漁夫의 이것저것; Juvenile delinquency

  제 홈페이지의 이곳(여기는 한글이지만, 영역도 있습니다)을 보고 어느 분이 메일을 보내 왔습니다.

Mr L.Y,

  I'm just writing you after reading your piece on Kobayashi and the Right-wing in Japan. 
  I agree with many of your assertions, however I disagree with your characterisation of Japan being 'saved' by the atomic bomb.
  This act by the United States constitutes a waqr crime against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as surely as the Japanese governments actions in Korea, China and throughout Asia and the Pacific.  The U.S was no less guilty of asserting it's imperialist interests than Japan.
  That is why it finally decided to enter the war in Europe and incited and awaited the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour as a pretext to engage itself in the Pacific with popular support. It was not about Freedom or Democracy, although that is what many ordinary U.S citizens believed. This is illustrated in the cynical carveup of your own country in the leadup to the 'coldwar' confrontation.
  The defeat of Japan was assured, especially as they were expecting the Soviet Union to drive them from Manchuria.
  The detonation of TWO atomic bombs over LARGE, DENSELY POPULATED cities was a demonstration to the Soviet Union of America's new super-weapon.
  I refer you to these articles published 2 years ago on the World Socialist Website.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a06.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a08.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a09.shtml
I hope you find them informative.

Kind regards,

  ========================================================================================

  저는 이렇게 답을 썼습니다.  제 형편없는 영어 솜씨가 역력하지만 이거 또 한역하자니 무지 짜증이 나는군요.

 ==========================

  Thanks for your opinion about my article, and pleased that you consent to me in main point to Japanese right wings.

  The point which can be debated is whether to justify using A-bomb.  My standpoint is ; 1. realistic, 2. at THE time when the USA leaders should decide, 3. weighing the possible victims in both the case.

 

 I. Realistic view

  Can you agree my statement war should be ended early ASAP even if necessary?  I think it is far from wise to extend the wartime and to increase the victims - it's totally of no use.  Then, why should USA delay the end of war by not using A-bomb?  Surely the victims would be more than doubled or tripled, and more could be.  Would it be wiser?  I cannot find any difference between the death due to A-bomb and the one by 'traditional' weapons. 

  One more; this A-bomb case is different from the toxic gases case in WWI because BOTH THE SIDES were able to make the toxic gases - it could not be 'the decisive power' for finishing the war.  However, A-bomb could be. 

 

 II. Situation; Making decision of USA leaders

  Of course we can use informations of BOTH the sides on WWII (especially pacific war).  And we know the Japanese situations - nearly desparate.  USA heads knew it - only matter of time.

  ONLY MATTER OF TIME!  I think it is most common trap for not only 'students of history' like us but also the professional historians.  I agree to it, but it can never tell how much people should be dead IN THE TIME.  I cannot understand why USA leaders should be blamed that they chose the best potential way in order to finish the cruel war both to USA and to Japan.

  Moreover, as far as I know, no historical fact can support the assumption that Japan would surrender before (or without) A-bomb.  Even though there is debate whether Potsdam declaration is best way to get surrender of Japan, heads of Japan(Suzuki Kantarou) surely said "There is no way but 'mokusashu' it and keep fighting"  [ I can partly understand Japanese words - 'mokusashu' means 'neglect'. ]  What could USA leaders do next?  For them, lives of Americans ARE far more important than those of Japanese and it's natural.  Cruel?  It's war, and historically there was no war without cruelty. 

 

 III. 'What if not A-bomb' ; rational logics about historical facts

  I can know you read my article; how many casualties could occur without A-bomb?  It is very difficult to evaluate, but can be done with credibility.  The way Japanese troops fight was certainly next to hell not only to Americans but also Japanese civilians - Sipan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima cases brutally proved it.  For more authority I can recommend 'What if 2' edited by Robert Cowley(2001 American Historical publications.  Chapter 22 is titled 'Divided land, Japan', written by Richard B. Frank).

