As we all know, Nintendo's history stretches back quite some time - over 125 years, in fact. The Kyoto-based firm started out manufacturing playing cards and moved into other forms of entertainment - including toys and eventually video games - much later on.
However, Nintendo might not have reached such an advanced age were it not for the efforts of US Secretary of War Henry Stimson who, in 1945, convinced a committee of American military generals, army officers and scientists that Kyoto should be disregarded as a military target for the new atomic bomb.
The bomb itself was seen by some as the only way to bring World War II to a close; as the war in the east rolled on it became increasingly clear that the Japanese were not going to give up easily, and that many more American lives would be expended trying to secure a surrender. The atomic bomb was seen as a means of ending the conflict quickly, showing the Japanese that further fighting was simply impossible. Weeks before the bomb named "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima, Kyoto was top of the list of targets and Nagasaki - which would be bombed shortly after Hiroshima - wasn't even mentioned.
The reason Kyoto was rated so highly as a target was its status as Japan's ancient capital and its intellectual center; it was believed that the people of the city would be more receptive to what the bomb signified than the inhabitants of other cities.
However, in June 1945 Stimson had Kyoto removed from the target list, arguing that it was a place of "cultural importance" and not a viable military target. The military didn't agree and it wasn't until July that Stimson finally got his way by petitioning president Truman. Stimson and the president seemed to concur on the matter; Stimson wrote in his diary that:
...he was particularly emphatic in agreeing with my suggestion that if elimination was not done, the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible during the long post-war period to reconcile the Japanese to us in that area rather than to the Russians.
Of course, in sparing Kyoto Stimson condemned the residents of other Japanese cities to a terrible death - and it is not to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki lacked cultural importance, either. It has been claimed by some historians that Stimson's decision was fuelled not just by a desire to prevent the Japanese allying with Communists against the US, but also by a deep personal affection for the city of Kyoto; he is known to have visited the area several times in the 1920s when he was the governor of the Philippines, and some believe that he and his wife even spent their honeymoon there.
Whatever the reason for Stimson's decision to save Kyoto from complete destruction, one thing is clear - had he allowed the American military to get their way then the video game landscape of the modern era would be almost unrecognizable. Not only would the bomb have likely destroyed Nintendo's original headquarters, it would have had potentially untold consequences on the lives of many in the city, including parents and ancestors for leading figures such as Shigeru Miyamoto.
By saving Kyoto, Stimson unknowingly saved Nintendo, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Super Mario and every other property the company has created over the past few decades - and in turn those actions helped save the video game industry itself. Nintendo is credited as restoring public faith in "TV games" after the video game crash of 1983, and with it the sector certainly would have taken longer to recover, and perhaps may have developed in an entirely different direction had the Famicom / NES not arrived on the market.
Of course every historical choice has consequences that ripple through the ages - who knows how many artists, scientists and writers were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of whom could have given so much to humanity had they survived - but there can be little doubt that Stimson's actions ensured that Nintendo endured, and was recently able to clock up 125 years of history. For that reason alone, he unwittingly made himself a key figure in the story of the famous firm.
Thanks to the 17-bit newsletter for bringing this piece to our attention!
[source filfre.net, via bbc.co.uk]
Comments (134)
Mind. BLOWN. Still, war is one of the dirtiest, most evil things to come from humanity. No one on any part of this Earth deserves such a fate...
So to summarize your article, we should be happy that 200,000 people died so you could play Super Mario Brothers. No loss of life should ever be compared or connected to anything so trivial.
This was a wee bit insensitive guys :/
The atomic bombs were never needed. Japan had offered unconditional surrender before we dropped the first bomb.
@commanderlynch agreed. But they must make monies somehow, and what is better way to do that than clickbait?
@Dave24 @EverythingAmiibo @commanderlynch Did any of you even bother to read the piece in its entirety? Probably not, because it's presumably easier to shout "clickbait lolz" than, you know, actually read the words.
I quote:
"Of course, in sparing Kyoto Stimson condemned the residents of other Japanese cities to a terrible death - and it is not to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki lacked cultural importance, either."
"...every historical choice has consequences that ripple through the ages - who knows how many artists, scientists and writers were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of whom could have given so much to humanity had they survived..."
@CTMike The "facts" are that if he hadn't made that choice, Nintendo wouldn't exist.
How exactly is that offensive to anyone with a brain?
I read the whole article and it isn't offensive nor insensitive.
Just a "what would have happened if..." article. Trivial, yes, offensive or insensitive, no.
Slow news day huh?
@Olmectron It's the trivialising that makes such a piece insensitive in my eyes.
@Damo I wasn't referring to that, I mean the fact that you dismissed the use of the bomb as necessary "The bomb itself was seen by some as the only way to bring World War II to a close" "many more American lives would be expended trying to secure a surrender.". It's a huge debate among many people with many reasons that it should or shouldn't have happened. Not voicing the many (maybe even majority) people who would oppose the use (retroactively as well) of any nuclear weapons regardless of the 'need' is just silly.
Bittersweet story but nonetheless I find the atomic bombings in Japan to be disgusting. Not only did those bombs barely kill ANY military soldiers but they killed MANY innocent people that weren't even a part of the war. Cowardly display of power.
@Damo
Adding two footnotes to an offensive article does not negate the overall meaning. What Nintendo has or hasn't done after the bombings is meaningless. All that matters are the lives that have been affected by them. Not some bit of entertainment.
@Damo But.... it's so much easier to say you're offended than it is to understand why, or the definition of the term!
As an American, other than the Civil War, dropping those bombs was the darkest part of my history. Nobody wants to think about it all, much less in how it might have related to our friggin' video games. I'll give you that the article was laid out in a manner to be as inoffensive as possible, but it is still just completely unnecessary.
This is a very interesting story. Its conclusions are a bit far fetching though. Kyoto had more than a million residents at the time. An atomic bomb on Kyoto would not have guaranteed that there will be no Nintendo or that guys like Miyamoto wouldn't exist.
@CTMike @Damo And yes, sidestepping america's global responsibility for this terrible action with their 'noble' decision to kill tens of thousands in a less significant site is inconsiderate and seeing history through ally tinted glasses :/
The Japanese had long offered surrender, at the condition that the Emperor and the country's administrative structure would be protected. I wonder how Americans would have reacted if they had been losing and would have been forced into Shintoism and to swear obedience to the Chrysanthemum Throne. Many would have probably preferred to keep up the fight.
In summary, what should be celebrated here is the hypotheses that this man might have made one of the most horrific war crime in the history of Mankind a little bit less... Nintendo-related?
What a hero...
@Damo, I still think it's a little insensitive, even if you do bring to light the cultural loss from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I can hardly thank the man for having any sort of hand in city annihilation, nor can I blame him. It doesn't matter what cities he chose, it just feels weird seeing an article asking me to praise him for his actions, when hundreds of thousands of people still died as a result.
@commanderlynch no, to summarize, because of a persons intervention, their target changed, and history went as we know. Had they followed their original plans, Japan's industry would be drastically different.
There's no mention of it being a good thing other people died. It's simply a war related coincidence that involves Nintendo.
A piece of trivia.
This article is really just how interesting one action one can do to change the course of history- this article isnt trying to be offensive, its just stating how different history could have been if the atomic bomb was dropped on Kyoto.
@Meowpheel Nice to know someone actually read the piece properly.
@commanderlynch Agreed.
Mr. Stimson didn't save Nintendo (or anyone really) he merely asked for another city to get bombed instead.
Even if Kyoto got nuked in place of Hiroshima, Japan would have surrendered anyway. I mean, it was an atomic bomb any country would surrender after that.
Would Miyamoto and the Nintendo of today never exist? Perhaps. Should we be thankful to Mr Stimson for "saving" a company he's never heard of? Hell no.
@Damo As a historian, this was an interesting read. Thanks for the new knowledge.
So scary how there's still so many Americans who believe the bombings were justified...
@Meowpheel
It doesn't matter if a bit of trivia was the point. Its a point that doesn't need to be made.
Arm chair generals: hindsight is 20/20
For those reacting to this news like an atomic bomb on their minds, well, history is provocative. War history doubly so; I guess stay off the Internet and protect your fragile knowledge of the world.
It's clear that the intent behind the article was simply as a way of examining the past and how minor things can affect the future, but the wording here really makes it hard to argue in favor of. The suggestion that Stimson saved people, and the implication that he should be remembered positively for that, is worrying to say the least. Mainly, I find the idea that we should be finding some kind of video game related silver lining in the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocents disquieting.
Ultimately, the article really should have been delivered with a bit more nuance considering the near-genocidal subject matter.
Really interesting. I can't believe people are getting upset over this. This is a well written article that should spur some thoughtful conversation and debate, not "Oh my gosh this is so insensitive what's wrong with you?!?!"
There's nothing insensitive about this article. Nowhere does it state that the bombs were the perfect choice or that it was a good thing Nintendo still survived at the cost of thousands of lives. It simply states how much a single decision can drastically change the course of history, and how those effects can stretch far from the subjects considered in making the decision. Obviously Stimson didn't decide to remove Kyoto from the list simply to save Nintendo. That said, it sounds like it was a wise decision, considering the bombs were going to be dropped somewhere. I don't think I can agree 100% with the bombings (And I also don't think anyone involved was %100 sure it was the right choice, either), but sometimes hard decisions have to be made and sometimes people have to offend others, and it comes down to which choice will spare more lives and protect freedom. If the bombs hadn't been dropped, perhaps the war would have continued and more lives be lost in the long run. There's just no way to tell really.
Yes, this is a touchy subject, but that doesn't immediately make it offensive or insensitive. People really need to learn to let themselves be offended so easily, and not to get so upset every time the tiniest things offend them.
@Yalaa That actually raises a good debate about the second bomb. Being dropped on Nagasaki. Did the US give Japan enough time to come together and agree to surrender before we dropped Fat Man on Japan? Its been awhile, but I think we gave them 3 days before we bombed Nagasaki, and that was only after the first two targets of Fat Man were called off in the middle of delivery because of weather and not having the visibility needed to bomb those cities. Nagasaki was the 3rd target partially because of weather, and partially because the US had already bombed most of the cities they had planned on bombing.
Back to the 3 Days though, we don't know if we gave the Japanese enough time to meet to agree to surrender. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
Edit: What I mean by meet is actually get together, talk and agree to surrender. It would take some time for a few of the men at that meeting to get to where it is held. Again, it has been a while, sorry for using specifics instead of exact details.
Oh stop being such wussies, the article isn't offensive, Damien was very careful with his words, and yeah a lot of people died, but a lot of people would have died on Kyoto too.
Good article, trivial, but good.
@mystman12
I mean, given the historical documents that we have access to now we DO know that it was the wrong decision and that Japan was already planning on surrendering prior to the bombs being dropped. Truman just wanted to show off his new toys at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and the beginning the Cold War.
@Damo Interesting article. Thanks. It's a difficult subject, but in my opinion you handled it well.
@mystman12 it's not well written. Like, at all.
It's offensive, poorly researched pile of sticks written by commie (which he himself confirmed by saying the only way of understanding this article is only his way and interpretation - it's borderline idiotic to even expect people to know "what author had in mind").
You must really be idiot to even claim something that this article tries to. There is not even one proof that he actually saved bideo games other than author implication, unless you really believe that Hiroshima is deserted to this day and not even one company came back to operation after bombing.
@Dave24 - please refrain from trying to circumvent the profanity filter. Thanks.
What horrible news. I don't care what people say, the Atomic Bombs were not justified in their use. Sure, maybe they were better than the alternative "to our interests" but there were other ways to use them than to bomb two large cities made up of mostly civilians.
If we wanted to show the ultimate might of the Atomic Bomb, dropping it off the coast, or having it detonate in the air, would have been just as effective. But no, we're "heroes" for "saving lives" by targeting cities. I guess it's true what they say, "history is written by the victors."
@Dave24
All the name calling in the world won't help your point, the facts are out there, why should we trust your interpretation?
@Damo I understand the reason why this article is made. But I think this would be ridiculous to assume that Nintendo wouldn't exist had the bomb happened. I mean, Japan even back then, had power so it would have been possible that they could have just moved to another situation before the bomb struck there.
You can't change history so its hard to assume things.....that's like saying had Atari not existed, Nintendo couldn't have made it today.
This is from the original Article mentioned at the end above by @Damo . I spent a lot of time Kyoto last year - it is one of my favourite cities in Japan. The legacy of the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are horrific - we should not forget this. -
"Hundreds of thousands of Kyoto residents would wind up owing their lives to Henry L. Stimson, a humane man tortured daily by the orders he had to issue as the American Secretary of War; never was there a Secretary of War who hated war more. In response to Stimson’s demand after the successful first test of the gadget in New Mexico, General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, reluctantly presented the Air Force’s list of planned targets to him, with Kyoto at the top. Stimson was horrified. Citing the proposed destruction of Kyoto as an unforgivable act from which Japan would never recover, Stimson, 77 years old and in poor health, faced down virtually the entire entrenched bureaucracy of the American military to demand that the first atomic bomb to be used in anger be dropped somewhere, anywhere else: “This is one time I’m going to be the final deciding authority. Nobody’s going to tell me what to do on this.” His stubborn stance resulted at last in Kyoto being stricken from the list by grumbling generals who would have been perfectly happy if its destruction really had been a death blow to the culture it symbolized, thank you very much. Of course, in saving hundreds of thousands of Kyoto residents Stimson was also consigning to death hundreds of thousands of others in Hiroshima. Such are the wages of war."
@Socar
Move before the bomb?
Yeah why didn't everybody do that; talk about a sadistic assumption.
@OptometristLime I was just trying to make a point that history can't be changed or modified so much.
Yeah, people died and I will respect that argument. But saying that had this bomb really took into effect, Nintendo wouldn't have existed is really being idiotic here.
