The United States celebrates Victory Day over Japan on this day (the holiday is also called Victory Day in the Pacific). They attribute the victory over Japan exclusively to themselves. In Europe, they meekly agree with these false assessments. But the most annoying thing is that Russia has long occupied a conciliatory, in general, position here. Is it because the Japanese are pretending that they have forgotten about the terms of the surrender, which took place on September 2? And in Japan, do not silence voices about territorial claims to Russia?
But it was not always so. In the postwar years, the decisive role of our country and its Armed Forces in defeating Japan was recognized by the heads of many states and prominent political figures. Then the West started the Cold War against the USSR, the contribution of our Armed Forces to the defeat of militaristic Japan was silenced. As, however, and the role of the Soviet Union in the victory over German fascism.
The fact that from the middle of 1950's Victory Day over militaristic Japan officially began to be forgotten played a negative role. No celebrations were held in Moscow. On Victory Day over Japan, there was no solemn laying of wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier ...
The post-Stalinist leadership of the country at any cost sought to develop economic relations with Japan. By the same principle as with the United States and with Western Europe: raw materials in exchange for loans and technology. Suffice to say that, according to the USSR Ministry of Finance, in the total amount of foreign loans and loans, the share of Japanese increased from 12% to 1960 to 30% to 1984. In addition, Japan became the main supplier in the USSR of heavy trucks, excavators, graders, geological exploration equipment . It is clear that with such a tendency in foreign economic relations, it was not right to formally remind Japan of its defeat in World War II ...
Against this background, even by the middle of the 1950-s, even the mention that the USA in the 1945-1947 had disappeared from the Soviet media and other information sources. joined the vast Pacific territory of Japan. No mention of this today.
But already 5 September 1945, a statement that the United States should secure a number of island territories in the Pacific Basin, said Struve Hansel, assistant naval minister of the United States. And called the nine largest bases. In addition to Hawaii, Kodiak, Adak (on the Aleutian Islands) and Balboa, these were also Guam-Saipan-Tinian, Manus (Admiralty group, ruled by Australia), Iwo Jima (Bonin Islands), Okinawa (Ryukyu), Philippines, etc. The bases mentioned by Hansel during the war also included 256 smaller bases and strong points of various types.
The Subcommittee on Maritime Affairs of the House of Representatives, who visited the Pacific after the war, listed in its report, published in August 1945, a number of other bases to which the Americans had complained. Among them, for example: Guadalcanal Island (English possession, in the Solomon Islands group), Espiritu-Santo (Anglo-French joint protectorate), Tontouta and Magenta and the port of Noumea on New Caledonia (French possessions). At the start of 1946, the Maritime Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives approved the report of its subcommittee.
And the UN in July 1947 of the year transferred control of many Pacific islands to the USA. The Trust Territory was divided into the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Currently, the first three countries are in free association with the United States, which means complete self-government, besides defense matters, which is under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is in collaboration with the United States, and its inhabitants are US citizens.
Note that all of these islands were not originally Japanese. Japan owned them under the League of Nations mandate (hence their common name is Mandate) from 1914 to 1944, until they were occupied by the United States. Later, the Japanese from those islands were evicted to Japan.
But Japan does not make any claims to the United States regarding the territories that were actually taken from it and which are still practically under American occupation. But she clearly intends to deprive Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union, mined with great blood of people the status of the victorious power.
Meanwhile, Winston Churchill, back in August, 1945 recognized that “if the USSR had not entered the war against Japan, hostilities in East Asia and the Pacific would certainly have lasted until at least 1947. And it's not a fact that Japan would capitulate even in 1947. ” Similar views were expressed in the autumn of 1945 by the commander of the British Commonwealth in the Southeast Asian region, Lord Louis Mountbatten, the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand of that period, Ben Chifley and Peter Fraser. And the governor (in 1941-1946) of British Burma, Reginald Dorman-Smith, in July 1945 declared: “... if Russia fulfills the Yalta agreement on joining the war with Japan, the latter will forget all about its plans to invade British India, Ceylon, to southwest China, Australia, and penetrate the Himalayas through Bhutan. "
China's Prime Minister (1941-1947) Song Ziwen also gave a no less high rating. According to Chinese media, during negotiations with Stalin and Molotov in mid-August 1945 in Moscow, he stated that “the decisive factor in ending the long-term Japanese aggression in China was the USSR’s entry into the war with Japan and the lightning defeat of the Kwantung Army by the Soviet troops. If landing operations of other allies of China were planned on our territory, then not earlier than 1946 of the year ”.
The statement of the Governor of the Dutch East-Indies (from 1950 - Indonesia), the commander of the Dutch troops in Southeast Asia in 1942-1949, is quite remarkable. General Van Mooc after 2 September 1945:
“The unprecedented military victories of the USSR over the Nazis could not fail to hasten the liberation of Holland. And the lightning defeat of the main Japanese ground forces by the Soviet troops led to the fact that the Japanese troops that had occupied almost all of Southeast Asia by that time were forced to capitulate. ”
“If it were not for the Soviet military victories, it is not known how long the occupation of Holland and Dutch India and other regions of Southeast Asia would continue,” he said.
