7 ms·

> then ended up accepting the Japanese condition anyway What?? Japan was forced to accept Allies' condition.

quirkafleeg 9y ago
As I said in my post, the essential Japanese condition for surrender was that the Emperor remain in place. After rejecting that, thus prolonging the war and using the atom bombs, the US ended up keeping the Emperor in place (ie accepting the previous Japanese condition) anyway.
- krapp 9y ago
  I may be wrong, but I believe the Japanese wanted the Emperor to remain in place and retain his power - the US was merely willing to not kill him as long as he remained a figurehead and publicly renounced any claims to authority.
  - quirkafleeg 9y ago
    Whatever may have eventually been negotiated, and perhaps nothing would ever have been agreed, it disproves the myth (used to justify the atom bombs) that only being nuked forced them to consider surrender.
    - krapp 9y ago
      The recording of the Emperor's surrender had to be sneaked out to NHK studios past a military coup in progress, so certainly not everyone was convinced. Personally, I tend to believe that the nukes, the potential cost of defending against an invasion of the mainland by the US, and Russia's invasion made surrender look like the obvious choice, but remember that the initial plan for Pearl Harbor assumed a negotiated surrender with the US which, Japan hoped, would let them keep certain territories necessary to maintain supply lines for their colonial wars, which was what they really cared about. Fanatical resistance by the military, both due to their own racist ideals and out of the fear for self-preservation (the Japanese people, the Western world and the rest of Asia basically hated Japan's government by the end,) drew the war and the surrender out longer than it needed to be. Although, I also believe the main reason the US dropped the atomic bombs is that we had them, and therefore needed to justify the expense of making them by using them. It's likely that, without Japan's surrender, the US would have used nuclear weapons and invaded Japan at the same time.
      - quirkafleeg 9y ago
        > Fanatical resistance by the military, both due to their own racist ideals and out of the fear for self-preservation drew the war and the surrender out longer than it needed to be. That doesn't seem to be what you were originally arguing: > It's odd how [Japan "fighting and fighting and fighting"] is portrayed as a negative aspect of Japan's militarism, when the Allies were fighting the same war with the same attitude.
    - PerfectDlite 9y ago
      Ю it disproves the myth (used to justify the atom bombs) that only being nuked forced them to consider surrender. How is this a myth if nukes were mentioned in emperor's address as a reason to surrender?
      - quirkafleeg 9y ago
        I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding here: Because, as I've said, at least twice, they were already considering surrender even before the atomic bombs were dropped.
        PerfectDlite 9y ago
        Yes. But if atomic bombs were mentioned as a reason for surrender, why you're calling it a myth?
        quirkafleeg 9y ago
        Because being one of numerous factors is not the same as being the only factor, or even necessarily the deciding factor.
        PerfectDlite 9y ago
        What numerous factors are you talking about? Did they got a mention in emperor's address?
        quirkafleeg 9y ago
        Since you're asking me what's in it, I assume you haven't read it. Why not do that now; it's not hard to find online. After that, please read some basic WWII history before stringing this thread out any longer, if you're seriously unaware of anything but the atom bomb that didn't go Japan's way in 1945.

As I said in my post, the essential Japanese condition for surrender was that the Emperor remain in place. After rejecting that, thus prolonging the war and using the atom bombs, the US ended up keeping the Emperor in place (ie accepting the previous Japanese condition) anyway.

krapp 9y ago
I may be wrong, but I believe the Japanese wanted the Emperor to remain in place and retain his power - the US was merely willing to not kill him as long as he remained a figurehead and publicly renounced any claims to authority.
- quirkafleeg 9y ago
  Whatever may have eventually been negotiated, and perhaps nothing would ever have been agreed, it disproves the myth (used to justify the atom bombs) that only being nuked forced them to consider surrender.
  - krapp 9y ago
    The recording of the Emperor's surrender had to be sneaked out to NHK studios past a military coup in progress, so certainly not everyone was convinced. Personally, I tend to believe that the nukes, the potential cost of defending against an invasion of the mainland by the US, and Russia's invasion made surrender look like the obvious choice, but remember that the initial plan for Pearl Harbor assumed a negotiated surrender with the US which, Japan hoped, would let them keep certain territories necessary to maintain supply lines for their colonial wars, which was what they really cared about. Fanatical resistance by the military, both due to their own racist ideals and out of the fear for self-preservation (the Japanese people, the Western world and the rest of Asia basically hated Japan's government by the end,) drew the war and the surrender out longer than it needed to be. Although, I also believe the main reason the US dropped the atomic bombs is that we had them, and therefore needed to justify the expense of making them by using them. It's likely that, without Japan's surrender, the US would have used nuclear weapons and invaded Japan at the same time.
    - quirkafleeg 9y ago
      > Fanatical resistance by the military, both due to their own racist ideals and out of the fear for self-preservation drew the war and the surrender out longer than it needed to be. That doesn't seem to be what you were originally arguing: > It's odd how [Japan "fighting and fighting and fighting"] is portrayed as a negative aspect of Japan's militarism, when the Allies were fighting the same war with the same attitude.
  - PerfectDlite 9y ago
    Ю it disproves the myth (used to justify the atom bombs) that only being nuked forced them to consider surrender. How is this a myth if nukes were mentioned in emperor's address as a reason to surrender?
    - quirkafleeg 9y ago
      I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding here: Because, as I've said, at least twice, they were already considering surrender even before the atomic bombs were dropped.
      - PerfectDlite 9y ago
        Yes. But if atomic bombs were mentioned as a reason for surrender, why you're calling it a myth?
        quirkafleeg 9y ago
        Because being one of numerous factors is not the same as being the only factor, or even necessarily the deciding factor.
        PerfectDlite 9y ago
        What numerous factors are you talking about? Did they got a mention in emperor's address?
        quirkafleeg 9y ago
        Since you're asking me what's in it, I assume you haven't read it. Why not do that now; it's not hard to find online. After that, please read some basic WWII history before stringing this thread out any longer, if you're seriously unaware of anything but the atom bomb that didn't go Japan's way in 1945.