If Fusajiro Yamauchi died there along with the then Nintendo staff, Nintendo could still happen because the Yamauchi family is huge and still is even now.
@cfgk24 Thanks, I probably should have highlighted that passage as it's basically the one which inspired me to write this piece in the first place.
@Dave24 "Written by a commie"
I'll be laughing about that all week!
@commanderlynch Not necessarily. The loss of any life is regrettable, but you have to look at the bigger picture like this article explains. In 1945, Japan had already declared war on the US by bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941. The US had been avoiding war for many years and at that time the Japanese military was pretty formidable, thinking themselves unbeatable. At the time Einstein (a pacifist) urged President Roosevelt to build the atomic bomb. He did this to prevent the loss of our soldiers, but admitted before his death that it was a mistake. I can't imagine that the decision was taken lightly by anyone involved, but bombing Japan ended a war that would have gone on likely much longer especially had Japan joined with Russia. The atomic bomb was a show of strength that would also show Germany what could ultimately happen in their country should the war not end.
So with the US already drawn into war by the Japanese, targeting them was inevitable. War is a terrible but sometimes necessary thing to protect the freedoms and peace we enjoy from the tyrants of the world. Had Stimson not petitioned directly to the President, Nintendo likely wouldn't exist, and Japanese culture might not have been passed down either. It does make you wonder how things would be 1) had Japan not entered into war with the US, and 2)If Japan still attacked us, but an atomic bomb was not used how things would be different now. I'm glad that Japanese relations are what they are now with the US and the world. But it does make you wonder how many other artists and other brilliant minds were lost in both Japan, Germany, Russia and the US.
A really interesting article @Damo. It is interesting how these large political acts have effects on seemingly disconnected areas of life and history, and their alternatives of time.
I'd say the point being made is more about how huge acts of history have huge ripple effects into aspects of life that are often not expected - and that the alternatives would produce entirely different outcomes.
@Dave24 Uh, this is journalism. The author is supposed to write from his own view and opinions. And there is nothing offensive here. He doesn't say "Gee, it sure is a good thing a different group of people were killed so that we get to play Super Smash Bros!" I will say, the word "save" in the article title probably isn't the best choice of words, but otherwise @Damo did his best to present an interesting, well thought out piece while simultaneously giving respect to those lost and simply pointing out just how much more of history can be affected by our decisions than we could ever realize.
Yes, there's no proof that, had Kyoto been bombed, Nintendo wouldn't exist, but I think it's safe to assume that would be the case. Maybe not, but what's the fun in writing about only what we know for 100% certainty? And while Kyoto would have been repopulated, whose to say Nintendo would have had a 100% chance of rebuilding? They, and all the people in the company, could have easily been wiped out then and there.
Again, I'm not thankful one group of people was killed over another so that Nintendo could exist. Both options were equally devastating, and I wish it could have been avoided. (I really don't know enough about the subject to form a proper opinion on if it was truly necessary, though.)
Like I said in my last comment, people need to learn to differentiate between someone simply talking about a sensitive subject and actually being offensive. There is nothing offensive here. Simply talking about the bombing isn't offensive in and of itself.
I'm pretty sure none of us were alive when these events happened. It doesn't help anyone to be retroactively offended decades after the fact whenever a tragedy is brought up.
@Damo I consider myself a student of history, and I thought this was an interesting read.
Omg my mind is blown! It's amazing how little political decisions can have a big affect!
@Damo Great article! I don't know why people are being so negative about it.
Good article, @damo.
Don't listen to the negativity- some people would rather forget history than learn about facts. Some get offended way too easily, but is important to stand by your work.
Very interesting read.
This does seem insensitive. A company not getting bombed is very insignificant compared to the number of people that died.
@mystman12 SS saved Asians. There is no denying that and there is also nothing offensive, right?
With the second sentence, I don't know what is it's purpose actually. "Maybe not, but what's the fun in writing about only what we know for 100% certainty?"
Well, there is no room for interpretation of this article.
@OptometristLime what @Socar said is as plausible as this "article".
Is it just me or is everyone too easily offended its just stupid as hell. Articles like these don't need to be posted if people can't handle the truth. It's all history anyway and history just always repeats itself if we don't learn from the past.
@MarthNintendo95 say that to african-americans. Oh, right, OFFENSIVE!!!
@flummerfelt what fact? HOW is this article a fact about saving Nintendo? Please, elaborate on that.
Hhhmmm, Nintendo fans do not have Henry Stimson to thank for saving Nintendo. He decided that slaughtering innocent people in another part of Japan would be a better target. I'm not sure this story was a good idea.
@Dave24 Nope, nothing offensive about that at all. If you say, "I'm glad Hitler commanded the killing of thousands of innocent people!", then yeah, that's pretty offensive, but stating "Hitler commanded the killing of thousands of innocent people." isn't, it's stating the facts. Similarly, as I have said twice now, this article nowhere states "It's a good thing one group of people was killed so that this other group with Nintendo in it could survive." It simply says that it's very possible, had the decision been made differently, Nintendo wouldn't exist, and the world as we know it, both in gaming and every other area of life, would be drastically different.
I remember a forum thread here talking about this maybe a year or so ago that got deleted
@Mario-Man-Child Oh brother. I have a feeling that when they shut down the comments on this story, they'll look at your comment and say "that's where it all fell apart."
@Stu13 don't forgot slavery, and the genocide of native Americans. I'm British though, so, glass houses an all. Suffice to say the list of shameful deeds is long indeed, for both our countries.
The information I have from the History Channel in it's debut in the 1990's, Osaka was spared because of bad weather. Next on the list became Nagasaki.
Awesome article. Stuff I didn't know about.
This is a good article. Despite that it is on the brink of being clickbait, it is very informative and indirectly related to the history of Nintendo. The author of this article made it clear that it was not his intention to divide or to mock, but only to sympathetically inform. The content of his article here (which he restated in the comments section) makes that quite clear even to the most careless reader. Even so, it is easy to understand how this subject can be (and for the most part, should be) unsettling. However, it is very unjust that Mr. McFerran should be attacked for words he hasn't spoken, no matter how personal this issue may be to the accuser.
That said, I had no idea Stimson was responsible for this. Not at all to devalue the life of anyone from Nagasaki or Hiroshima (or of anyone else anywhere) or to mindlessly glorify the decisions of the US government, but it makes sense why they were chosen over Kyoto, as 1. Kyoto was known to Japanese as the sacred former home of the imperial family, making it very significant to most people of the nation, and 2. nuking any populous city in Japan would convey the same message to a Japanese mind of American power, not just of a sacred city. In addition, the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima might have been considered as comparatively negligible due to their history of insurrection against the Imperial throne in the Shimabara Rebellion. I'll give Stimson the benefit of the doubt by considering that proposing these alternatives wasn't simply due to selfish personal reasons, but rather due to a merciful intention of sparing the greater part of Japan from a significantly greater amount of anguish and shame, not to mention from the evils of totalitarian communism that nearby Russia was instituting and spreading.
Hopefully, we can all try to have great care in understanding each other's words and intentions, rather than be quick to judge what hasn't been expressly said.
