Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would the japanese approach a general with no authority instead of the president?We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta
LOL I inked to primary sources and YOU ignored them, and YOU have NEVER linked to a single actual source just second hand claims made years after the fact by politicians.And then one day a little birdie told you the truth huh?All my life hearing this same mantra. I guess you really believe it.
...
How about studying primary sources from the time period in question? You know, actually studying history instead of clinging to a comfortable story from your childhood like a security blanket for your conscience?
There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic on many threads containing many links to many sources. It's time for you to get off your ass and at least look at what has already been posted over and over. Beyond that, there are many sources that I doubt you could read anyway.
Stop being lazy and read what is already here. There is a copious amount of "real evidence." Go read it.
Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.
From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.
you folks are beating The Nation article to deathMaybe you should further your education a little before saying any more. Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip.....And then one day a little birdie told you the truth huh?
Or was it a marxist revisionist historian?
![]()
The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It
Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?www.thenation.com
... That is the exact same proposal (as I said previously) they shopped to the Swiss, Swedish, and Soviets. It was in absolutely no way a "surrender". It was a call for an armistice. A status quo ante bellium. A return to 1941 battle lines. With a few changes.
The Philippines would remain demilitarized, all captured Japanese territory returned to Japan, both sides essentially pretend that the war never happened.
...
Because of the divisions within the Japanese government. they weren't just worried about getting their hand smacked or some harsh words.Why would the japanese approach a general with no authority instead of the president?
Right, is is a step to surrender. So, when discussing whether or not Japan would have surrendered, it's right in the mix.And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.
No it isn't the Japanese Government never had an intent to surrender. EVER. They wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. That is all they ever offered.Right, is is a step to surrender. So, when discussing whether or not Japan would have surrendered, it's right in the mix.And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.
How about studying primary sources from the time period in question? You know, actually studying history instead of clinging to a comfortable story from your childhood like a security blanket for your conscience?
Fine. Show us a "Primary source" where a representative from Japan was given the authority to present to the Allied Powers terms that followed the Potsdam Declaration, or have otherwise been acceptable.
And no, not that silly Armistice call that they had been trying to shop around since 1943. The Swiss, Sweden, and Soviets all refused to even forward that nonsense, knowing it would not even be considered.
YOu are the one insisting there were offers, so you present your primary source. ANd not just an opinion, the actual source.
There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic on many threads containing many links to many sources. It's time for you to get off your ass and at least look at what has already been posted over and over. Beyond that, there are many sources that I doubt you could read anyway.
Since it is very likely that you are too lazy to do any of the above, why not focus on what is already in agreement? We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta, and that fdr summarily dismissed it. Do you think fdr would have ever considered any earlier conclusion to the war?
Right, is is a step to surrender. So, when discussing whether or not Japan would have surrendered, it's right in the mix.And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.
How about studying primary sources from the time period in question? You know, actually studying history instead of clinging to a comfortable story from your childhood like a security blanket for your conscience?
Fine. Show us a "Primary source" where a representative from Japan was given the authority to present to the Allied Powers terms that followed the Potsdam Declaration, or have otherwise been acceptable.
And no, not that silly Armistice call that they had been trying to shop around since 1943. The Swiss, Sweden, and Soviets all refused to even forward that nonsense, knowing it would not even be considered.
YOu are the one insisting there were offers, so you present your primary source. ANd not just an opinion, the actual source.
There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic on many threads containing many links to many sources. It's time for you to get off your ass and at least look at what has already been posted over and over. Beyond that, there are many sources that I doubt you could read anyway.
Since it is very likely that you are too lazy to do any of the above, why not focus on what is already in agreement? We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta, and that fdr summarily dismissed it. Do you think fdr would have ever considered any earlier conclusion to the war?
Funny, you demand "primary sources", but can not provide your own. Then scream when others ask them of you.
I could not give a damn if Mac sent him a 5,000 page document, if he did not include specifics to show that anybody was given the authority to make such an offer, then it should have been ignored. Period.
And pretty much every historian knows that half the time, Mac was full of crap. He made stuff up all the time, frequently to glorify himself. He also claimed that the Philippines would never fall, the "Boys will be home by Christmas" in Korea, and that China would never dare get involved in the conflict.
And of course when they did get involved, he wanted to nuke China. And this is the man you are using as your reference?
What rank did you hold when you served in the Pacific theater during WWII?
It appears that they did. They just wanted to retain their emperor and hopefully negotiate back some of their gains. That wasn't going to be a declaration of victory. that was going to be a surrender. Now, arguing whether or not this is an acceptable end for the US is a worthy discussion.No it isn't the Japanese Government never had an intent to surrender. EVER.