3 ms·

I'm sorry, I'm not following. The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that

I'm sorry, I'm not following. The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender. There were no terms to inform the Japanese of. Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. And why not? If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? What leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender Those aren't terms. On a simple, likely over discused level, the Japanese leaders were against the removal of the Emperor. If the US had provided terms accepting a figurehead role for him they may have been willing to discuss peace. >Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. Though leaflets were dropped in Japan, they did not list Hiroshima as a target and they were not dropped in Hiroshima. > If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical? Again, those weren't the only options available. It's entirely possible their weapon could have ended the war without using it on cities.
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  The terms were unconditional surrender & Japan wanted far more than just keeping the emperor prior to the bombings. In any case, Japan did surrender unconditionally. They tried to add a clause protecting the emperor, vut the americans were clear that unconditional meant unconditional and japan ended up agreeing with that. So It wasn't part of a separate peace offer, it was just fully unconditional surrender. The US only ended up letting the emperor stay to keep stability and ease occupation, but were not obliged to do so
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The United States could have detailed the Potsdam Declaration's demands and turned them into terms of surrender fitting the Szilárd petition. Japan may have surrendered if they did, they at least had doubts that maintaining territory was still possible. We'll never know, as instead they demanded unconditional surrender and used atomic bombs to force acceptance. Either way, the US was never in a scenario where their only option was nuke cities or a full scale invasion.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>The declaration of Cairo clearly stated that the US will accept unconditional surrender. There was no need to inform Japan of that by that point, they were fully aware that the US would have accepted an unconditional surrender Those aren't terms. On a simple, likely over discused level, the Japanese leaders were against the removal of the Emperor. If the US had provided terms accepting a figurehead role for him they may have been willing to discuss peace. >Keep in mind they were dropping leaflets warning the target cities' population of imminent doom for days before the bombings. Though leaflets were dropped in Japan, they did not list Hiroshima as a target and they were not dropped in Hiroshima. > If you had a weapon you knew could end the war and lead to much, much less casualties on your side why not use it? leader would prefer the death of hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers (and millions of civilian casualties) in a total war because nuclear somehow makes it less ethical? Again, those weren't the only options available. It's entirely possible their weapon could have ended the war without using it on cities.

mardifoufs 6y ago
The terms were unconditional surrender & Japan wanted far more than just keeping the emperor prior to the bombings. In any case, Japan did surrender unconditionally. They tried to add a clause protecting the emperor, vut the americans were clear that unconditional meant unconditional and japan ended up agreeing with that. So It wasn't part of a separate peace offer, it was just fully unconditional surrender. The US only ended up letting the emperor stay to keep stability and ease occupation, but were not obliged to do so
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The United States could have detailed the Potsdam Declaration's demands and turned them into terms of surrender fitting the Szilárd petition. Japan may have surrendered if they did, they at least had doubts that maintaining territory was still possible. We'll never know, as instead they demanded unconditional surrender and used atomic bombs to force acceptance. Either way, the US was never in a scenario where their only option was nuke cities or a full scale invasion.