Did we really have to nuke Japan?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is literally the opposite of what happened in WWI. An unconditional surrender by Germany leading to the punishing Versailles Treaty whereby Germany takes full responsibility for the war, must pay the Allies, give up territory, etc.. etc... is what led to the rise of the National Socialists within Germany because they promised to return Germany to greatness.

Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.

Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany was not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

 

[martybegan]

Germany did not unconditionally surrender in 1918. They got an armistice and then negotiated a peace treaty. Thats what Japan wanted in 1945.

Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany was not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany was not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

 

[gipper]

Yes, they negotiated being utterly destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany was not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

You are exhibiting an unwillingness to accept the truth.

Japan only asked that the Emperor stay on as a figure head. Had Truman agreed to this in May 1945, when Japan offered it, the war would have ended and thousands of innocent Japanese women and children would not have been murdered in cold blood.

Truman essentially told the Japanese, "fuck you...you dirty japs, we are going to drop the bombs...and then we will agree to your terms."

Nice guy...old Harry.

 

[regent]

In the end a lot of Japanese, and a lot of Americans survived and lived out their lives. Perhaps the decision always lay in Hirohito's hands and after two bombs he told Japan to surrender and bingo the war was over. The real question: should the emperor have suggested surrender before the fire bombing and before the a bombs, instead of letting the military decide?

 

[martybegan]

Germany was not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

You are exhibiting an unwillingness to accept the truth.

Japan only asked that the Emperor stay on as a figure head. Had Truman agreed to this in May 1945, when Japan offered it, the war would have ended and thousands of innocent Japanese women and children would not have been murdered in cold blood.

Truman essentially told the Japanese, "fuck you...you dirty japs, we are going to drop the bombs...and then we will agree to your terms."

Nice guy...old Harry.

Japan in no way offered that in May 1945, all the other conditions would have been part of ANY package. I referenced a wiki article with its own referenced sources. If you choose to ignore them, its up to you.

Japan in May 1945 still thought it could get a settled resolution to the war that left itself virtually intact.

Japan got a figurehead monarch, not what it really wanted, which was the retention of the Meji constitution based government.

They wanted no occupation, they didn't get it.
They wanted to keep their possessions in China, didn't get it.
They wanted to self-disarm in a limited manner, didn't get it.
They wanted to prosecute their own war criminals, didn't get it.
They wanted their turnover of European colonies to be based on popular sovereignty votes of the natives, didn't get it.

Stop making up history, that's for progressives.

 

[martybegan]

Germany was not occupied with the exception of the Rhine beachheads, The government was not dissolved. Their army was not disbanded. There was no unconditional surrender, this was a conditional surrender/armistice. Germany could have tried to go back to war in 1919, but I doubt they would have like the outcome.

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course they could have, but that's the point of surrender. Germany had absolutely no negotiating power at Paris and the French got everything they wanted from Germany: Territory, money, apologies, disarmament, etc... This lopsided peace is what brought the rise of the Nazis.

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

 

[martybegan]

and unconditional surrender ends the concept of the "lopsided peace" because the government and people in charge at the time are completely purged (at least the high level ones), and the loser's government is built from the ground up by the victors. After WWII the German and Japanese people had no illusion as to who won and lost, unlike the german's in WWI.

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:

We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's not what unconditional surrender means at all. It may mean that, but it merely means that the party surrendering sets no conditions on their surrender and that the "winning" party may set any conditions that they please. It doesn't mean that the victors absolutely must do anything, merely that they could. We see this in the case of Japan after WWII as well. Nobody doubts that Japan unconditionally surrendered after the bombs and yet the U.S. did not purge the Emperor.

After WWI, the Germans had no illusions as to who won. They knew it wasn't them, and the lopsided peace in the Treaty of Versailles left them bitter and angry. Germany's role in Paris was to accept whatever they were punished with.

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.

 

[martybegan]

So the whole "stabbed in the back" mentality that allowed the army to place blame for the loss on others never happened?

What is the crux of the issue is would Japan have unconditionally surrendered without the bombs, and before an invasion that would have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives?

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.

He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.

You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.

 

[martybegan]

As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:

We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.

That was the foreign minister, the army wanted to hold onto the territory in China. Other declarations reference "European holdings" being given back, but on the condition that the natives be given their independence via a vote.

The Army had terms, and these terms were unacceptable to the US. None of your posts counter this very simple and clear fact.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Unconditionally no, but they were willing to surrender. All it would have taken was a guarantee that the Emperor would have been left in power, which they got regardless. A negotiated peace is better than vaporizing innocent civilians for no reason.

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.

He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.

You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.

You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:

We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.

That was the foreign minister, the army wanted to hold onto the territory in China. Other declarations reference "European holdings" being given back, but on the condition that the natives be given their independence via a vote.