Heavy stuff.
@Mario-Man-Child Good call. I don't mean to censor or silence anyone, I just hate to see comment sections descend into arguments over national pride and politics.
I think the most shocking thing, to me, about this article is the response in the comments. America nuked Japan to end a war that Japan started unprovoked. Of course the loss of life in war is unfortunate, but this was not a war America started, nor was it a war America voluntarily joined. America was brought into the war by Japan, and America finished the war, not just with Japan, but with the Axis powers.
@luke88
The genocide of the Native Americans is very much inflated. As much as 90% of the Native American population died from disease, not war. There are stories of colonists giving infected blankets to Natives to get them sick, but most refer to a strategy employed by British leaders, not American colonists. That's not to say America hasn't killed or mistreated Natives, though. Just that the genocide was actually an epidemic.
Wow. What a fascinating read.
This is somewhat inaccurate. Not all of the US Generals were in favor of the use of the atomic bomb. For example, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces and future US President, Dwight Eisenhower, was against using the atomic bomb. They said that Japan would have been taken over within the next year. The whole "everyone is going to commit suicide otherwise" idea was just a concocted propaganda excuse.
http://eng.the-liberty.com/2014/4934/
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
It was the very same Department of War, and Truman himself, who pushed through the use of the atomic bomb, along with those who profited from it's creation, and the soon to emerge uranium mining industry. Stimson wasn't against bombing Kyoto because he thought the elites of the area needed to be preserved- he was against it because Kyoto was (and still is) one of the economic centers of Japan. If it were bombed, the Japanese would not have been able to get back on their feet in the time they did. They already greatly suffered from the bomb radiation and burns as it was. America certainly could not have brought Japan back on their own if Kyoto were taken out. I'm pretty sure that the other leaders of state, and the generals, were well aware of this.
I don't quite understand the point of this piece. It just seems to glorify this (not so good) person for their role in history, while presenting the hypothetical that Nintendo would have otherwise not existed. Who knows what would have happened. But the people responsible for the bomb being used weren't stupid. They knew Japan could become another (ironic) customer of uranium and nuclear energy. They would not have bombed Kyoto, even without Stimson's recommendation.
I would recommend anyone here to read Barefoot Gen, by Keiji Nakazawa, to gain some inkling of what the Japanese had to go through after the atomic bombing. It is presented in manga form as a fictional title, but Nakazawa was an atomic bomb survivor, and he based the manga's events on what he and others experienced afterwards. It's easy to perceive the destruction of a landscape, as in this picture. If you really want to depict reality, through, you must also show the pictures of people whose torched flesh hung from their bodies, with a zombie like appearance, and the maggot ridden corpses of "bomb disease" victims, and the piles of skulls from entire families that were burned and crushed alive by the bomb blast and their own homes. This kind of destruction must not be allowed to happen again.
I think the real issue is with the article's title. @Damo I can tell you've thought a lot about the words in your article and seem to appreciate how controversial and heavy this topic is, but any title that paints Secretary Stimson has having "saved" anything seems gut-wrenching to me. He didn't save Kyoto as much as he simply deferred mass atrocity to a different location- a point which you do detail very well.
The man played such an overwhelming role in most despicable action in humanity's history. Nobody should ever thank Secretary Stimson for anything.
Painting an article's title as him having "saved" anything is where I think things are problematic. Maybe "Unintended Consequences of Harry Stimson's Existence" would be more suitable.
As a side note, anyone who tries to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by something (without engaging them in discourse) is, frankly, insecure. People are offended by things for real reasons. If someone is offended by something, you should engage them and try and figure out why you see things differently. You can then debate specific points/merits instead of just saying "WUSSY".
Thank you Nintendolife for not just posting a Youtube video with no real in-depth text to read through. Loved it!
@Yalaa that's not actually true because they only surrendered after the second bomb, and even then it took almost a week. Also, there was a significant setback against the USSR at the same time which may have tipped the scales, so it really, it took a lot to convince the Emperor to surrender.
A lot of people are having a hard time fitting the pieces together: Nintendo, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. Do they really go together? A better pairing--and one up to par--would be "the people of Japan, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing". You got guts for trying. But connecting Nintendo and the atomic bomb in the article is passable at best.
Considering Nintendo played a key role in recovering from the great video game crash of 1983, yep, this man also saved gaming. Which isn't a personal thought about the bombing themselves, mind you: it's just stating the facts, and how a difference in a war could change history as we know it. "For want of a nail", you would say.
That said, yep, any usage of the atomic bomb is a despicable act, no matter how dire are the circumstances that make it "necessary". Given how important the matter of perspective is when it comes to cultural differences, let alone said differences' role in warfare ("your terrorists are our freedom fighters"), the fact that how the western world "ended" a war is seen as a tragedy by those on the receiving end of the bombs shouldn't really surprise anyone. The aforementioned mindset also applies to the differences in what terrorism is seen as nowadays: we see ISIS fighters as terrorists, and while their acts are indeed brutal, abominable and despicable, they see it as justice against the "unfaithful", which means us. It's a scary thought, but we have to admit that everyone has a different point of view that makes their own perception of reality the "right" one. As they say, "crazy people don't know they're crazy". Likewise, what Germans (or, thankfully, "just" a large amount of Germans) thought was the "final solution" in World War II, is also known by Jewish people as the "shoah", as in, a tragedy. Such is the nature of existentialism, everyone has a different way to see and perceive the reality around them; based on said perception, everyone makes up his or her own ideals. Again, this is by no means a justification of any kind of brutality whatsoever; it's just an analysis of the reasoning behind who does what.
Back to the topic at hand, and with the whole "cultural differences" thing in mind, given most of us gamers are pretty much japanophiles by default, a huge chunk of our own culture features different reflections of how the Japanese culture reacted to them, whether it talks about the sheer horror of the Hiroshima bombing (Barefoot Gen, 1973, already mentioned by @PlywoodStick), about its tragic impact on peoples' lives (Grave Of The Fireflies, 1988), or about a plain and simple, thinly veiled allegory (Gojira, 1954, also known as Godzilla) featuring [IIRC] actual footage from the bombings' aftermath, as seen in the image above.
So... to summarize the controversy going on in the comments: does our gratitude towards the switcheroo described in the article make us insensitive? Yes, and no. If you think about it, it's more akin to the question, "would you save your mother or your wife?": it's a sadistic choice in the first place, either way. We owe most of our culture - hell, we owe this very website - to one population dying instead of another. That's not a pleasant things to say, but it doesn't make the statement any less true. (By the way, did you know that Seth MacFarlane, author of Family Guy, missed the 9/11 flight due to a hangover? Let THAT sink in.) That's how history went down, and there's not much we can do about it. All we can do, as people, is to honor the bombings' victims, their families, their legacy. And as time goes by, it slowly heals wounds. While yesterday John Kerry (in)famously "didn't come to Hiroshima to apologize", it still was the first time - if memory serves me right, as I'm by no means omniscient - the matter was officially addressed. And the fact an authority figure from the States was there to honor the bombings' victims in the first place still counts as a first step. With emphasis on "first": there's still work to be done, and as much of a "necessity" as the circumstances made the bombing out to be, an apology is still overdue; there's still time to get to that, though.
All we can do is to be respectful to those who lost their lives that fateful day, while also being grateful for what we have now. We owe the enjoyment of our culture as it is to ourselves, and we owe our duty to enjoy it to those who provide it to us, to make each and everyone of their efforts worth it.
People skimming this article and then posting with faux-outrage.
Word to the wise, history isn't PC.
There's not a single thing Japanese people have to thank Americans for, not a single thing.. Why are you Americans so full of yourselves like this? Is it a cultural thing?
@Damo "The "facts" are that if he hadn't made that choice, Nintendo wouldn't exist.
How exactly is that offensive to anyone with a brain?"
Because you don't know that. Sometimes, it's better to just not comment if you're going to be abrasive like that.
There are so many people getting offended by something they know so little about on the comments. I happened to be very fortunate to speak to Chinese a immigrant, who was alive during the the Slaughter of Nanking, while visiting a friend in a nursing home. Thinking about him retelling his experience still makes me incredibly upset and on the verge of tears. WWII Japan is not the same modern day Japan we know and love. Over 300,000 people were butchered in Nanking. Not from a bomb, but from soldiers with boots on the ground up close with nothing but hatred and malice in their actions. There was a reason that Japan was an Axis power.
Also Japan did not offer a unconditional surrender. They insisted that diplomats from the USSR come and negotiate a treaty. Because of Stalin's known war crimes and the brutality in Berlin the US was extremely hesitant to allow the Soviets a foothold into the Pacific Theatre.
The US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly the worst tragedy to occur during WWII! The sad thing is is that most young people actually believe that BS. And with so many of our elderly passing away it becomes harder and harder to know from word of mouth what exactly happened...
Hm, this is still a contentious debate, 70 years removed. That is so very important, however, I do not want to argue, so let me say this. As a historian this is a fascinating and very touchy subject. I've know for a long time that Kyoto was one of the top targets for dropping of the Atom bomb (as was just about any other major, Industrial Japanese city that hadn't been wrought with destruction from Firebombing's by 1945.) I did not know this piece, about why a city so important as Kyoto was struck from the list. Let it be clear, the bombs were meant to, swiftly end the war and brake Japan mentally. As such, I will do my own research and come to my own conclusion, that is how we determine and make analysis on these subjects. Even still, I do not know whether dropping the bomb was a necessary evil or one to scare the Japanese and Soviet Union.
In history, we always ask the what ifs. What if Kyoto had been bombed? What if Kokura, the original target on August 9th had been the scene of Atomic Destruction? What of all the lives that were lost? What of all the lives that could have been lost? @Damo, I will say, there is a little bit of clickbaitness, but he does touch on that. That is, what this article is about, the what if? I know Nintendo fans are fickle, but when you think Kyoto, many think...Nintendo. What would have happened? What if? This is a hard subject to talk about, but it is an important one. I think as most of us are Westerners (Americans/British) those "Allies" the ones who won the war, there will always be some contention and dissociation from this terrible event. As an US citizen, I most certainly would say this was one of our darkest moments. Yet there are always, many, many sides to a story, such as this. Read about it, and understand it, accept the differences. Make your own inferences and try as best you can to make a complete argument for this terrible event. That is all, thank you for reading (if you did).
@GMB-001 Yes, a lot of us are genuinely full of ourselves. And when it comes to the American Empire being cast in a bad light, that gets kicked into overdrive.
@Dave24 I don't have time for you. I hope that you enjoy your opinion, no matter how negative
From one who likes history (particularly from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries), this is a very interesting piece. It asks a question that I feel should be posed in more situations, past, present, and future: What if...?
That said, it's sad that it took many innocent lives to end a massive war, on all fronts. No matter the political or military reason, it seems like the innocent always bear the brunt of the suffering.
@Constable_What The Nanking Massacre, while absolutely disgusting, in no way justifies the dropping of the atomic bombs. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but comparing atrocities doesn't really get us anywhere great. Keeping the Nanking Massacre in our mind is absolutely important, but it doesn't add much to the discussion of the dropping of the atomic bomb. The war was at a very different point when those two events happened. And, personally, I am speaking as a US Citizen, so I have a bias in that I am trying to hold MY OWN country more accountable to the atrocities it has committed in it's past (and present).
@TrueWiiMaster The very fact that you expect gratitude or a thank you is insulting. People shouldn't do things and expect a thank you- they should do them because they are the right things to do. As a US Citizen (not an "American", whatever that BS terms actually means) there are many things we should be very ashamed of, as well.
@GMB-001 YES! It was absolutely "bad guys vs bad guys". You nail the motives of US Empire right on the head. There was (and is) a lot of greed involved in the West's interest in controlling east Asia. The fact that the US didn't want to negotiate a treaty with Japan using USSR diplomats is very telling. The US didn't want to share it- period.
@orangepanda I'm not saying it justified it. I'm saying it happened. And because it happened, people were afraid of the Japanese.
To be clear, primarily what I am offended by is the article's subtitle "Nintendo fans have a lot to thank Henry Stimson for," when I don't feel comfortable thanking a man who still had a hand in killing hundreds of thousands of people, regardless of who's fate was decided. I don't care what you're proposing we thank him for. It's like thanking Stalin for not killing the guy who invented Tetris when he was a baby.
And yes, I did read the whole article. @Damo, it's childish to assume everyone who disagrees with you as not having read your article.
@ElkinFencer10
Can you link evidence showing that?
I have never heard such a claim that Japan offered unconditional surrender before the bombs were dropped- if that is the case, please enlighten me and others with a source
Thank god they nuked another city to save our future game company, now let the comments fill with how terrible we all think America and the west are as we debate what should have happened and what we personally would have done if we were th world leaders back in the day!!
I'm not going to glorify acts of war.
However, we WERE at war. And at the time it was a worldwide race to develop nuclear weapons first- no one had ever before seen the devastation of such weapons in war.
Let's not act like America was wrong in retaliating. After all. Who was it that bombed the United States in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii?
Right, the Japanese. Until Japan provoked us into war by attacking American soil and killing Americans, when we weren't even at war with anyone, America had managed to stay out of the global conflict.
It was a bad situation all around. But, that is the nature of war, isn't it. And while some may criticize America from meddling in world affairs, I would remind people that before World Wars I and II America avoided entanglement with global conflicts. But after seeing the entire world go to crap with over 200 countries at war with each other at the same time- and not once but twice in the span of 20 years- with dictators conquering all of Europe hoping for global domination, I think we finally decided such an event must never be allowed to happen again. After all, Hitler came mighty close to achieving his goal. In this world would be an entirely different place if he had.
@orangepanda
I don't expect gratitude. I just took offense from him saying America has done nothing worthy of gratitude. America helps people all over the world. We give more aid, government and civilian, humanitarian and military, than any other nation on earth. We develop, and have developed, much of the technology and medicine used in the modern world. America does a lot.
