A diplomatic incident waiting to happen

[Archaic]

http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=4907&slug=INTERNET-ONLINE%20GAME-JAPAN-POWERNET

PowerNet and China Communist Youth League develop "Anti-Japan War Online" game



Shanghai. August 23. INTERFAX-CHINA - PowerNet Technology, a Chinese online gaming firm, has developed a new online game in cooperation with the China Communist Youth League (CCYL) named "Anti-Japan War Online," which will begin commercial operation by the end of 2005, a PowerNet official said Tuesday.

"The game will allow players, especially younger players, to learn from history. They will get a patriotic feeling when fighting invaders to safeguard their motherland," a PowerNet Project Manager, surnamed Liu, told Interfax.

The background for "Anti-Japan War Online" is the Japanese invasion of China during World War II, from 1937 through 1945. Players are able to play simulations of key battles, but will only be able to play as the Chinese side. Players will also not be allowed to kill other players in the game. In addition, fighting in the game between Japanese and Chinese soldiers will be shown only in miniature, so as to reduce the violence level of the game, Liu said.

The new massive multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) will begin internal testing later this August, with commercial launch of the game expected in 2005. The online game is based on PowerNet's self-developed game engine.

The CCLY said in statement that few games on the Chinese market today generate a "national spirit" that can educate young players. As a result, the CCYL will actively partner with online gaming companies to jointly develop "patriotic" online games.

"'Anti-Japan War Online' is a patriotic online game that is both interesting and instructive, and can attract and guide young players," Chen Xiao, the CCLY official in charge of partnerships with online gaming firms, told Interfax. "We will pay close attention to the authenticity of historical facts in the game."

In 2004, CCYL also formed a partnership with Guangdong Data Communication Network Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Guangdong Telecom to begin developing a 3D MMORPG named "Guohun Online" ("National Spirit Online") in 2005. Approximately RMB 50 mln (USD 6.17 mln) has been invested in the development of "Guohun Online," which is currently being developed with technical support from Chinese online gaming firm TQ Digital. Commercial operation of "Guohun Online" is expected in the second half of 2005.

In addition, CCYL is also currently working with Beijing Magical Digit Co., Ltd. to develop three other online games, titled "Sim Battle: Long March", "Sim Battle: Blue Helmet China" and "Sim Battle: Sky Dragon."

[Zhen Lin]

China is going overboard with this patriotism/nationalism madness... 愛國無犯 (It's not a crime to love one's country) my foot, this is far overstepping the limits of sensibility.

Besides which it's just going to exacerbate this WWII relations issue, which, interestingly, is actually quite recent.

[Rachael]

This isn't right. There's nothing wrong with making a game portaying a historical event, but this is yet another blatant attempt to brainwash people. It's not just China that does this, of course.

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Looks like a piece of crap, but it's not like the Chinese haven't done dumb shit like this.

[Evil Figment]

...

So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you guys blaming China for doing in regard to Ultranationalist Japan (you know, WW II Japan, Axis Country, Bataan Death March, General All-Around Bad Guys) what the Western World in general has been doing in regard to Nazi Germany (and Japan once in a while) since, oh, 1940 or so?

(Blut answer : yes, you are. We've been making those games (and movies before) since almost as long as there's been such things as "first person shooters" ("Wolfenstein" comes to mind - 1980 for the first one, wasn't it, nearly the dawn of home computer gaming)

Yes, this could lead to a diplomatic incident, but if it does, there's only really the title to blame on China. The rest of any diplomatic incident would be entirely the fault of Japanese denialists and revisionists.

[evkl]

Arcy's right, this supposed 'issue' is really an artificial, recent one. It's like saying that the French still hold issue with the Germans over WWII and are going to impose embargoes because of it. China's really playing a dirty national game now on many fronts with many other countries.

Although I believe it was Penny Arcade who commented on the absurdity of Japan eating up Medal of Honor: Rising Sun, which basically involved the Japanese players kicking the asses of...the Japanese. So logic fails sometimes to define why people play some games.

[Evil Figment]

Germany's chancellor hasn't made a habit of visiting Hitler's grave, whereas a certain japanese PM has been known to drop by the general vicinity of Tojo's remains a bit too regularly.

