# Atomic Bombings of Japan **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803 "2009-11-24T17:52:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/241 "2009-11-28T04:20:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heh, the World War 2 entry says “Hawaii Bombed” but neglects to mention by whom. Not to mention that list is a tad bloated. For example it asserts that US Marines clashed with nationalist rebels in the 1891 Civil War. Now my knowledge of this conflict is incomplete, but the closest incident I could find was he Itata incident, which was the seizure of a ship illegally carrying arms that left San Diego, but that was hardly a ‘clash’, and was barely an intervention. A search for these terms finds the same list repeated on different webpages - almost self-propagating without an original source. The terminology of that list is designed to inflame. It is not even close to being a balanced account. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Baldy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Gary\_Baldy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Baldy)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/242 "2009-11-28T07:21:03Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html](http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html) Another site, more aggression. The USA dropped ine too many nukes. The USA shouldn’t have dropped any nukes. The USA should have invaded because the Japanese had barely any military. The USA should have blockaded Japan, conventionally bombed and starved the island. The USA would not let Japan surrender on terms favorable to Japan. The USA is racists so we had to nuke Japan. And now the USA is an aggressively imperialist country, so we shouldn’t have done anything to Japan. These arguments contradict each other and historical fact. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Baldy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Gary\_Baldy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Baldy)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/243 "2009-11-28T07:30:02Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Not to mention that list is a tad bloated. For example it asserts that US Marines clashed with nationalist rebels in the 1891 Civil War. Now my knowledge of this conflict is incomplete, but the closest incident I could find was he Itata incident, which was the seizure of a ship illegally carrying arms that left San Diego, but that was hardly a ‘clash’, and was barely an intervention. > > A search for these terms finds the same list repeated on different webpages - almost self-propagating without an original source. > > The terminology of that list is designed to inflame. It is not even close to being a balanced account. It’s even sillier than that. It wasn’t the Itata incident, but the Baltimore Crisis directly after the incident. Sailors from the USS Baltimore were on shore leave in a bar when they were attacked by a mob. Two sailors died and 17 were hurt. So the US military wasn’t even the aggressors in this “clash”, but, dare I say it, the victims. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/244 "2009-11-28T13:00:56Z")
> [@Gary\_Baldy](#): > > It’s even sillier than that. It wasn’t the Itata incident, but the Baltimore Crisis directly after the incident. Sailors from the USS Baltimore were on shore leave in a bar when they were attacked by a mob. Two sailors died and 17 were hurt. So the US military wasn’t even the aggressors in this “clash”, but, dare I say it, the victims. Yeah, I was wondering if it was based on the Baltimore Incident. That list is looking more and more like a joke. The 1892 entry for Navassa makes it sound like the US invaded Haiti and crushed a popular movement with huge loss of Haitian life. In fact the Navassa is a bare rock island that is claimed by both Haiti and the US, its claim to fame was having a Guano company on it. Some workers killed some supervisors and a gunboat was used to pick up the criminals. Wow. Hitler got nuttin’ on the evil USA. Also, troops sent to quell devastating riots are listed as if they were in major battles. What a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/245 "2009-11-28T14:11:18Z")
While \*\* gonzomax\*\*'s position is a popular one, it is not supported by any _contemporary_ documentation. There is simply no indication in the record that the Americans dropped the bombs for any other reason than is commonly given, to end the war. No indication it was to send a signal to the Soviets. No clue that the Japanese were targeted because of their race. No hint that the bombs would not have been used on the Germans. The historical record supports the common judgement that the US used the bombs to end the war. Lacking proof, **gonzomax** is simply engaged in revisionism (which is useful) based on nothing (which is not useful). Truman faced a number of options; 1. Invade 2. Blockade 3. Conventional bombing 4. Nuclear bombing 5. Giving up and going home In truth, he rejected number five and preceded to do all the other courses of action. He followed every course that would lead to ending the war. While the two bombs certainly pushed the Japanese to surrender when they did, the pressure from the other actions was also quite considerable. It took all this stuff to push the Japanese to surrender. By ending the wad in the fall of '45, rather than say in the spring of '46, we saved tens of thousands of Chinese lives in addition to those lives who would have been lost in an invasion or a more prolonged starvation campaign. Ending the war early by any means was the right thing to do. The evidence shows this was the only consideration of those who made the decision. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/246 "2009-11-28T19:31:58Z")
The revisionism is not mine. Truman trotted off the million dead after we dropped the bombs to try and justify it. The American people were not sold that it was a good idea. So they told everybody how many lives were saved to make dropping the bombs more palatable. It won the day and works til today. That does not make it true. There are plenty of good sources that argue it. You are just rejecting any thing that makes you uncomfortable. It was a horrible thing we did. It is not hard to buy what makes you feel better. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/247 "2009-11-28T19:42:02Z")
We’re still waiting for your alternative, and how much kinder and gentler it no doubt would have been. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/248 "2009-11-28T20:18:06Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The revisionism is not mine. Truman trotted off the million dead after we dropped the bombs to try and justify it. The American people were not sold that it was a good idea. So they told everybody how many lives were saved to make dropping the bombs more palatable. It won the day and works til today. That does not make it true. There are plenty of good sources that argue it. You are just rejecting any thing that makes you uncomfortable. It was a horrible thing we did. It is not hard to buy what makes you feel better. Truman didn’t, the Allied field commanders did. And the Japanese did. > [@](#): > > The intent of Ketsu-Go was to inflict tremendous casualties on the American forces, thereby undermining the American people’s will to continue the fight for Japan’s unconditional surrender. This intent is clear in a boastful comment made by an IGHQ army staff officer in July 1945: > > We will prepare 10,000 planes to meet the landing of the enemy. We will mobilize every aircraft possible, both training and “special attack” planes. We will smash one third of the enemy’s war potential with this air force at sea. Another third will also be smashed at sea by our warships, human torpedoes and other special weapons. Furthermore, when the enemy actually lands, if we are ready to sacrifice a million men we will be able to inflict an equal number of casualties upon them. If the enemy loses a million men, then the public opinion in America will become inclined towards peace, and Japan will be able to gain peace with comparatively advantageous conditions.(11) [http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm](http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm) I’ll quote this again because you seem to have missed the significance; > [@](#): > > But while the naval side of the Pacific War displayed the broad, sweeping moves so loved by historians, land combat in the Pacific had little in common with the maneuver warfare that went a long way toward keeping casualties comparatively low in France and the central German Plain. The closest European commanders came after D-Day to the corps-level combat which was the stock and trade of Army and Marine divisions in the Pacific was the prolonged fighting in the Huertgen Forest and Normandy’s hedgerows- close-in, infantry-intensive slugfests that produced many bodies on both sides [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm) > [@](#): > > Japan stripped Honshu of assets to build up Kyushu, where. 900,000 soldiers (ten times as many as fought on Okinawa) were ready to “inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan.” Unlike the Germans in Northwest Europe, who were deceived about Normandy in June 1944, the Japanese correctly predicted the exact landing locations and the approximate date of the attack shortly before the United States decided what to do itself.27 [http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...n/pearlman.asp](http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...n/pearlman.asp) Imagine D-Day and the Battle of Normandy, but if the Germans knew exactly when and where the Allies would attack. Now imagine a typhoon devastates the Allied staging grounds just before the operation is launched. Now imagine if it were not against occupied land, but in the enemy homeland. Now imagine every man, woman and child being your mortal enemy due to lies spread by the junta. Now imagine that the defenders would gladly, fanatically, lay down their own lives and the lives of their civilian wards if it meant killing you. Now imagine a mentality adamantly opposed to surrender - every fight is a fight to the death. This was not a moral alternative. It would have meant death for hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers, as well as Japanese soldiers and civilians. There was no good alternative. We had to use the bomb, or else face the nightmarish scenario of invading the Home Islands. The Japanese didn’t want surrender, they wanted peace, as evidenced by their somewhat laughable attempts to mediate through the Soviet Union (similar to how Himmler tried to form a separate peace with the western Allies - and nobody paid any attention to him, either). This would have left the aggressive, brutal, inhuman regime intact. We had to force unconditional surrender, and be done with it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/249 "2009-11-28T20:46:40Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > The Japanese didn’t want surrender, they wanted peace, as evidenced by their somewhat laughable attempts to mediate through the Soviet Union (similar to how Himmler tried to form a separate peace with the western Allies - and nobody paid any attention to him, either). This would have left the aggressive, brutal, inhuman regime intact. We had to force unconditional surrender, and be done with it. In short, Japan wanted a time out, or half-time, so they could reconstruct and go back to what they were doing before. It was sooooo considerate of the eeevil Imperial USA to not let them do that! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/250 "2009-11-28T20:57:23Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > There are plenty of good sources that argue it. No there aren’t. Your lack of decent production in this thread is proof alone of that. > [@](#): > > You are just rejecting any thing that makes you uncomfortable. No, we are rejecting ‘analysis’ made by folks who have a political axe to grind, dislike the US, or want a Japan pity party in favor of analysis made by military sources from all over the world, as well as those who were in a position to judge the situation as a whole. Yes, some US commanders did not like doing it (or at least said so after the fact) but they are not everyone. > [@](#): > > It was a horrible thing we did. It is not hard to buy what makes you feel better. I can buy it was the alternative is much more horrible according to all sources and the only retort you can give is so weak it would make a 9/11 truther embarrassed. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/251 "2009-11-28T21:04:23Z")
I disagree that we should have dropped the bomb. I vehemently hate the dropping of the second one. It was inexcusable and it takes a lot of tap dancing around reality to justify it. To this day only one country has used nuclear weapons and they did it twice. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/252 "2009-11-28T21:25:46Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I disagree that we should have dropped the bomb. I vehemently hate the dropping of the second one. It was inexcusable and it takes a lot of tap dancing around reality to justify it. To this day only one country has used nuclear weapons and they did it twice. You have yet to outline an alternative that would have plausibly resulted in less loss of life. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/253 "2009-11-28T21:30:58Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I disagree that we should have dropped the bomb. I vehemently hate the dropping of the second one. So? > [@](#): > > It was inexcusable and it takes a lot of tap dancing around reality to justify it. By definition it was not inexcusable. The valid justification is that all the other alternatives would have resulted in more civilian deaths. It takes a naive ignorance of the Pacific Theatre and Imperial Japan to think otherwise. > [@](#): > > To this day only one country has used nuclear weapons and they did it twice. …in war, right? Oh, and you still haven’t answered the question. You can only put off the answer for so long - if the use of the bombs was completely inexcusable, what should we have done instead? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/254 "2009-11-28T21:49:47Z")
Accepted their upcoming surrender. You do know we were aware they asked the USSR to help us take their surrender, aren’t you. They just wanted to keep the emperor . They were in no position to make demands, and they knew it. I suppose the fact they knew they were whipped and were trying to give up is beyond your ability to understand. The threat that we will have our women and children fight against your soldiers and tanks is not a very big threat. But it was all they had. Now you can convince yourself it was a credible threat. Sure those kids and women would have killed a million soldiers. Damn ,we should have waited until we had more bombs and just fried the whole island. That is so sick. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/255 "2009-11-28T22:07:09Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Accepted their upcoming surrender. The ‘surrender’ wasn’t even close to a resolution. The treaty ending WW1 resolved more than what that alleged ‘surrender’ would have entailed. > [@](#): > > You do know we were aware they asked the USSR to help us take their surrender, aren’t you. But the USSR wasn’t taking them seriously, why should the USA. > [@](#): > > They just wanted to keep the emperor . Oh HORSESHIT! You’ve had the terms put right here IN THIS THREAD. It was WAY more than just keeping the Emperor. > [@](#): > > They were in no position to make demands, and they knew it. Yet they kept on making them. In fact their entire defense plan from before Iwo Jima was not so much to win as to cause so much attrition to the allies that they would get favorable terms. > [@](#): > > I suppose the fact they knew they were whipped and were trying to give up is beyond your ability to understand. It might be, given that they fought so hard at Okinawa, and at Iwo Jima - I guess understanding how a country that is working hard to cause as many casualties in defense is going to just roll over when we step on their soil. > [@](#): > > The threat that we will have our women and children fight against your soldiers and tanks is not a very big threat. But yet it shows their desperation as a people. If you think women and children are completely not a threat, have a look at the Russian Partisans some time - if you ever get around to reading anything about the war you complain about. > [@](#): > > But it was all they had. No. They had a lot more than that. Hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of aircraft, and much, much more. This has been spelled out for you several times in this thread, why are you ignoring that? Does it make you too uncomfortable? > [@](#): > > Now you can convince yourself it was a credible threat. Sure those kids and women would have killed a million soldiers. Damn ,we should have waited until we had more bombs and just fried the whole island. I think we struck a pure vein of cognitive dissonance folks. > [@](#): > > That is so sick. No, what is sick is you trying to pretend that Japan would happily bowl over or give a surrender with meaning in the face of the multitude of evidence presented in this thread and elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/256 "2009-11-28T22:15:03Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Accepted their upcoming surrender. You do know we were aware they asked the USSR to help us take their surrender, aren’t you. They just wanted to keep the emperor . They were in no position to make demands, and they knew it. I suppose the fact they knew they were whipped and were trying to give up is beyond your ability to understand. The threat that we will have our women and children fight against your soldiers and tanks is not a very big threat. But it was all they had. Now you can convince yourself it was a credible threat. Sure those kids and women would have killed a million soldiers. Damn ,we should have waited until we had more bombs and just fried the whole island. > That is so sick. _What_ upcoming surrender? It’s been cited numerous times that the Japanese were preparing for a fight to the death, to bloody the nose of the Allies so badly that they would have no choice but to make peace on Japanese terms. Speaking of which: Togo, who was behind the attempted negotiations with the Soviets, had this to say on the Japanese taste for surrender as necessitated by Potsdam; > [@](#): > > At a meeting of the members of the Supreme Council for Direction of the War, held on the same day, I spoke to the same effect. On this occasion, Chief of Staff Toyoda said that news of the declaration would, sooner or later, transpire, and if we did [312/313] nothing it would lead to a serious impairment of morale; hence, he suggested, it would be best at this time to issue a statement that **the government regarded the declaration as absurd and could not consider it.** The request for Soviet mediation was quite the joke - the Soviets were never going to dance to the Japanese tune. I’ve quoted the exchange above, and it bears repeating, where it’s made clear in no uncertain terms that unconditional surrender was furthest from the minds of the Japanese, rather they wanted an unacceptable peace: > [@](#): > > On July 12, Tōgō directed Satō to tell the Soviets that, > > ``` > His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, **the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.** [40] > > ``` > > .. > Satō advised Tōgō that in reality, “unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto” was all that Japan could expect. Moreover Satō suggested that Tōgō’s messages were not “clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war,” thus questioning whether Tōgō’s initiative was supported by the key elements of Japan’s power structure.[41] > > On July 17, Tōgō responded, > > ``` > Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are **convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy** , we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... **Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.** [42] > > ``` > > In reply, Satō clarified, > > ``` > It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the Imperial House].[43] > > ``` > > On July 21, speaking in the name of the cabinet, Tōgō repeated, > > ``` > **With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever**. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that **we are seeking a peace** , ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms.[44] > > ``` > **[Surrender of Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union)** > > The surrender of the Empire of Japan in World War II was announced by Emperor Hirohito on 15 August and formally signed on 2 September 1945, ending the war. By the end of July 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) was incapable of conducting major operations and an Allied invasion of Japan was imminent. Together with the United Kingdom and China, the United States called for the unconditional surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on 26 July 1945—the alternative being "prompt and utter... The Soviets had absolutely no interest in this nonsense, just as the Western Allies dismissed out of hand German attempts for a separate peace: > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, despite my repeated instructions to Ambassador Satö in Moscow to press the U.S.S.R. to act quickly on our request for mediation, he did not succeed in obtaining access to any of the Russian officials save Vice-Commissar Lozovsky, until finally he reported that Molotov was back in Moscow from Potsdam on 5 August, and would receive him at 5:00 P.M. (11:00 P.M., Japan time) on the 8th. That interview proved, however–as we learned only after the war–to have no relation to our request, but to be for the quite different purpose of notifying the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R.'s commencement of war against Japan. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm) The fact that it took two atomic bombs and a Soviet declaration of war for them to consent to surrender speaks volumes. If they were so desperate to surrender, we gave them ample time, opportunity and multiple warnings to do so. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/257 "2009-11-28T22:18:47Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Accepted their upcoming surrender. You do know we were aware they asked the USSR to help us take their surrender, aren’t you. They just wanted to keep the emperor . As has been pointed out to you repeatedly with reputable cites, their surrender was little more than a rollback to 1935–withdrawal from conquered territories, no foreign occupation, and they supervise their own disarmament. “Keeping the emperor” means “Keeping the Imperial System”, not just allowing the Emperor to keep wearing his fancy hat. It means the people who started the war remain in power. That’s not surrender. That’s looking for a do-over. > [@gonzomax](#): > > That is so sick. You’re being wilfully obtuse. You know very well that no one here is arguing that. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/258 "2009-11-28T22:31:16Z")
Indeed. Even after Hiroshima they were still arguing for a conditional surrender. Although the impact of the bomb is made very clear: > [@](#): > > On the 8th I had an audience, in the underground shelter of the Imperial Palace, with the Emperor, whom I informed of the enemy’s announcement of the use of an atomic bomb, and related matters, and I said that it was now all the more imperative that we end the war, which we could seize this opportunity to do. The Emperor approved of my view, **and warned that since we could no longer continue the struggle, now that a weapon of this devastating power was used against us,** we should not let slip the opportunity by engaging in attempts to gain more favorable conditions > … > All members of the Supreme Council already recognized the difficulties in going on with the war; and now, **after the employment of the atomic bomb** and Russian entry into the war against us, none opposed in principle our acceptance of the declaration. None disagreed, either, that we must insist upon preservation of the national polity as the indispensable condition of acceptance. > > The military representatives, however, held out for proposing additional terms–specifically, that occupation of Japan should if possible be avoided or, if inescapable, should be on a small scale and should not include such points as Tokyo; that disarmament should be carried out on our responsibility; and that war criminals should be dealt with by Japan. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/togo.htm) ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/259 "2009-11-28T22:36:46Z")
Three days to react. Three days. A nuclear bomb goes off in their country and we give them 3 days. One,two,three. We were dropping the Nagasaki bomb .The plans were made. It was just a field experiment. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803/260 "2009-11-28T22:40:39Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > _What_ > The fact that it took two atomic bombs and a Soviet declaration of war for them to consent to surrender speaks volumes. If they were so desperate to surrender, we gave them ample time, opportunity and multiple warnings to do so. This. gonzomax, all your postwar armchair quarterbacking ignores what ACTUALLY happened. They were not deterred by the threat of a nuclear weapon and they were not deterred by the devastation of a nuclear weapon. They were committed to fighting house to house using civilians and suicide squads. This is not conjecture. The civilian population was already conscribed to fight a homeland invasion. They had already suffered tremendous losses from conventional bombing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atomic-bombings-of-japan/518803.md?page=14)