And while bad things have happened in American history, I hold very little shame over them, largely because of context and reparations made.
Also, you mentioned the "US empire" but there really is no such thing. Unlike Japan, who was building an empire, we didn't take land or resources, we gave them. We built partnerships, generally partnerships that were very beneficial for both sides.
Is that...is that a chapel still standing in the pic? Doesn't look like a piece of Japanese architecture, but hey, what do I know?
Is it a full moon or something tonight?
All this sniping at each other - not cool, man.
I say 'Keep Politics Out of Video Games!' (and thus out of friendly gaming discussions too).
Following on from the earlier article touching on US gun laws, we have a discussion of the US's use of nuclear weapons in WWII. It's like it's Controversy Monday.
I agree with @Nicolai 's sentiment that "Nintendo fans have a lot to thank Henry Stimson for" is unlikely to sit will with everyone, especially considering any potential Nintendo fans who lived in the two cities that were annihilated.
I visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum a few years ago, and I don't think I've ever been so disturbed by anything so much in my life. I think having lived Britain and grown up with the whole Tommies Vs. Fritz thing repeatedly played out in a near nursery rhyme narrative, I'd learnt to almost switch off from the horrors of war on European soil; but seeing its effects in a country outside that narrative found a chink in that armour. Even seeing that picture of post-nuclear Hiroshima makes me feel physically unwell (not that that is any reason not to post it, please don't think I'm objecting to its existence). As such, I feel uncomfortable being told that, as a Nintendo fan, I necessarily owe my thanks to anyone who had a hand in those events (regardless of how inevitable or 'necessary' they were deemed to be).
I know you've tried to be relatively sensitive to the issue throughout the article, but it's that tagline I'm most uncomfortable with. It makes an automatic presumption of gratitude that the reader may not feel comfortable giving.
I understand that I'm incapable of being completely rational with this issue, as it is an extremely emotive and sensitive subject, but I hope I've explained what discomfort I have about the article in a relatively measured and earnest way.
@gcunit Looking back at it, NL's run of articles today was never going to make for an easy ride. We've had guns, bombs and, err... gyro controls in Star Fox. Which genuinely - perhaps worryingly - has seems to have drawn out almost as intensely impassioned responses.
It's probably no wonder pulses are running high.
Yeah.... well, I don't know. Thing is, I can't be happy over the fact that a city was nuked (which is just unacceptable, tbh) over the city that contains my favorite gaming company. Interesting bit of trivia, but that's about it. I agree with @Nicolai and @Maxz, please change that tagline. It won't sit well with many people... at all.
@Constable_What There's certainly some sense in that. If we are to be solely defined by the histories of our respective counties, then there is not a good man or woman alive on Earth.
By the same stick, I find it irksome when people who weren't alive at the time claim that "We did this" in WWII or "We did that". You don't hear it so much any more, but it seems overlook that fact that doing something necessitates one's actual existence at the time of the event.
@Maxz Exactly I agree with that. It's important to never forget our history as human beings, but at the same time it is imperative that we not be defined by it. That is a good way to repeat those same mistakes.
@commanderlynch
Yeah, I wasn't wholly comfortable with the tone and phrasing of the piece, despite the obvious attempts to qualify the headline.
You ought to read the The Gar Alperovitz Theory.
@ElkinFencer10 that is some mighty revisionist history. I have mixed opinions about the atomic bomb, but in the end, after all the hoar the happened in world war 2 from all sides, it was nothing more than an exclamation point on the end. Japan's emperor and prime minister were indeed in peace talks, but not absolute surrender and the Army in China had remained untouched throughout the war and were completely against surrender at any costs. So, no, it was perhaps not necessary, but it was warranted in terms of military victory.
As a graduate student studying both the atomic bombs and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I can tell you that Henry Stimson was no hero. Great that he spared one city the fate of the atomic bomb, but he was more or less responsible for helping to intern almost 120,000 Japanese Americans during the war.
I think the better headline would have been: Kyoto could have almost been rubble back in the 1940s, may have affected whether Nintendo would have actually existed. (My guess is...Nintendo probably would have been around, Hiroshima was built back up very quickly - in fact, some argue that the environmental impact from doing so had longer lasting effects than the bomb.)
The piece referenced at the end of the article seems to deal with the whole thing more sensitively.
As an American, I understand that the bomb probably had to be dropped (to save American lives and to curtail the number of future Japanese casualties in the Pacific), but Truman never should've dropped two bombs, and he never should've dropped them on civilian cities.
One bomb on a military base would have been more acceptable, but the two bombs went well above and beyond Pearl Harbor.
Alright, we're done with this bickering.
Keep it up and I'll be dishing out some bans.
@Damo Excellent article on an interesting piece of trivia! Next time PLEASE shoot the moderators an email first though, just so we're prepped to keep an eye out on the comments.
Everyone else that has an issues, please just use the contact form.
Man I hate it when uneducated people spout that Japan was totally willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped. Japan didn't even surrender until the second bomb.
I normally am the one to dissapprove of nlife article subject matter, but im gonna side with Damo on this one. This was just a thought provoking article on how the world would have changed if the US struck their initial target city. He never took any sides...
Have any of you Nintendo Life editors ever been to the A-bomb Dome Museum in Hiroshima? Your piece may be different if you had been. Hiroshima was essentially chosen over Kyoto at the last minute due to the fact that Hiroshima was a beautiful sunny day with no clouds in the sky, where as Kyoto was not. The Americans needed a clear sky to be able to fully see and record the destruction caused by the a-bomb. Hiroshima due to it's clear skies was the preferred test subject over Kyoto. Sure that man is mentioned in the Museum, but if Kyoto had a clear sky, they would have continued with their plan of bombing Kyoto. They also wanted to end the war before Russians moved in on Japan, the Americans wanted complete control over Japan after the war, they didn't want to share any of it with the Russians.... Ultimately, Kyoto's "savior" wasn't this man, it was Hiroshima's clear skies.
And honestly, why write a what if article related to such a sensitive topic? There is no good way of spinning this.
It is a nice piece of trivia, and I just learn a new piece of history.
Damo never said anything provocative in the article, he just stated what happened and even said what the price was for not attacking Kyoto. He's not ignoring the fact that people died from the bomb.
It is just a "what if...." scenario.
Any History graduates here?
@redranger4 A lot of the first responders after Hiroshima was bombed caught the so-called "bomb disease" from fallout radiation, though, which resulted in perfectly healthy people coughing up black blood and dying within a week. For the first few years, almost no reconstruction took place. It was mostly just dumping corpses and skeletons into mass graves, clearing rubble, trying to find out if family died or not, and constant struggles just to provide rice to starving people. (Many of whom starved to death, since the land was ruined/polluted and fish all died.)
I can't imagine how much longer it would have taken if Kyoto, one of Japan's economic centers, were also taken out...
I like what if history pieces, and history is full of what ifs. Better to talk about it and remember so hopefully we don't repeat some of the atrocities we've committed in the past, but history tends to repeat and the world is full of people who crave power so I expect the never ending war cycle to continue.
