Would we, if we could, have nuked Germany in WWII

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, your “source documents” are not the whole story and DDE had it wrong. You cannot get around that the military and government officials were trying to stop the surrender, so, no, “the government” was not ready to surrender. You are mistaking a conclusion as evidence for an entirety of effort that simply is not warranted by the facts.

Avg, you are wrong. Yes, the Brits and the Americans terror bombed German and Japanese cities from the air, killing millions of civilian victims. To say otherwise is not just sophistry, it is an outright lie. As far as Allied policy, you are right that “sacking cities” was not part of the program, yet Americans and Brits and allied soldiers raped tens of thousands of victims, and, in the Pacific, opposing sides were rarely taking prisoners after 1943, except generally for intelligence purposes.

Avg, only far right wing controlled schools say that the leftist say America started the war. To acknowledge that the Japanese made a decision for war because of American freezing of allied assets is the truth. Avg is nothing more than a hack for the far right wing revisions of American education. The revisionist effort is a failure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, your “source documents” are not the whole story and DDE had it wrong. You cannot get around that the military and government officials were trying to stop the surrender, so, no, “the government” was not ready to surrender. You are mistaking a conclusion as evidence for an entirety of effort that simply is not warranted by the facts.

Avg, you are wrong. Yes, the Brits and the Americans terror bombed German and Japanese cities from the air, killing millions of civilian victims. To say otherwise is not just sophistry, it is an outright lie. As far as Allied policy, you are right that “sacking cities” was not part of the program, yet Americans and Brits and allied soldiers raped tens of thousands of victims, and, in the Pacific, opposing sides were rarely taking prisoners after 1943, except generally for intelligence purposes.

Avg, only far right wing controlled schools say that the leftist say America started the war. To acknowledge that the Japanese made a decision for war because of American freezing of allied assets is the truth. Avg is nothing more than a hack for the far right wing revisions of American education. The revisionist effort is a failure.

Again, we know that the government intended to surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is not in question. The military, of course, did not want to surrender. But neither did they want to surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan surrendered nonetheless. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that Japan would have surrendered prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[williepete]

Again, we know that the government intended to surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is not in question. The military, of course, did not want to surrender. But neither did they want to surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan surrendered nonetheless. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that Japan would have surrendered prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1. No they weren't.

2. "That is not in question" isn't true just because you say so.

Kevin,

With all due respect, you are parroting modern day revisionist history. If you read, please read "The Rising Sun" by John Toland to get the first hand accounts of high ranking Japanese military and political leaders shortly after the war.

I'd love to hear your take on the book. PM me if you read it. I plan to read it again one day. I'd be interested in your take or any other members' take on the book.

Also, if you haven't read "Truman" by David McCullough. The decision making process leading up to using the bomb is thoroughly laid out.

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the back stage negotiations between the Americans and the Japanese through the Vatican and the Swiss embassy. Reviewing those correspondences shed light on the complexity of getting the Japanese to surrender. One cannot enter into a conversation like this without being conversant on those behind the scenes negotiations.

But if you don't read, well....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Japanese were trying to get conditional terms that would keep much of their conquered territory but were not willing to surrender with a loss of all of the territory. Thus, there was no willingness to surrender, only a willingness to stop military activities and keep much of its territory.

The Emperor faced some resistance in the government and much in the military and had to fight off a coup to get his surrender record on the radio.

Kevin, you have fallen for far right wing revisionist theory that does not proceed from a logical analysis of the facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Japanese were trying to get conditional terms that would keep much of their conquered territory but were not willing to surrender with a loss of all of the territory. Thus, there was no willingness to surrender, only a willingness to stop military activities and keep much of its territory.

The Emperor faced some resistance in the government and much in the military and had to fight off a coup to get his surrender record on the radio.

Kevin, you have fallen for far right wing revisionist theory that does not proceed from a logical analysis of the facts. Don't be a tool of the AvgGuys.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, we know that the government intended to surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is not in question. The military, of course, did not want to surrender. But neither did they want to surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan surrendered nonetheless. Therefore, it's safe to conclude that Japan would have surrendered prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1. No they weren't.

2. "That is not in question" isn't true just because you say so.

Kevin,

With all due respect, you are parroting modern day revisionist history. If you read, please read "The Rising Sun" by John Toland to get the first hand accounts of high ranking Japanese military and political leaders shortly after the war.

I'd love to hear your take on the book. PM me if you read it. I plan to read it again one day. I'd be interested in your take or any other members' take on the book.

Also, if you haven't read "Truman" by David McCullough. The decision making process leading up to using the bomb is thoroughly laid out.

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the back stage negotiations between the Americans and the Japanese through the Vatican and the Swiss embassy. Reviewing those correspondences shed light on the complexity of getting the Japanese to surrender. One cannot enter into a conversation like this without being conversant on those behind the scenes negotiations.

But if you don't read, well....

And if you don't read the source documents provided in this thread proving that the Japanese intended to surrender then what can we really discuss? Unless you're unaware that they've been posted, in which case I am now informing you, or have some evidence that they're fake you can't possibly say it's not true.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Japanese were trying to get conditional terms that would keep much of their conquered territory but were not willing to surrender with a loss of all of the territory. Thus, there was no willingness to surrender, only a willingness to stop military activities and keep much of its territory.

The Emperor faced some resistance in the government and much in the military and had to fight off a coup to get his surrender record on the radio.

Kevin, you have fallen for far right wing revisionist theory that does not proceed from a logical analysis of the facts.

“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

So no, their only condition was the maintenance of the Emperor, which they got regardless.