Naval Reduction Agreement of 1930, for example, insisted that Japan be allowed to build a navy of only 60 percent of the size of the British and American fleets (the same percentage allotted to France). This offended Japanese pride. Japan had been an ally of Britain and if Japan had fought on the other side in 1914, the Central Powers would have won the First World War. Japan also was an industrialized and crowded archipelago nation off the coast of a continent, just like Britain, and it was the existence of the British Empire that was offered to justify its larger fleet.
The treaty provided no check on rearmaments. Weimar Germany did all it could to cheat on the Versailles Treaty and Japan quietly broke the London Naval Reduction Agreement. All these attempts to limit the armaments of these powerful nations did was anger their people.
The Japanese viewed with horror the rise of Bolshevism. For a society built upon proper social behavior and reverence for the past such as Japan’s, the crude and brutal regime run by the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, by its embrace of the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx and the forced subjugation of all the nations of the world under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” presented a grave moral danger.
When the United States recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and the influence of American communists in our government grew, our attitude towards Japan changed. The machinations of covert Marxists in America led us to create enemies in Nationalist China and in Imperial Japan. While Japan and China may have had intractable problems, one thing is clear: Soviet agents in America worked hard to make sure that we reached no understanding with Japan.
Happy New Year
Thank you for your visit to Pacific Wrecks during the past year. As 2011 comes to a close, I am proud to share a very special story with you, and appeal to users to make a donation to help our mission of preserving the history of the Pacific War. Stay tuned for many new surprises upcoming in 2012. Be sure to visit: PacificWrecks.com | Facebook Pacific Wrecks | Twitter Pacific Wrecks
2nd Lt. Ed Fitchett
Born in Poughkeepsie, NY Fitchett developed an interest in photography and movie cameras at a young age. After high school, he attended Cornell University, and served with the US Army in the Philippines. Postwar, he was the commander of a POW Camp in Manila, explored the Philippines and repatriated Japanese prisoners back to Taiwan, Korea and Japan.
Fitchett’s Color 16mm Footage
Fitchett recorded 16mm color films in the Philippines and Japan during 1945-1946. Transferred to DVD, his films are now available for the first time, including color footage of Philippine Independence on July 4, 1946.
[ Read Associated Press Article | Order Now ]
What ended World War II?
For nearly seven decades, the American public has accepted one version of the events that led to Japan’s surrender. By the middle of 1945, the war in Europe was over, and it was clear that the Japanese could hold no reasonable hope of victory. After years of grueling battle, fighting island to island across the Pacific, Japan’s Navy and Air Force were all but destroyed. The production of materiel was faltering, completely overmatched by American industry, and the Japanese people were starving. A full-scale invasion of Japan itself would mean hundreds of thousands of dead GIs, and, still, the Japanese leadership refused to surrender.
But in early August 66 years ago, America unveiled a terrifying new weapon, dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a matter of days, the Japanese submitted, bringing the fighting, finally, to a close.
On Aug. 6, the United States marks the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing’s mixed legacy. The leader of our democracy purposefully executed civilians on a mass scale. Yet the bombing also ended the deadliest conflict in human history.
In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa – a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara – has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com …