The only thing that bothers me about this piece besides the actual warcrimes it describes is this part: "Nintendo fans have a lot to thank Henry Stimson for."
I get what it's trying to put forward, but I don't think thanking a person like this for not killing certain people and letting other people be murdered instead is something I can get behind, no matter what it's impact was on Nintendo or any other company was. :-/
This article actually does help to remind me of what many have said over the years about Nintendo. The key to understanding Nintendo is to realize that they are not just a Japanese company, they are a Kyoto company.
Kyoto is of historical interest because it has such a rich and important history, and that Kyoto residents are known for being culturally conservative. If Nintendo had been a Tokyo company, they might act very differently (say, compared to Level 5).
So in some way, this article does relate to Nintendo by saying that Stimson considered Kyoto culturally significant, not just economically significant. And that Nintendo is deeply rooted in the culturally conservative roots of Japan.
Whether the bomb should have been dropped or not is beyond my skill to say. I grew up in the 50's and every time I hear a sonic boom, I raced to the window to look for the mushroom cloud. The bomb brought fear to the world in a new way, a way that I thought might have been fading, but now with North Korea threatening to nuke the US, that fear may be with us a little bit longer.
Oh, and I have a degree in history, but all I learned is that no one really knows what happened beyond the facts. Yes, we dropped the bomb on two cities in Japan, but why one city and not another is not easy to find out and may never be known for certain.
Sigh....
I'm not even American, but I fully understand why the USA had to drop those bombs, it's not like not dropping the bombs and continuing the fighting would've been much better. Who knows, without those bombs maybe 10 million more would've died instead of the 200,000-300,000 people that did die in the bombings. And believe it or not, the seige of Leningrad and the battle of Stalingrad were far more violent than the bombings, 2,367,000-6,298,619 died in those two battles, hundreds of thousands of them civilians
The bombing was a sad story.....Although I'd prefer it never happened, supposedly a city like Kyoto would have had a much larger population back then. So in sparing Kyoto, probably many more lives had been spared. I too visited Kyoto, Osaka and Himeji during honeymoon(Kansai area) and really enjoyed the traditional food and peacefulness there.
Cool story.
I'll just post one of my favourite internet screenshots:
http://s18.postimg.org/cls7ofbwp/CVKec8v_XIAAHSSC.png
Info and content like this is why I <3 this website so much. Thank you!
@nintendomasterr Oh, the irony of someone with a Kefka icon saying that...!
Grabs popcorn As one who visited Hiroshima ten years ago, and personally visited the Peace Memorial Museum, whether or not a city got spared, and yes, Kyoto is a very culturally diverse city, either way, people would have lost their lives. As one who has a deep connection with the Japanese people, this does come across as somewhat tactless, what spawned this idea exactly?
@TrueWiiMaster Puerto Rico? Guam? The Samoan Islands? The Philippines for a time? Our involvement in Latin and South America for the past couple hundred years?
It's funny, 100 years ago, we had powerful people like President Theodore Roosevelt proudly exclaiming that the US had finally become a fully fledged Empire, that could stand above all others. Nowadays, it seems to be almost taboo, or even gets straight up denied, to admit that the US is an enormous Empire. Of course it is, we have military bases all over the world.
The classical Roman and Mongolian Empires did the same thing- establish bases of operations in foreign lands at the locals' expenense. For example, since we're on the subject of Japan, that one which is still on Okinawa, along with the 22 others in Japan alone...
@NinChocolate
I started this same forum thread on Hiroshima Day last year, but it got deleted. Nuked.
Now to my surprise it has risen phoenix-like from the ashes.
Perhaps now that US Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting Hiroshima, it is acceptable to talk about it.
The proposition that Kyoto was nearly levelled by an Atom Bomb in World War Two is a disquieting historical and well-documented fact.
Britain did not stop Bomber Harris from destroying Dresden, but America did stop General Groves from bombing Kyoto.
Be thankful for the voice of restraint.
Today where are the voices saying stop the guns.
@Zebetite
#1 I agree. Being insulted over an article like this, let alone accusing someone of being a "commie" over it, is just plain stupid at this point.
#2 Your avatar is AMAZING.XD
Thank you NL for an interesting article!
@Waluigi hey, I think I've had a comment deleted. It was a response to @truewiimaster. I made a conscious effort to be polite and notice that his opinion has not been removed. I think it's a little harsh maybe? Don't mean to start an argument with you at all! Just curious as to why you felt it had to be removed.
@luke88 Sorry if I deleted your comment, I was purging the comments of a user causing issues and I was removing the comments of everyone involved. I'll try to keep a better eye on why you're responding, and less of an eye on who.
Thanks for being polite though, we're only human!
@Waluigi no worries! Thanks for the quick response, the difficulty of the job you have to do here (sometimes/often) makes that completely understandable ☺️. Ha, thinking about it, that might be a bit rich coming from me - apologies for the odd occasion I've added to your workload.
Woah,never seen this... legend always be in our life!!
Gotta dig the comments later. But for me the article is a trivia. May not be the best written but it is informative. I don't find it offensive and insensitive, it's more like "what if" article, with the autor trying to "sell" the topic. This is a video game website afterall and it's obvious the articles here will be related to video games. The autor connected not bombing Kyoto with Nintendo and that's all. Delicate topic, sure, but you can't deny the things would be different if the bomb hit Kyoto and the text expands that idea a little bit.
@KTT I don't think it's the article per se, so much as the tagline, which makes an assumption of gratitude from the readership to a man who many regard as a war criminal.
It's most likely just meant as a turn of phrase, attempting to indicate that without a decision attributed to man in question, the world - and video games - would likely be quite different, but it has the unfortunate effect of personally establishing a relationship with the man and assuming the reader's gratitude. I (and I think quite a few others) feel that a more distanced, "look how these events played out" style of phrasing would be more appropriate.
Fundamentally, many find the principle of 'thanking' a war criminal for those they didn't kill (or 'saved') to be an unhealthy way of looking at the issue, which has an unfortunate whiff of 'identification with the aggressor' to it.
Again, this isn't really argued throughout the article, but it is an implication of the tagline (and to an extent, the title), which is why some people would like to see those two sentences changed, rather than the article itself. Probably to something a bit more "The world would be a very different place if...", and a bit less "Thank you Henry Stimson!".
I hope that's cleared things up. Not so much a problem with the article itself, but not a great way to start things off.
@Maxz Yeah, I agree. That was what I had in mind when I typed "May not be the best written". Other than that [the bad choice of words], I can't find anything offensive in the text.
Sure, of course the intellectuals of Kyoto would be more receptive to what the atomic bomb signified, but there'd be noone left to receive the signal had they all be wiped out.
And seeing how Tokyo and the remains of Edo had already been burnt to the ground by american fire bomb raids at this point, it really would have been a tragic loss for Japanese culture if Kyoto had been laid in ruin.
I think if we're going to bill Henry Stimson as a war criminal for deploying the atomic bomb, we have to remember that he was at this time both under orders and under a lot of pressure.