(and no, Yasukuni shrine is not an innocent war memorial. Yasukuni is a private instituation that has been known for the following :

"The Japanese website claims that "Comfort women were not forced to serve by the Japanese Empire. Koreans were not forced to change their names to Japanese ones." (Boldfaced lies all of it)

and claiming, regarding the various war criminals (including Tojo)

"Some 1,068 people, who were wrongly accused as war criminals by the Allied court, were enshrined here."

Yasukuni is an ultranationalist institution which attempts to deny and reconstruct the past to glorify Japan's actions in World War II - no better than any Neo-Nazi organization in most ways.

That the japanese prime minister would sanction this by visiting them - regularly - is just plain criminal.

A German chancelor who did the same would be burned at the stake by his own people, the rest of the european union would piss on his remnants, and the US would flush the ashes.

Compare him with Haider, they're doing MUCH the same, and Haider's becoming part of the governmeing coalition in Austria was a MAJOR diplomatic incident in Europe.

[Archaic]

*cough* A certain Japanese PM has a father who built an airfield in Kagoshima which was used for the Kamikaze missions, and a cousin who died on one such mission and is honoured at the shrine. Sounds to me like he has some legit reasons to go there, so long as when he visits them, he does so as a private citizen, not in his official capacity as the PM. And that's all he's done thusfar.

Statements he's made elsewhere seem to suggest that he doesn't sanction the position of the keepers of the shrine, but is forced to go there to honour the dead simply because there's nowhere else. There has been talk of moving some of the people from there to other locations, but the shrine's keepers have been blocking it under some freedom of religion law, so for now, he doesn't have much choice but to go there.

[Evil Figment]

And do you honestly think that a german chancellor who visited an hypothetical Neo-Nazi operated location where Hitler's remains would be on the ground that some of the WW II vets interred there are his family would NOT result in a diplomatic incident?

The moment Koizumi became prime minister, he CEASED being a private citizen. You can't be both at once; ANY action you take while a national leader WILL be interpreated in the light of your position as national leader, (or public figure, or whatever).

[Archaic]

Where do you suggest Koizumi goes to respect his relations and the other Japanese war dead then? There are *no* other shrines, no other war memorials. And without the bodies of the soldiers that the shrine refuses to release, a public monument simply wouldn't hold the same meaning for the Japanese.

And while I understand the position you're taking there, that's not how things work as far as the Japanese see it. It's a cultural difference in perception which further confuses the issue.

Getting back to the original topic though, I wouldn't have any problem with the game China is making if it was like the Medal of Honour series. However, it's rather obvious by their nationalistic objective that you can't really expect any such thing, and I'd be surprised if half the Japanese AI opponents fight back, given that they'd be too busy raping poor defenceless Chinese AI civilians.

[Evil Figment]

Not China's fault that it's pretty much what Japanese soldiers DID do at Nanking, uh?

And as for Koizumi, there are some hundred million or so Japanesse, and several billions non-japanesse. Guess who gets to adapt to the others or pay the price of not doing so?

[Archaic]

No, but it is China's fault for constantly dredging up an issue that should've been long dead and buried after more than a generation and many apologies later, to use as a tool to turn China into exactly the kind of jingoistic society that Japan was.

And that sounds rather like tyrrany of the majority Damian. There are cases when "majority rules" is fair enough, but just because something offends the sensibilities of some people who don't understand and make no effort to understand the culture isn't enough IMO.

[Evil Figment]

Japan has no business demanding that the rest of the world put away THEIR culture to accomodate the japanesse one.

They can either change, or go on causing diplomatic incident and stop pretending they're doing nothing.

Far as Nanking go, frankly, it has no business being dead and buried, especially with the japanesse hypocrisy in dealing with it (ie, approval of denialists books, even if they're only used by a few schools, etc). Atrocities should not be buried just because you're a fan of the nation that once comitted them.

[Archaic]

The sword cuts both ways there. Both the Axis and Allied nations committed atrocities during WWII, but we only tend to hear about those by the Axis nations, don't we?