The opinion of the Chief of the General Staff of the French Armed Forces in 1945-1947 was slightly different from that of Van Mooc. General de Lattra de Tassigny (in 1949-1951 he commanded French troops in the Far East and the Pacific): “... the actions of the Allied Air Force and Navy could not lead to the final defeat of Japan. With 1938, China has been able to hold back the Japanese onslaught over a vast territory for years; Australia and British India fought off Japanese attacks from Southeast Asia. But the quick defeat of the Kwantung Army by the USSR forces immediately and radically changed the situation on the Pacific front in favor of the anti-Japanese coalition. The USSR demonstrated the highest martial art, forcing the Kwantung Army to capitulate so quickly. "
Portugal, which owned the “miniature” territories of Macau (Macao) and the eastern region of the island of Timor in the Far East, was a neutral country. But the Japanese troops still captured these territories in 1941-1942. (albeit without replacing the Portuguese administration there). They were withdrawn from there immediately after the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. In this regard, the governor of Macau (in 1940-1947) Gabriel Teixeira stated that “the entry of the Soviets into the war forces the Japanese to withdraw their troops from remote regions of Southeast Asia to stop attempts at a new offensive in China. But these measures are unlikely to help Japan avoid capitulation. ”
There were a lot of similar judgments in the following years. But the opinions cited above are valuable in that they were expressed by military and political figures who held high posts or were directly in the APR during the war period. It is also important that they were not pro-Soviet, rather, on the contrary, and certainly they were not supporters of the USSR policy in the region. Unfortunately, neither in the Soviet period nor later did such assessments become widely known either in our country or outside its borders. Despite the fact that they were and remain serious arguments against fraud stories World War II in the Far East and the Pacific. In this regard, it is impossible not to wonder: was there a military need for atomic strikes?
Washington chroniclers like to repeat that the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only after Japan initially refused to capitulate under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.
However, on July 23, that is, four days before the publication of this declaration, a draft order was sent from Washington to Potsdam for approval by US President Harry Truman. aviation Spaatsu: “After August 3, as soon as the weather permits, the 509th combined air regiment of the 20th Air Army should drop the first special bomb on one of the following targets: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura, Niigata.” On July 24, Truman approved the order.
Although the Western powers repeatedly broke promises to open a second front in Europe, they had no doubt that the USSR would keep the word given in Yalta, that is, it would enter the war against Japan three months after 9 in May. "Demonstration of atomic combat capabilities weapons, - the American historian Alprovitz writes in his book “Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam,” was needed to make the Russians accept the American plan of the post-war world. And, above all, to impose on them our position on controversial issues concerning Central and Eastern Europe. ”
A similar idea is expressed in the White Paper about the consequences of atomic bombing by prominent Japanese scientists headed by the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Hideki Yukawa. They conclude that the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was supposed to underpin Washington’s bid to turn the twentieth century into the “age of America.” They cite the words of the English explorer Blackett, who asserts that the use of atomic bombs was not so much the final act of the Second World War, as the first operation in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.
This was confirmed by General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Western Europe, who later became President of the United States. In 1963, in an interview with Newsweek magazine, he said: "The Japanese were just about to capitulate, and there was no need to throw this terrible thing on them."
The British newspaper The Guardian referred to the report of the Working Group on the evaluation of the results of strategic bombardments by the US Air Force, in which American experts came to the following conclusion in 1946: “The superiority in the air over Japan allowed it to exercise sufficient pressure to unconditional surrender and remove the need for landing on the Japanese islands. Based on a thorough study of all the facts and the testimony of the surviving leaders of Japan, the Working Group believes that ... Japan would have capitulated even if the atomic bomb had not been dropped, Russia would not have entered the war, and the landing operation was not planned and did not prepare. "
“The most durable lie was the thesis that it was the atomic bomb that made it possible to end the war in the Pacific and save many lives,” wrote the Guardian.
A few years ago, this newspaper also noted (journalist Jon Pilger): “The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a crime of incredible proportions. It was a deliberate massacre with the use of a weapon that was criminal in nature. It is for this reason that apologists for the bombing resort to the mythology of a “just war,” which, as Richard Drayton put it, served as a “moral font” that became for the West not only absolution of the bloody colonial past, but also an excuse in the 60-year of new predatory wars , behind which the silhouette of the “bomb of all bombs” always looms.
Apparently, Japanese scientists, not without reason, included in their White Paper the thesis that atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not so much the final act of World War II as the prologue of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. And here I would like to remind the old truth: if the past war is forgotten, a new one begins. Russian history has long demanded that the “silence of silence” be removed from our Victory in the East.