5 ms·

This counterfactual loses much of its appeal when you learn that Japan was beaten and had been trying, through back channels, to conditionally surrender for mon

by nkoren 10y ago

This counterfactual loses much of its appeal when you learn that Japan was beaten and had been trying, through back channels, to conditionally surrender for months prior to the bombing. Their sole condition was guaranteed safety for the Emperor: the US refused to grant this, and so the fighting continued. As history shows, the US had no intention of harming the emperor -- so why wouldn't it accept this condition? And why did it target civilians, rather than (as the Los Alamos scientists had called for) a demonstration just off the coast which would have made the point equally well?

lotharbot 10y ago
Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the government but who didn't have a way to connect with each other. So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels?
- fenomas 10y ago
  It's many years since I visited, but the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima has an exhibit that appeared to cover the evidence surrounding this pretty exhaustively. My vague recollection is that most of it was evidence of perception on the US side that Japan was ready to surrender - as opposed to evidence about specific back-channel negotiations.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Question should not be how well it is documented, but why it is not well documented.
  - kctess5 10y ago
    I feel like this is akin to asking why the staging of the moon landing was not more well documented.
    - nxzero 10y ago
      The two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people. No idea what your point is, please explain.
      - lotharbot 10y ago
        I think he's implying that "why it isn't documented" might be "because it didn't happen" ("it" being serious offers of surrender by Japan that reached the ears of US decision makers.) And that asking "why wasn't it documented?" presupposes that it did happen, which makes it a leading question.
        kctess5 10y ago
        Yep.
        nxzero 10y ago
        I'm not assuming that it did happened, I'm assuming that if you're going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, that every attempt to reach a outcome that does not require it should be tried and documented.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Does 'years of war and 50 millions dead' count as an attempt? Rather than an armchair, the decision-makers were coming from a viewpoint that included more of their friends dying horribly every week. As Tibbets, the guy that flew the mission said about critics of the event, "Those people never had their balls on that cold, hard anvil. They can say anything they want."
      - 10y ago
- nkoren 10y ago
  > So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]
  - lotharbot 10y ago
    interesting. Based on that, it looks like the sticking point really was whether the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed (thought he was eventually kept as a figurehead, it's not clear the US leadership expected to take that path.) EDIT: that said, do you have a source that isn't a holocaust-denial website?
    - nkoren 10y ago
      Ugh, yeah, that's a terrible source. Apologies for the bad Google-fu. I have heard this claim from decidedly less-terrible sources, but the hour is too late in my current timezone to pursue this thread. So until then I will need to relax the certitude of my claims.
  - crazydoggers 10y ago
    IHR is not a trustworthy source... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Rev... "The IHR is not regarded as conducting serious historical research by mainstream historians and academics but rather as conducting pseudo-science..."
    - nkoren 10y ago
      Thank you for pointing this out. I unreservedly withdraw my citation!
      - tomcorrigan 10y ago
        Having withdrawn the citation you should either replace it with a better one or retract your assertion.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hackcasual 10y ago
As in backchannels of primarily just Shigenori Togo. The Japanese war council was unanimous in rejecting unconditional surrender, and bitterly divided on the terms willing to be offered for conditional surrender. The idea that it was the safety of the emperor they were stuck on is new to me. Perhaps you are referring to Togo's statement that the Potsdam declaration would be accepted provided the position of the Emperor was maintained? Firstly, this was not an official Japanese government offer, secondly it's not exactly as if it's a reasonable request to allow a defeated belligerent to maintain their existing government. Edit: Sources From The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomi... Togo reasoned that "the introduction of a new weapon, which had drastically altered the whole military situation, offered the military ample grounds for ending the war." He proposed that surrender be considered at once on the basis of terms presented in the Potsdam Declaration. (When those in the peace party talked about "accepting the Potsdam terms," they meant acceptance with one crucial condition: retention of the emperor system.) However, the military authorities refused to concede that the United States had used an atomic weapon. Given the army's intransigence, it was impossible for the cabinet to take up Togo's proposal.
- sukilot 10y ago
  So, if it's established that the Japanese government was store concerned with its own political positioning that winning the war or defending the people of the country, and an appropriate response is to immediately bomb a quarter million civilians without any ramp up or targeting of military or government targets?
  - hackcasual 10y ago
    The morality of the action of dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan is separate from the question of whether the Japanese government was making a bona fide attempt to surrender.

by nkoren 10y ago

lotharbot 10y ago

Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the government but who didn't have a way to connect with each other. So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels?

fenomas 10y ago
It's many years since I visited, but the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima has an exhibit that appeared to cover the evidence surrounding this pretty exhaustively. My vague recollection is that most of it was evidence of perception on the US side that Japan was ready to surrender - as opposed to evidence about specific back-channel negotiations.
nxzero 10y ago
Question should not be how well it is documented, but why it is not well documented.
- kctess5 10y ago
  I feel like this is akin to asking why the staging of the moon landing was not more well documented.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    The two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people. No idea what your point is, please explain.
    - lotharbot 10y ago
      I think he's implying that "why it isn't documented" might be "because it didn't happen" ("it" being serious offers of surrender by Japan that reached the ears of US decision makers.) And that asking "why wasn't it documented?" presupposes that it did happen, which makes it a leading question.
      - kctess5 10y ago
        Yep.
        nxzero 10y ago
        I'm not assuming that it did happened, I'm assuming that if you're going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, that every attempt to reach a outcome that does not require it should be tried and documented.
        JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Does 'years of war and 50 millions dead' count as an attempt? Rather than an armchair, the decision-makers were coming from a viewpoint that included more of their friends dying horribly every week. As Tibbets, the guy that flew the mission said about critics of the event, "Those people never had their balls on that cold, hard anvil. They can say anything they want."
    - 10y ago
nkoren 10y ago
> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]
- lotharbot 10y ago
  interesting. Based on that, it looks like the sticking point really was whether the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed (thought he was eventually kept as a figurehead, it's not clear the US leadership expected to take that path.) EDIT: that said, do you have a source that isn't a holocaust-denial website?
  - nkoren 10y ago
    Ugh, yeah, that's a terrible source. Apologies for the bad Google-fu. I have heard this claim from decidedly less-terrible sources, but the hour is too late in my current timezone to pursue this thread. So until then I will need to relax the certitude of my claims.
- crazydoggers 10y ago
  IHR is not a trustworthy source... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Rev... "The IHR is not regarded as conducting serious historical research by mainstream historians and academics but rather as conducting pseudo-science..."
  - nkoren 10y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out. I unreservedly withdraw my citation!
    - tomcorrigan 10y ago
      Having withdrawn the citation you should either replace it with a better one or retract your assertion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

hackcasual 10y ago

As in backchannels of primarily just Shigenori Togo. The Japanese war council was unanimous in rejecting unconditional surrender, and bitterly divided on the terms willing to be offered for conditional surrender. The idea that it was the safety of the emperor they were stuck on is new to me. Perhaps you are referring to Togo's statement that the Potsdam declaration would be accepted provided the position of the Emperor was maintained? Firstly, this was not an official Japanese government offer, secondly it's not exactly as if it's a reasonable request to allow a defeated belligerent to maintain their existing government. Edit: Sources From The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomic%20Bomb.pdf http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomi... Togo reasoned that "the introduction of a new weapon, which had drastically altered the whole military situation, offered the military ample grounds for ending the war." He proposed that surrender be considered at once on the basis of terms presented in the Potsdam Declaration. (When those in the peace party talked about "accepting the Potsdam terms," they meant acceptance with one crucial condition: retention of the emperor system.) However, the military authorities refused to concede that the United States had used an atomic weapon. Given the army's intransigence, it was impossible for the cabinet to take up Togo's proposal.

sukilot 10y ago
So, if it's established that the Japanese government was store concerned with its own political positioning that winning the war or defending the people of the country, and an appropriate response is to immediately bomb a quarter million civilians without any ramp up or targeting of military or government targets?
- hackcasual 10y ago
  The morality of the action of dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan is separate from the question of whether the Japanese government was making a bona fide attempt to surrender.