*Wonders if this should be moved to debate*

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

The sword cuts both ways there. Both the Axis and Allied nations committed atrocities during WWII, but we only tend to hear about those by the Axis nations, don't we?

*Wonders if this should be moved to debate*

We hear plenty about both sides's screwups.

[evkl]

Not nearly as much about the allies as the Axis.

Then and again, the Holocaust and the Death Marches/Japanese mass-rape-murder-experimentation groups killed a lot more people than the Allies did.

[Mozz]

Duh, teh atomic bomb was worse than a million death marches :(

[evkl]

The Holocaust was about, oh, [correction:] 60 atomic bombs. And that's on the low end.

Your point?

[Evil Figment]

The sword cuts both ways there. Both the Axis and Allied nations committed atrocities during WWII, but we only tend to hear about those by the Axis nations, don't we?

*Wonders if this should be moved to debate*

Dresden. Tokyo (firebombing of). Japanese internment camps.

Just because you don't hear about those down in Aussieland doesn't mean they're not AT LEAST as frequent topics of discussion as Nanking (probably more frequent).

(I'm deliberately excluding Hiro and Naga from this, as there's some good argument to be made in defense of those)

[Mozz]

Dresden. Tokyo (firebombing of). Japanese internment camps.

Just because you don't hear about those down in Aussieland doesn't mean they're not AT LEAST as frequent topics of discussion as Nanking (probably more frequent).

(I'm deliberately excluding Hiro and Naga from this, as there's some good argument to be made in defense of those)

And there aren't good defenses for internment?

[Evil Figment]

Not when you consider the way they virtually had to forsake their homes and almost everything they owned, for pennies or for nothing (thanks to those sterling pieces of american freedom and tolerance that were the California's Alien Land Act and others such), no.

There were reparations, true (the first a "mere" three years after the war had ended), but all that points is that the US (unlike other parts of this crazy world, ie Japan) actually can get around to owning up to its mistakes...

The difference between these and the nukes is, the nukes actually seriously helped the US win the war, as opposed to jailing thousands, the vast majority of which were loyal americans, japan-born (or japanesse descent) or not.

(I'm well aware Canada did it too. I'm not the least bit proud of it)

[birdboy2000]

Well, yes, there were. But the fact that the american public was so racist they would have lynched them were they not interned isn't exactly something to be proud of.

(And don't forget the massive Russian atrocities and starting wars with certain baltic states out of naked expansionism. And it's a few years prewar, but the embargo of the republican side during the spanish civil war by the brits was pretty evil and cost a generation of Spaniards their freedom.)

[Evil Figment]

Are you talking real life or DG III, Birdie? :-p (kidding)

And as for the american public - the way the japanese were basically robbed sorts of void that excuse. They were not interned for their own safety. They were interned because the government felt they deserved it. Else better ways to handle what property they had (and what jobs, and such, they had) would have been found.

[GrnMarvl13]

Actually, the Japanese were sent to internment camps out of general fear. It's directly equivacol to the mass arrests of Middle Eastern people following 9/11.

The government didn't do it because they felt they "deserved" it. They did it because they thought they were protecting EVERYONE in the country. I'm not saying it was RIGHT, but I find it easier to justify than the a-bombs.

And I thought this was interesting:

Over 120,000 people, including children and the elderly, were required to leave their homes in California and parts of Washington, Oregon and Arizona. Most people did not have time to store or sell their household goods at a fair price. Some people moved to other states, but the majority went to internment camps. They were only allowed to take few belongings with them, and many families lost virtually everything they owned except what they could carry. Internees spent many years in camp, behind barbed wire fences and with armed guards patrolling the camps. Entire families lived in cramped, one room quarters that were poorly constructed.

In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians was established by Congress. This commission reviewed the impact of Executive Order 9066 on Japanese-Americans and determined that they were the victims of discrimination by the Federal government.

On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000.00 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II. The Act also created the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund to help teach children and the public about the internment period.

Random sentence: There were internment camps in Canada?

[Evil Figment]

The A-Bomb got Japan to surrender almost immediately, sparing further atrocities (more fire-bombings and so forth). That'S why it was worth it.