Nobody aside from the scientists who built and tested the bomb had at this point in time any idea of how severe the consequences of using it would be.
Interesting fact: Kyo-to is To-kyo reversed.
Kyoto was the capital of Japan because the emperor lived there. Now Tokyo is the capital because...?
@Nintendian Because Tokyo is the home of Akihabara, the Mecca of tech and anime! Or... "Mecha", for mecha fans...
@PlywoodStick
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines were bought from Spain almost 120 years ago. As far as I could find, the Samoan Islands that became American territories did so willingly (also over 100 years ago). None of those territories is an example of a conquering empire, nor is involvement with our neighbors to the south.
To be fair, America hasn't gained much territory since Teddy Roosevelt (with most of it being gained before him). Almost all of the states and territories were already states and territories by 1901, when he took office. The 1800's were a different story (and when Teddy grew up), but even then, almost all of America's growth was in North America.
Except America gets permission for its military bases, and doesn't use them to control the country they're put in, like Rome or Mongolia did. America also funds its own bases.
A very poorly written article. The article itself would have been fine had all mentions of Nintendo & video games removed. This could have been a fine historical article, but the writer ruins that possibility by almost implying "its better to bomb that town than this town that will create my future video game heroes". Sad.
If this writer just wrote about how Stimson help saved Kyoto from an atomic bomb (without any mention of nintendo or video games), this would have been great article.
Poor & insensitive writing.
@TrueWiiMaster Bought from Spain, another Empire which did forcefully take them over, instead of giving them back to the inhabitants and liberating them, perhaps also committing to trade and rebuilding efforts in addition. The Samoa's didn't want the Americans there, but accepted a treaty instead of a hopeless fight, and perhaps also to be guarded from other Empires. So they weren't conquered, but they were taken over.
These were all areas which were acquired and taken flowing the brief Spanish-American War, where the US took everything the Spanish Empire had already taken. That doesn't make the US innocent, it just means those who control the populaces changed hands.
A lot of the 1800s involved the US expanding their influence into Latin America, not the least of which being the Mexican-American War to acquire parts of the land masses we call Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and Louisiana. And of course, the beginning placements of dams and canals in Panama, imposed by the hydro power companies and US military, and the Honduras banana trade empire, imposed by the Chiquita company and Doll, were examples of US imperialism in the region, among many other things. The reasoning behind all of these events was referred to as "Manifest Destiny" by those in power.
In the 1900s, The US further expanded to South America to influence elections and impose opposition groups into power, for example the installation of the dictator Pol Pot in Chile, to usurp the otherwise democratically elected socialist leader, Salvador Allende. The CIA instituted and carried out a coup to make this happen.
There are many other such events through American history. And of course, this doesn't even count all of the hundreds of treaties made with Native American tribes, nations, and even confederacies, all which were repeatedly broken, and lands which were continuously ravaged and further stolen. (Or "legally acquired", by manipulating the living situations of the inhabitantants, and through rigged legal agreements such as the so-called Louisiana Purchase.)
In particular, the US Army continued to fight and kill the many Shoshone tribes throughout the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions, and even razing now nonexistent peach groves near the once lush Nevada forest rockies, to take their wide swaths of land well into the 1800s.
As for military bases, it's well known the locals of many regions around the world have been constantly protesting against the occupying commandment of the military bases on their land. The locals of Okinawa in particular, since we're on the subject of Japan, have been protesting the American base there for decades, and this has been publicly visible for as long. The only ones giving permission are the government entities of the countries in question, which do not necessarily represent the interests of the people who actually live around the bases.
In addition to taxpayer and war industry funding, the bases are funded by utilizing the land they occupy for their exclusive use, whereas the locals have no say in such matters. In addition, the governments on those lands may be imposed upon to pay a portion of the base's expenses- this is done in Japan, for example. The Japanese government paid about $1.5 billion in 2015 in tribute to the American military bases around the country. With the tight economic market in Japan currently, the Japanese government seeks to cut a portion of that amount paid for 2016, though it will probably still top $1 billion.
@PlywoodStick
Most territories actually do govern themselves. Regardless, if you're going to get into "original owners", that's a whole other can of worms. My point was that America bought these islands. They didn't conquer them, and forcibly add them to an "American empire".
The Mexican-American War was started by Mexico, not America. America didn't go to war to take land. Mexico went to war and lost land. As for the Panama Canal, America bought the assets from France, leased the land from the Panamanians, paid for the construction (which was very expensive), and ended up giving the canal to Panama later on. But I guess you're referring to America helping the Panamanians achieve independence?
I don't see how political interference relates to being an empire or not.
You have a point with the Natives. All I can say is that those were different times. Americans wanted to develop the lands, and in their minds the lands often belonged to them because they bought them from Europe. I'm not saying it was right, but at the time, it was quite normal (even Natives killed each other over land).
The Japanese government is elected by the same people you're saying it doesn't represent. Regardless, the point is that America gets permission. It's not an invasion.
"the bases are funded by utilizing the land they occupy for their exclusive use"
I'm not sure I follow your point here. How could military bases be utilized for public use?
Considering the number of bases and the protection Japan receives, that number really doesn't sound that large, especially considering they're the 3rd largest economy in the world, with a GDP measured in the trillions. You'd also have to factor in the money the stationed troops bring to Japan, and the money the US government itself is spending in Japan. The estimated cost to America, not counting the cost of personnel, is $2 billion.
@TrueWiiMaster I would add also that most protests in Ominawa have more to do with Tokyo than with the US. It's about the bases, but about Tokyo's decision to move the majority of US forces down to Okinawa since its return to the Japanese in the 1970's. The US once had many bases throughout Honshu until that time. The people in Okinawa fear this puts a target on their small island should war break out in the Pacific. Mix that with the occasional, and I do mean very small percentage, of crimes committed by US military personnel and you do get quite a few protests on the island. But Japan wants/needs the US forces to augment their military just as much as we strategically need to be there to protect our Asian business markets and maintain security for our shipping lanes in south east Asia from pirating.
The fact is that the US is not an empire, but is a world power. Though everyone may hate us, and we may make decisions that benefit US interests, as world powers go, we are by far the most fair and moral power ever to exist in the history of mankind. No question, I dare you to name one world power better. One that could even compete.
As for the bombs, the bomb is a weapon, I have a very personal connection with Japan, but historically speaking Japan was clearly an enemy that does not deserve any pitty with regards to the bomb. Had they had it they would have used it. There is no denying that. Also, Pear Harbor is the American charge to war, but do not forget December 7th which would be December 8th in Asia, Japan attacked several US territories, to include the PI as well and murdered millions of innocent civilians as they charged through south east Asia.
Lastly, say the US didn't use the bomb, what do you think would have happened in post war Europe? Hypothetically speaking, had the US not shown the power they possessed would the Red Army not have just swept through Europe? I say that the evidence of Stalin's attempts prove they would have, but what stopped them was the US promise that the bombs would be dropped on Moscow.
Tap here to load 134 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...