The Army had terms, and these terms were unacceptable to the US. None of your posts counter this very simple and clear fact.

Here again you create a distinction between military and government, but later admit that the government could control the military.

 

[martybegan]

They were not willing to surrender, at least not the people who could control a surrender, i.e. the army. It took the bombs to force the emperor to take matters in his own hands, and give the army a way out.

I never get the concept that vaporizing people is somehow worse than blowing them up with conventional explosives or puncturing them with bullets, which is what would have happened in an invasion.

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.

He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.

You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.

You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.

Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.

The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do.

Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.

 

[martybegan]

As to those who keep claiming that Japan wanted to keep all the territory that they conquered during the war, I'll refer you to this source document. In a message to Imperial Japanese Ambassador Naotake Sato, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan, Shigenori Togo, ordered Sato to deliver this message to the Soviets:

We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan—as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace—has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

In other words, it's exactly as I said: Japan was reaching out to the Soviets before they declared war in an attempt to get the USSR to mediate peace, and their only real condition was that the Emperor remain in power. They knew that they had already lost the war, and that Soviet entry into the Pacific theater, which was imminent, would be the final nail in the coffin. This shows, since the Emperor was ultimately retained anyways, that neither an invasion nor the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to force Japan to surrender.

That was the foreign minister, the army wanted to hold onto the territory in China. Other declarations reference "European holdings" being given back, but on the condition that the natives be given their independence via a vote.

The Army had terms, and these terms were unacceptable to the US. None of your posts counter this very simple and clear fact.

Here again you create a distinction between military and government, but later admit that the government could control the military.

The government WAS the military, at least the part with power. The others knew the Army could get rid of them at a whim, which is why they hid all the peace feelers sent out. The Navy was not as gung ho, because at that point, it had basically ceased to exist. The Army still had vast reserves of manpower and held large amounts of territory in China. It did not see itself as being defeated at that point, something the Navy already knew.

 

[Staidhup]

Revisionist Historians serve no other purpose then to expand their personal agenda and beliefs, otherwise pure garbage.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We know that they were willing to surrender, as the source documents show. Furthermore, Eisenhower, MacArthur and many others knew that Japan was willing to surrender and said so as previously documented.

It's true that more damage was done to Japan during the course of the war, including far more deaths of civilians via conventional bombing, which I would also denounce as evil, but the issue here is the fact that nuking them was completely unnecessary, and not to mention the fact that many who initially survived the bombing itself later died horribly from radiation poisoning and so on.

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.

He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.

You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.

You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.

Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.

The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do.

Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.

So you say, and yet we have source documents showing that they certainly believed that they could.

 

[martybegan]

and more would have died if we would have had to invade them, which was a foregone conclusion. They were not getting what they wanted in terms of surrender terms.

They were willing to surrender based on the 4-5 terms I have repeatedly referenced, which was unacceptable to the Allies.

See my above post in regards to the terms you referenced.

And, again, the invasion was unnecessary, because the U.S. later gave the Japanese the one condition, retention of the Emperor, that they would have been adamant on in the first place.

He became a figurehead, which is not what they wanted. Starving Japan would have taken years to accomplish, invasion would have been necessary despite your attempts at historical revision.

You above posts do not counter the fact that the Japanese Army wanted several terms, none of which were acceptable to the US. The Bomb allowed the Emperor to force the army to accept surrender without invasion.

You seem to want it both ways in regards to the Emperor. If he became only a figurehead after the nukes, then that implies he was something more prior to the unconditional surrender. However, you also seem to claim the military was outside of his control. So did the Emperor only become a figurehead after the surrender, or was he a figurehead under Tōjō? Regardless, the source document I provided shows that Japan had no illusions of keeping any territory and that they sought peace. The U.S. ultimately allowed the Emperor to remain in power, and this proves that an invasion was unnecessary.

Your logic skips all sorts of steps, and relies on consensus in the Japanese Cabinet, which was non-existent. You also make the mistake of assuming a western mindset for a culture that is not western.

The Emperor was a figurehead under the Meji constitution, but one that had significant ceremonial power and bully power. The Military paid lip service to being beholden to the Emperor, but that was easy because tradition stated he rarely countered the decisions of the government, which was controlled by the military. The Bombs forced the Emperor, under the advice of the unconditional surrender faction, to accept the Potsdam declaration, and to make the Army follow his command. They were then placed in the position of refusing the emperor, something they had never had to do before, but something they found impossible to do.

Without the bombs, the Peace faction would have been unable to convince the Emperor to force the Army to give up, short of invasion.

So you say, and yet we have source documents showing that they certainly believed that they could.

Only if you ignore the mountains of other documents that concur with what I am saying. Just like conspiracy nutters, you have to focus in on an interpretation of s small set of sources, and ignore all others.

The only thing you have done to refute any of what I have types is "this document says otherwise", which isn't refuting at all.