“their martial tendencies renewed”
So your thesis is that Meiji was the anomaly and that they preferred a dictatorship, or that the dictatorship was an anomaly. a) is the Sonderweg btw.
“You should have extended your study of Japanese history into the time leading up to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.”
Who says I didn’t? You?
“you might have discovered it resembled the Shogunate only now with ‘lesser races’ as the oppressed and ruled and guided by their masters.”
It may surprise you but the Japanese didn’t regard themselves as the source of divine governance during the Shogunate. Just the opposite. Nor did they regard themselves as surrounded by lesser races.
“The Germans made an effort to depose Hitler to reach a peace, the Japs had no similar effort”
Oh, so that’s your thesis - that the Japanese had no soul and that all of them marched lockstep into the war?
“None of this addresses the question however, why was the killing of civilians acceptable, as long as atomic bombs weren’t the method?”
Again, I’m not opposed to the use of the atomic bomb. I’m opposed to the ahistorical nonsense that the bomb was ok because there were no other viable options. Eisenhower (and he should know!) argues otherwise.
“It isn’t an accurate portrayal”
Kamikaze is the resort of a nation already defeated.
The fact you referenced wooden rocket planes (By Okinawa they were not using Zeros. They were using little wooden ‘rocket planes’.) during the Kamikaze assault, the references to Leyte OOB (They only had 40 zeros that were flight worthy at Leyte Gulf.). It appears that you thought the only plane the Japs operated was the Zero.
It may surprise you but the Japanese didn’t regard themselves as the source of divine governance during the Shogunate.
No surprise at all, the governance by the 'divine' was a result of the Mejii Restoration. However the dictatorship of the Shogunate was similar to that of Imperial Japan, both under one man, the Shogun or the Emperor.
Again, I’m not opposed to the use of the atomic bomb. I’m opposed to the ahistorical nonsense that the bomb was ok because there were no other viable options. Eisenhower (and he should know!) argues otherwise.
That all depends upon the strategic objectives, lessen Allied casualties, get Japan to the surrender table quickly unconditional surrender, saving the POWs. A blockade achieves 50% of those goals. The invasion 75%. The fact that an invasion was planned and only discarded after the bombs shows that a blockade was the least favorable of the COAs available. A blockade was considered and rejected, Ike notwithstanding.