Category:Chinese culture
Category:Books about China
Category:1993 non-fiction books
Category:English-language booksThe documents state:
In T-4, the operational phase of the U.S.-occupied areas of Japan, the Japanese government is to be overthrown, the imperial system abolished, and Japan transformed into a democratic republic. The overthrow of the Japanese state is to be effected in the following manner: First, the Japanese military forces are to be disarmed, and an interim military government is to be set up. Second, the Japanese government is to be transformed into a 'government-in-exile'. Third, the Emperor of Japan is to be formally abdicated, and an elected 'government of national unity' is to be set up with a provisional constitution."
President Truman wanted Japan occupied after the war, where the Japanese could be'rehabilitated'. The plan was to force the Japanese government to surrender.
Once the Japanese were disarmed, the plan was for the US to take charge of Japan, to the point of 'occupation', with the goal of helping the Japanese find a new constitution, with a new government (in-exile).
The plan was approved by the Allies.
American troops that had already arrived in Japan in the pre-war period would continue to be in charge. Japan was technically a territory of the United States under control of the Allied powers. However, they were not going to be handed over to the Japanese, rather, the occupation would be extended by the Allied forces.
In other words, Japan was to be occupied.
The plan was to "take over Japan", make sure the Japanese surrendered and then take control of it. In the end, the plan was made to disband the Japanese army, put the emperor on trial, and have the Japanese draft a new constitution.
I guess it can't be argued that the war was not about 'not letting Japan go', or the goal was 'not letting Japan go', or Japan was not occupied (since there was not a military occupation).
If the US government is now admitting that it was about preserving what it called the "American way of life", then it is reasonable to say that the WWII was about American hegemony.
If that is the case, then the immediate question is: Why was the war about American hegemony?
To say the war was about American hegemony is to assume that American hegemony, which I assume be359ba680
Related links: