3 ms·
> "...If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered..." There was a barely averted cou
by ThrowawayR2 3y ago
> "...If the Japanese had simply been given the option to retain their figurehead Emperor, they'd have certainly surrendered..."
There was a barely averted coup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident) to overturn Hirohito's decision surrender so that is clearly incorrect. The military, who was in control of the Japanese government, wanted to continue the war even after the use of both atomic weapons.
- housecarpenter 3y agoHow does that contradict what you quoted? The claim is that if the Japanese had been able to conditionally surrender, with the condition of retaining their emperor, then they would have done so. You respond by pointing out that when the Japanese did eventually unconditionally surrendered, much of the government was still against that decision. That implies nothing about what their response would have been to a conditional surrender. It's just a non sequitur. If anything one would expect that there would have been less elements of the government resisting a conditional surrender and so the coup would have been more likely to be suppressed in that case.