  I can show you the conclusion and possible tactics of USA leaders at the time;

  1. Olympic operation

    - for 1/3 of Kyushu battle, American casualty 140,000~527000(death 32,700~147,500)

    - Japanese casualty expected after casualty rate of Okinawa ; 580~630 thousands death

       (surely underestimated.  Total casualties would be more than 2 times above)

  2. Naval siege and air bombing (option; Soviet invasion to Hokkaido and north Honshu)

    - See mining and railway destruction was planned on a large scale after Aug. 1945.

    - Result expected ; about a half of Japanese people in Honshu should go to country for provisions.

      [ may 1946 ; in Tokyo, only 1042 kcal can be supplied a person without more destruction of rails

        and see mines.  1024 kcal was far below minimum recommended level - we can imagine more

        six months of wartime could nearly annihilate Japanese peoples. ]

 

  A-bomb is uncomparably better option than any other way.

  You can think I am very bloodthirsty or extremely cold-minded.  But war is dirty and cruel, and this cruel logic is unavoidable in war.  And, I believe to save more people is very important in wartime decision-making. 

[ Another way ; trial for testing A-bomb in very high altitude in front of Japanese governers was suggested in USA. But it was not accepted - the anticipated effect of 'only huge fire without casualty' was very uncertain. ] 

[ other reason ; Really Soviet army came to North Korea even after Japan surrendered, so many Koreans were doomed to death in Korean war and set under Stalinian ruling now.  Soviet would invade Manchuria and Hokkaido, nothern Honshu, perhaps most of Korea if Japan did not surrender at Aug. 1945. 

Do you think Stalinian communist governing was better solution to Korean and Japanese people?  ]

 

 IV. Who was the first nation to use A-bomb

  Simple logic ; Hiroshima is a warning of A-bomb power to mankind.

    USA - civilian control.  Soviet - dictational control.

   Would Soviet's example of using A-bomb be better for mankind? ^^

 

 V. Pearl harbor attack, etc.

 You said "The U.S was no less guilty of asserting it's imperialist interests than Japan.  That is why it finally decided to enter the war in Europe and incited and awaited the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour as a pretext to engage itself in the Pacific with popular support. "

 

 Oh, we can suppose imperialism was the nature of Japan AND USA - maybe.  But, only itself, not more.  Why?  Japan FIRST attacked Pearl harbor (without declaration of war), so decisively USA is morally superior to Japan.  And, Germany declared war to USA first, and USA not after its ship was sunken by U-boat at Atlantic sea before pearl harbor attack.  Your assertion is not exact.

  Moreover, your 'awaiting Japanese attack' hypothesis is, unfortunately, groundless.  Historical facts showed it was one of the most terrible mistake done by USA information services, similar to 9.11 case.

 

 VI. Japanese effort for making A-bomb

  Nishina Yoshio, leading nuclear scientist in Japan, was head of Japanese manhattan project.  Luckily it failed.

  If succeeded, what will occur?  I cannot think Japanese would reserve it for morality.  

  Youngrok Lee

 ==================================================

  '위험한 무기고, 사상자 수가 엄청나니 당시에 사용하면 안되는 일이었다'는 생각만 하는군요.  재래식 무기로만 싸운 독일-소련 전쟁의 희생자가 최소 2000만이라는 사실은 깜박하셨는지.
  원자탄으로 70만이 죽는 것과, 총으로 최소 100~200만이 죽는 것 중 어느 편이 낫습니까?  원자탄은 순간적이고 총은 서서히 오랜 시간 동안 죽이니까 괜찮단 말인가요?  더군다나 원자탄으로 인한 죽음의 약 1/3은 순간적이기 때문에 고통을 느낄 사이도 없습니다만, 총은 상당수 그렇지 못합니다. 

  전쟁이 났으면 희생자를 줄이고 빨리 끝내는 게 제일 좋은 선택 아닙니까?  제 영작 연습 목적으로는 괜찮았을지 모르지만 이런 질문에 대답하고 있어야 한다니 영 찜찜하군요.

  참고; http://fischer.egloos.com/2606293

  漁夫