Yes, yes, I know. Anti-atomic delusionists and conspiracy-theorists have been arguging we didn't need to drop it, that Japan was already willing to surrender as long as they kept the emperor, and the allies should have taken it.

Japan did try to negociate. They did not offer surrender, they *tried to negociate*. As late as June 45, their government, preparign to send an envoy to Moscow, had drafted what they considered "minimum acceptable terms." They didn't change much from then on to August.

These included :

-Maintaining a japanese military, though severly reduced
-Abandoning "Occupied territories". That is, territory belonging to foreign nations. Not what was already theirs through various other means (Korea, for a start, and several pacific islands). Just what they had taken in the war.
-That all japanese-occupied territories be made independant nations. While this was inevitable in the short run anyway, neither France nor England nor the Netherlands would have ever accepted to give such nations freedom as part of a peace treaty with Japan.

Should the Allies have accepted a peace treaty that left Hitler in charge with Austria and the Sudeten still under German control, and a German military to boot? Of course not! You'd be beat up as a neo-nazi if you tried to advocate that one today!

Why, then, should they have accepted a similar treaty with Japan, which was little better than nazi Germany?

(Not to mention that our cretinous friends in Japan made most of their peace overtures through Moscow. Which sorts of had every interest in slowing down the process)

"Unacceptable" sorts of cover the minimal terms Japan had in mind in June 45. And that's why the nukes were a necessity.

Yes, I know MacArthur said otherwise. MacArthur was a self-agrandizing cretin with little gift for military strategy, just a great deal of skill at propaganda and PR. He did well at governing a peacetime Japan in no small part thanks to that, but his claims re : nukes are not worth much attention.

OTOH, I already outlined why the camps were an unquestionable atrocity in my mind : not so much that they were created (though that was, in hindsight, unnecessary), but that the inhabitants were forced to sell nearly everythign they had previously owned for a microscopic fraction of its value, or forced to lose everything when they had been tenants thanks to existing racist law, and that this was ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY (ie, they could have arranged the internment otherwise, including (but not limited to) expropriating the japanese citizens in exchange for the FAIR value of their property). That's where most of my problem with this atrocity was.

The very fact that the US government has repeatedly paid reparations to the japanese victims of this theft (which is what it was) since then supports that.

An atrocity is not just "any horrible act". It's, at least to me, an UNNECESSARY horrible act.

(Of course, this atrocity is not anywhere close to, say, Nanking. Rather far, in fact. But it's definitely an "allied atrocity").

[GrnMarvl13]

Ya made me break out the book. Well...the closest book I had that covered WWII anyway.

Although revulsion at America's deployment of atomic weapons is understandable, it now appears that no one in the inner circles of American military and political power ever seriously entertained the possiblity of not using the bomb.

At no time, from 1941 to 1945, did I ever hear it suggested by the president, or by any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in the war. - Henry Stimson

See, I've discovered that the argument for whether or not to use the bomb is COMPLETELY invalid. It all goes back to the fact that America felt they HAD to use the bomb at some point. Most likely to scare the Russians, but maybe also to just show their power to the world at large.

The idea of first demonstrating the bomb to the Japanese, then offering them an ultimatum was discussed, but ultimately it was decided that since they only had 2 bombs, they couldn't afford to "waste" one.

But on the Japanese issue, I've never heard of ANY atrocities outside of China. From what I've heard, they treated Korea as well as any colonial power treated their colonies (which wasn't usually good, but that's another matter). And you also have to keep in mind that Truman was new to the office, and he knew NOTHING of what Roosevelt had been doing, since Roosevelt kept most of his plans in his head, and shared them with few. Truman came on board with no idea what Roosevelt had been doing, and felt that he had to strong arm the Russians following the war, so that democracy could spread farther in the newly freed countries. Now, granted, Roosevelt WAS willing to sacrifice much more to get what he wanted (which you can debate whether that was good or not), but Truman wasn't willing to negotiate beyond a VERY short point.

I mean, Eisenhower himself opposed the dropping of the bomb.

Two questions: Why didn't America wait until Russia entered the war to see if they could force Japan to surrender that way? And why did they drop the bombs so close together?

And on the internment camps, I'll NEVER deny that they were horrible, HORRIBLE things, and I ONLY accept them when discussing the A-bomb, and their relation. I think it does a good job of showing where I stand. Or else it confuses the heck out of people. Either way...I'm happy.

The problem with the word unnecessary: It can, almost always, be debated. There's always SOMEONE who will say SOMETHING wasn't necessary. But by your definition, I do agree that the internement camps were an atrocity. Especially when the German POWs in America had, at worst, comparable conditions. Some probably had better (a sizeable portion of them stayed in America, so...).

[Evil Figment]

Ever heard about "Comfort Women", Grn?

That's the "politically correct" name for the thousands, hundred of thousands of korean girls taken from their home by the japanesse military and forced to serve as SEX SLAVES.

That's not "treating people correctly", Grn. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it damn well fall within the confines of what any sane man would describe as "atrocity".

Moreover, Eisenhower opposed, blah, blah, blah. Read up a bit on how things went down in Japan during that time. Even after Hiroshima, the military still tried - still had the power - to prevent the negociations (all they had to do was to have the war minister resign; that's a several weeks delay of no negociations, forcing thinsg further into an unavoidable final conflict).

They didn't move at all from August 6 to August 9. Even after Truman announced in clear terms what had happened, even after their own scientists confirmed it (on the 8th), they blocked any and all talk of accepting the Postdam declaration. They did mention negociation - through Russia.

The quashing of that channel (on August 8, when Russia declared war) brought most of the government to realize there would be no "negociated" peace - that the choices were a last stand killing as many americans as they could, or surrender.

Even so, debates continued on the 8th and much of the 9th. Why? Because some people felt that there was still a chance of going down in a blaze of glory killing american invaders. And they had the POWER to challenge any attempt at surrender. They could dissolve the government as explained above, and more than that, you could not summon an imperial conference (ie, cabinet meeting in the presence of the Emperor) without the seals of both the Army and Navy chief of staff; ie, no calling on the emperor to solve the issue without their approval.

After Nagasaki, things came to an head. The prime minister resolved to chance forcing the issue; his secretary tricked the chiefs of staff into sealing (ie approving) the decree (on the groudn that there might not be time to find all the necessary approval once the council had taken a decision; it had, of course, taken none by the time the Imperial Conference was formed); and the emperor arm-twisted the military into surrender. Within thirty, thirty-six hours of Nagasaki, Japan offered to surrender. A few days of talking, and voila.

(Incidentally, Toland report in his "The Rising Sun : The Decline and Fall of the Japanesse Empire, 1936-1945 that two more nuclear weapons had been completed and sent to Tinian where they were planned to be used on August 13 and 16; these attacks were called off as soon as Japan indicated they were willing to surrender).

Using the best weapons available to defeat an enemy as effectively and swiftly as possible is not an atrocity. That's exactly what using the nukes was.

[GrnMarvl13]

Ever heard about "Comfort Women", Grn?

Honestly...no. Everything I've read, so far, focuses on the American side of things with the occasional reference to Nanking.

I'm a history major, and somehow I know more than I would ever want to about te Reformation (seriously...I'm bored to death with learning about it), and everytime I reach a subject I'm interested in (WWII, the expansion across America), I find all these things I've NEVER heard about. Which is part of the reason I've started reading mainly nonfiction.

That's the "politically correct" name for the thousands, hundred of thousands of korean girls taken from their home by the japanesse military and forced to serve as SEX SLAVES.

So THAT'S why the Koreans did a smaller version of that in the, I BELIEVE, 80s.

Read up a bit on how things went down in Japan during that time.

Don't worry...it's on my list.


They didn't move at all from August 6 to August 9. Even after Truman announced in clear terms what had happened, even after their own scientists confirmed it (on the 8th), they blocked any and all talk of accepting the Postdam declaration. They did mention negociation - through Russia.

Did they block, or were they merely considering their options? And from what I've read, negotions could have been effectively handled through Russia, but Truman was too hard-headed and wanted to keep Russia's involvement in the post-war world as minimal as possible.

Using the best weapons available to defeat an enemy as effectively and swiftly as possible is not an atrocity.

See, that's the sticking point with me. I just cannot accept that. Why? Probably because I've heard too much regarding the survivors of the bombs. From a strategic/militaristic point of view, you are absolutely right. It WAS, strategically, the best course to take. There's no real denying that. But see, I'm hung up on the moral aspect. It's hard to hear about black rain, and people with skin hanging off their bodies, and accept that it was the best way, or not an atrocity. If it had just been one, then the strategic values would overwhelm the moral issues. But with two dropped...I just can't accept it as being ok. It's not the massive loss of life, it's everything else.

[Evil Figment]

Firebombings left people with skin hanging off their flesh, too. It was not something "special" about the A-bomb that resulted in those, it was the extreme heat, which firestorms (such as Tokyo and Dresden) rivaled.

The difference was, two firebombings would never have ended the war. Two atomic bombings did.

And no, the militarists were not merely "considering their options". They were just plain blocking. They *WANTED* to fight to the death, I don't think you understand how much they wanted this. Considering defeat, considering surrender, considering anything that involved war crime trials especially, was anathema to them. Even when the emperor ordered them to surrender, many military members of the government seriously debated supporting the attempted army coup on the (IIRC) 14th (coup against the civilian members of the govt, not the emperor; they were persuading themselves the emperor had been "badly advised" and would "see the light" if they could just eliminate the civilian govt members.

(And you're a history major? Cool, didn't know that. Only minorign there myself, though to be fair I'm majoring on East Asian Studies, so Japanesse history (and Korean and Chinesse to a lesser extent) are my forte :). Naval history, too, to an extent, though I never formally studied it)

[GrnMarvl13]

Firebombings left people with skin hanging off their flesh, too. It was not something "special" about the A-bomb that resulted in those, it was the extreme heat, which firestorms (such as Tokyo and Dresden) rivaled.

True, but I had the A-bomb one burned into my brain at a young age, and is still VERY clear.

They *WANTED* to fight to the death, I don't think you understand how much they wanted this.

I get that they wanted to fight to the death. That was Japanese culture at the time. But I've never read anything (and maybe that's because I just haven't gotten to it) that suggested that complete invasion and nuking were the only options.

Only minorign there myself, though to be fair I'm majoring on East Asian Studies, so Japanesse history (and Korean and Chinesse to a lesser extent) are my forte :)

I still haven't learned much about Japanese history, although I learned a LOT last year about Chinese history. But I do prefer American and European history more (which is a base need to understand where my ancestors came from and what they experienced), although Indian (India) and Middle Eastern history intrigues me.

I know nothing of naval battles beyond a certain small point.

I've no doubt that you are more knowledgeable than me concerning the current subject, which is why I'm not calling any of your facts into question. I'm merely bringing up things that bother me about the whole "incident." Why I'm saying this, I don't know, since it's not like you've taken anything I've said the wrong way, but I feel I should clarify where I'm coming from. And my motivation.

[Evil Figment]

Hey, no worry. Contrary to some of our other debates where you've been known to refer to some more, ah...fringe-ish claims and theories, I have no real issue with most of your claims here.

As for complete invasion and nuking...no, they probably were not the only options. Continuing the fire-bombing for weeks after weeks would probably have got them to surrender eventually - after how many more hundreds of thousands had suffered a fate little different from the fate of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens? They MAY also chose to surrender if Russia swept them into the sea and crossed to the Japanese mainland.

Which would have been the greater atrocity though? Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Japan, the other half of Korea and probably China right in 1945 (instead of 49, and possibly not nearly as independant regarding Russia as it turned out to be the way things went) falling on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain?

300 000 death to a pair of bombings or as many if not more to a half-century of secret police, prisoners camps, purges and so forth?

I'll take the 300 000 deaths.

[GrnMarvl13]

Hey, no worry. Contrary to some of our other debates where you've been known to refer to some more, ah...fringe-ish claims and theories, I have no real issue with most of your claims here.

That's because the fringe ones are more fun.

They MAY also chose to surrender if Russia swept them into the sea and crossed to the Japanese mainland.

