3 ms·

The horrifying thing is that the US knew the Japanese wanted to surrender, and knew that demanding abdication of the emperor was both a major impediment, unnece

The horrifying thing is that the US knew the Japanese wanted to surrender, and knew that demanding abdication of the emperor was both a major impediment, unnecessary and in fact harmful (because it would reduce the number of outposts that would accept the surrender order). The US had broken the codes used with messages to diplomats in the USSR and other traffic and could clearly see the Japanese situation. Despite this they never waivered from ambiguous "unconditional surrender" terminology... likely so they could continue pressing the front in Korea which would also end with a peace. So the US could have had peace earlier, with several hundred thousand less deaths, if they had been willing to put in writing specifically what they actually wanted, and what they got in the end.

nxm 2y ago
Well a surrender (we stop war but current regime stays in power) vs an unconditional surrender is something different. The terms must be agreed on.
- advisedwang 2y ago
  The viable alternative would have been demanding a surrender but stating that The Emperor will remain as a constitutional monarch - which is what the US ended up imposing anyway because it was the logical way to forestall resistance from a radicalized population. Such a demand would likely have resulted in a surrender before the atomic bombings.
  - otherme123 2y ago
    We have records of Japanese high rank military wanting to keep fighting after the dropping of the second bomb. They figured out the USA might have a couple more nukes, so Japan should endure them four and keep fighting. As said in other threads, it was the nukes and the soviets invading what finally forced the surrender.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    The earliest surrender request wasn't merely just for the emperor to stay in power. Japan also wanted to keep the territories they had acquired and manage all post-war trials of the military in-house. Any American general or politician that agreed to these terms would have been seen as a fool or a coward, especially after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Singapore, etc.
jklinger410 2y ago
> The horrifying thing is that the US knew the Japanese wanted to surrender > So the US could have had peace earlier, with several hundred thousand less deaths, if they had been willing to put in writing specifically what they actually wanted, and what they got in the end. These points are both highly contested, yet you say them as if they are foregone conclusions.
- advisedwang 2y ago
  I enjoy taking a position on things. It is a mentally stimulating to research an ambiguous situation, research it, come to a conclusion, and then unabashedly speak to your beliefs. One is not obligated to put disclaimers and counter-arguments in every comment, so long as you treat other people's counter-arguments with respect (which for me mostly means resisting the urge to reply to replies). In fact I think HN and discourse in general is at it's best when lots of people put forth different ideas, clearly and specifically articulated. It took me a long time to come to this style of discourse. If you haven't tried it, I heartily recommend dabbling in simply and directly stating your view.

nxm 2y ago

Well a surrender (we stop war but current regime stays in power) vs an unconditional surrender is something different. The terms must be agreed on.

advisedwang 2y ago
The viable alternative would have been demanding a surrender but stating that The Emperor will remain as a constitutional monarch - which is what the US ended up imposing anyway because it was the logical way to forestall resistance from a radicalized population. Such a demand would likely have resulted in a surrender before the atomic bombings.
- otherme123 2y ago
  We have records of Japanese high rank military wanting to keep fighting after the dropping of the second bomb. They figured out the USA might have a couple more nukes, so Japan should endure them four and keep fighting. As said in other threads, it was the nukes and the soviets invading what finally forced the surrender.
- keiferski 2y ago
  The earliest surrender request wasn't merely just for the emperor to stay in power. Japan also wanted to keep the territories they had acquired and manage all post-war trials of the military in-house. Any American general or politician that agreed to these terms would have been seen as a fool or a coward, especially after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Singapore, etc.

jklinger410 2y ago

> The horrifying thing is that the US knew the Japanese wanted to surrender > So the US could have had peace earlier, with several hundred thousand less deaths, if they had been willing to put in writing specifically what they actually wanted, and what they got in the end. These points are both highly contested, yet you say them as if they are foregone conclusions.

advisedwang 2y ago
I enjoy taking a position on things. It is a mentally stimulating to research an ambiguous situation, research it, come to a conclusion, and then unabashedly speak to your beliefs. One is not obligated to put disclaimers and counter-arguments in every comment, so long as you treat other people's counter-arguments with respect (which for me mostly means resisting the urge to reply to replies). In fact I think HN and discourse in general is at it's best when lots of people put forth different ideas, clearly and specifically articulated. It took me a long time to come to this style of discourse. If you haven't tried it, I heartily recommend dabbling in simply and directly stating your view.