Post by Swampy on Aug 9, 2020 10:10:28 GMT -5
This is the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, of course, people are still debating if they were necessary. The key point of that debate, of course, is if the Japanese were willing to surrender unconditionally.
The no-need-to-nuke crowd claims that the Japanese were willing to surrender, so long as the Emperor would not be harmed, but the nuke-em crowd claimed that the Japanese were not willing to surrender or would surrender with only that provision (no harm to the Emperor). I'm with the nuke-em crowd. As I read the history, the Japanese military council did not want to surrender for the longest time, and they had made their position clear that, if they were to surrender, it would be with conditions, namely, that the military remained intact, there would only be a limited occupation force, and any trials of war criminals would be held by the Japanese, not the Allies.
Even after the second Bombing, the Japanese military council remained divided, and they turned to the Emperor for advice. The Emperor then told them to surrender, with the provision that he remained safe. This was then communicated to the Allies, who accepted. But, even then, the Army attempted a coup, to prevent surrender, and that was fortunately forestalled. When that was done, the Japanese had to send imperial princes to all the commands, to order the surrender, because the council was not sure that the commanders would lay down their samurai swords.
And this reluctance to surrender was a constant theme throughout the Pacific War - time and again, the Japanese refused to surrender, preferring suicide instead. Everything points to the fact that they did not want to surrender with that one condition, so I don't see how anyone, quite honestly, could say otherwise.
Comments?
The no-need-to-nuke crowd claims that the Japanese were willing to surrender, so long as the Emperor would not be harmed, but the nuke-em crowd claimed that the Japanese were not willing to surrender or would surrender with only that provision (no harm to the Emperor). I'm with the nuke-em crowd. As I read the history, the Japanese military council did not want to surrender for the longest time, and they had made their position clear that, if they were to surrender, it would be with conditions, namely, that the military remained intact, there would only be a limited occupation force, and any trials of war criminals would be held by the Japanese, not the Allies.
Even after the second Bombing, the Japanese military council remained divided, and they turned to the Emperor for advice. The Emperor then told them to surrender, with the provision that he remained safe. This was then communicated to the Allies, who accepted. But, even then, the Army attempted a coup, to prevent surrender, and that was fortunately forestalled. When that was done, the Japanese had to send imperial princes to all the commands, to order the surrender, because the council was not sure that the commanders would lay down their samurai swords.
And this reluctance to surrender was a constant theme throughout the Pacific War - time and again, the Japanese refused to surrender, preferring suicide instead. Everything points to the fact that they did not want to surrender with that one condition, so I don't see how anyone, quite honestly, could say otherwise.
Comments?