And if given enough incentive, like Roosevelt would have done, the Russians would have. Especially if they were able to mobilize the Chinese and Korean forces (which, if it meant the outcome that eventually happened, they would have done so).

Which would have been the greater atrocity though? Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Japan, the other half of Korea and probably China right in 1945 (instead of 49, and possibly not nearly as independant regarding Russia as it turned out to be the way things went) falling on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain?

Well, it would meant that the Korean War wouldn't have happened, which is a positive. Maybe the Vietnam and...whatever the wars the French fought wouldn't have happened either. Another positive. You have EASILY a million more people alive. America doesn't have its two most humiliating defeats, and maybe you have a stronger Asia. Where's the atrocity? A slightly longer war with many more dead, but you don't have two of the most costly wars (at least for the US). And no Agent Orange. No massive landmine deployments in Asia (well...not in the same places anyway).

300 000 death to a pair of bombings or as many if not more to a half-century of secret police, prisoners camps, purges and so forth?

Personally, I find it to be a closer choice than you do. I have a feeling that Truman would have forced Russia to give Japan to America (although it might have cost them, say...Greece or another country in that region).

[Evil Figment]

Roosvelt did not need to "bribe" Russia. Neither did Trumann. Stalin *wanted* to go in; his armies struck on the 8th, the moment he declared war. He was goign to strike in August in any events (though his first strike may have been . Why? Because they wanted to seize the land.

Indochina would still have happend for sure; Vietnam probably as well. They were much too far south for Russia to successfully claim before the other allies could, so things wouldn't have changed much in the area.

Trading the Korean war and nuke bombing victims for fully communists Korea and Japan (or any eastern European nation, if America had tried to push that way)

And remember, a russian invasion of mainland Japan would have, in itself, been every bit as costly as an American one, for both sides. Probably moreso, come to think of it : Stalin tended to disregard the human cost of operations a bit more than Roosvelt/Truman, his "Comissaries" (ie, political officers in the units) could have taught the SS and Gestapo a trick or two, and the Japanese' fanaticism would have been fired on even further at the threat of a *COMMUNIST* invasion. An american invasion would have been a massacre; a Russian invasion would have been the Director's Cut of the apocalypse.

[Archaic]

Just interjecting here for one moment....wasn't the reason the Japanese wanted to conduct negociations through the Russians simply because they saw them as a more immediate threat of invasion than the US, given the logistics of the operation?

[Evil Figment]

Possibly. Mostly, I think, it was a simple issue of them being the only major power not at war with Japan or the US at that point.

[GrnMarvl13]

Roosvelt did not need to "bribe" Russia. Neither did Trumann. Stalin *wanted* to go in; his armies struck on the 8th, the moment he declared war. He was goign to strike in August in any events (though his first strike may have been . Why? Because they wanted to seize the land.

True, they did want more land. But with the amount of casualties suffered in Europe, even Stalin wasn't eager to send more troops to their deaths, and he was suffering from a shortage of supplies and money (they were expecting...I think it as $5 billion from America, but Truman cut it off, and that wasn't the first loan from America. Roosevelt had been the original one to okay loans to Russia, but Truman didn't want to support the Russians in such a kind way).

Indochina would still have happend for sure; Vietnam probably as well. They were much too far south for Russia to successfully claim before the other allies could, so things wouldn't have changed much in the area.

I was thinking, and Vietnam COULD have still happened, but it really depended on what happened post Indochina (although if a compromise could have been made that made France relinquish Vietnam.... But that's another matter entirely).

And remember, a russian invasion of mainland Japan would have, in itself, been every bit as costly as an American one, for both sides.

But if both the Russians and the Americans (and maybe some of the Australians and other smaller allied countries or colonies in the region) had invaded, it would have (obviously) reduced casualties to any one country, and would have forced Japan into a dual front for the first time in the war (unless China gave Japan a bigger challenge than I'm thinking).

Maybe you're right about Japan's reaction to a Russian invasion, though. I don't know enough about their culture or politics at the time to disagree with you. Although, largely, Stalin's influence in the other Asian countries seems to have been fairly minimal, so long as they didn't try to break away from communism.