# Why couldn't the first atomic bomb have been dropped on empty territory? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 10, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588 "2013-11-10T18:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/61 "2013-11-11T06:28:33Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > A thumbnail analysis I have trouble refuting is that Hiroshima was the last bomb of world war 2; Nagasaki was the first bomb of world war 3. Ask “them” to define World War 3. Imperial Japan surrendered AFTER Nagasaki. Are they referring to Stalin’s refusal to pull Russian troops out of European nations? Are they referring to the French attempt to regain French Indochina? Are they referring to the Korean conflict 5 years later? What “World War 3” are they they specifically referring to? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/62 "2013-11-11T06:30:34Z")
We did this recently so I’ll abbreviate my asnwer. > [@Habeed](#): > > Reading about the atomic bombings, it seems that the weapons didn’t actually kill more people or do more property damage than a few large conventional bombing raids. At this point, the Allied forces had overwhelming numbers of B-29 bombers to use in massive air raids, and lots of time and money. **Supposedly** , they killed about as many civilians with a few large air raids on Tokyo alone. (My emphasis.) Google “air raids Japan WWII”. Estimates of the first firebombing of Tokyo (which my ex-wife’s mother’s family happen to survive while their neighbors didn’t) killed between 100,000 to 150,000. The total deaths was close to a million. > [@](#): > > However, being able to release incredible flashes that devastate a whole city at once does objectively show it’s pointless to continue to fight. If the enemy shows he can do this at will, annihilating most any defense, well, it’s over. As others have said, nope. The Big Six leaders of the Supreme War Counsel were deadlocked three to three _before_ the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war. They were still deadlocked by the same margin after. Having extensively interviewed everyone after the war (with the exception of the couple that killed themselves) and with the benefit of the Magic program which was intercepting their coded radio signals, we could figure out what happened. It took dropping on a real city. > [@Musicat](#): > > Probably most of the US wanted revenge, too. Dropping a demonstration bomb _might_ have worked, but dropping it on Japan _certainly_ did. Less revenge than getting the damn thing over with. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Japan barely surrendered as it was. A demo bomb would have likely just hardened their resolve. And as Musicat notes we have covered this before - it is the realm of Monday morning Generals, Japanese pity parties, and the hate America for everything crowd. No. The ones who weren’t going to surrender before weren’t going to surrender after. No positions changed. The greatest supporters for this position are the anti-nuclear people. Some of whom very much love America. > [@Musicat](#): > > I wonder if Japan intelligence ever learned anything about this before the real thing was dropped on Japan 3 weeks later? And if they got wind of it, how much detail did they know? They did not know about the test. They had a nuclear program which they had to abandon because of insufficient resources. They (and the Germans and the Soviets) knew that it was possible. They didn’t know the US had done it. Interestingly, a SIGINTEL group had discovered that the US had formed the 509 Composite Group and had been monitoring its training in the Pacific. They were aware of the advance weather scouting bombers into Hiroshima and of the Enola Gay group and then the following one in Nagasaki. However, these things always work out this way, they hadn’t put two and two together fast enough to do anything. > [@Colibri](#): > > Because Tokyo had already been heavily bombed with conventional weapons and was largely destroyed anyway. Hiroshima, being farther away from US bases in the Pacific, had escaped most previous bombing. The US wanted a relatively intact city in order to demonstrate clearly just how destructive the new weapon was. :eek: Wow. In the many years I’ve been on the SDMB, this is the first I’ve seen an outright oooops from Colibri. An “ID is correct, evolution is wrong” sort of level of ooooops. No. No. No. No. Look at a map, notice where Guam, Saipan and Tinian are located. Look at Japan. Most of the cities had already been firebombed and only a few were left over. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > For all the accusations, the US did consider excessive or all civilian casualties unacceptable. > > The customized torpedoes that sank many ships in Pearl Harbor were built by nonstop shifts in Nagasaki. Nope. Cite. The firebombing campaign was done primarily against civilian targets. Its effects against the population were carefully evaluated. General Arnold, the author of the firebombing remarked that had the outcome of the war been different, the US could certainly faced charges of war crimes. War was hell and they did what it took. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > An even more interesting question, but one that is potentially impossible to answer, would b: How many Japanese-American became spies for Japan because of the internment effort? But we’d probably stray into GD territory discussing that. None. We know that. > [@Colibri](#): > > The fanaticism with which Japanese troops fought at Iwo Jima and even more so Okinawa convinced the US that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be horrifically costly. The Japanese wouldn’t be intimidated into surrendering without a fight except by the most extreme measure available - which was the A-bomb. > [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > Another alternative to the Bomb would have been the message: “we won’t be invading Japan ourselves, but we will be ferrying and supplying millions of Chinese. They’re really pissed off, and looking forward to their new province.” No. Would have been a spectacular failure. It would have taken even more Allie casualties to liberate China and only gained a defeated army. > [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > There wasn’t any hurry. We should have just stayed offshore with our massively superior fleets, sunk the last pitiful remnants of the Japanese navy, and blockaded them until they came to their senses. > > Also, we should have clarified our foolish demand for “unconditional surrender” by explicitly letting the Japanese know that the **monarchy** would be permitted to continue. Which was what ended up actually happening, of course. But we did a very bad job of communicating it. There was indeed. We were starving them and many more Japanese civilians would have died by starvation had the war continued. The IJA had ordered the execution of the Allied POWs, about 100,000. The number of Chinese POW freed? 56. Yup. 56. Civilians in occupied countries were dying by the tens of thousands per month. Nitpick: Monarchy (my bolding) is used for kingdoms. Japan was an emperor and it’s referred to the imperial system. If you read the history, the “foolish”-ness of the demand is a benefit of hindsight. Knowing the right answers makes terribly difficult decisions no brainers. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/63 "2013-11-11T06:36:52Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > Plus, we had to beat the Soviets. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > A thumbnail analysis I have trouble refuting is that Hiroshima was the last bomb of world war 2; Nagasaki was the first bomb of world war 3. Nope. This is extensively documented and simply not the case. The decision for the timing of the bombs was wisely left to the local commander. It was not known if dropping the bombs and the expected entry of the Soviets would actually drive the Japanese to surrender. It did and they didn’t have to invade. The people I’ve read who try to make this argument are ignoring the hell that the war was, the desire to get the damn thing over. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/64 "2013-11-11T07:44:56Z")
I saw a couple of specials about the era, they contended 2 things: 1)Hirohito was ready top renounce his divinity claim even before the war 2)Military planners said that if we invaded Japan proper, we would’ve needed 500k body-bags. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/65 "2013-11-11T08:28:39Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > I saw a couple of specials about the era, they contended 2 things: > > 1)Hirohito was ready top renounce his divinity claim even before the war Was this on the history channel? Don’t believe everything you see. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/66 "2013-11-11T08:49:32Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > > > The customized torpedoes that sank many ships in Pearl Harbor were built by nonstop shifts in Nagasaki. > > Nope. Cite. [/QUOTE] The Mitsubishi shipbuilding facilities was not specifically targeted in the attack. I know, the second place I lived in Japan was about 700 meters from Ground Zero. They were after the city. And the civilians, including the old women, old men, mothers, pregnant women, children and babies. And it was the right decision, despite the horrible, horrible cost. War is hell. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/67 "2013-11-11T08:59:39Z")
Yes **Bayer** , it was. What’s the straightdope on it? (I’m prepared to have, and want, my ignorance fought on this) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/68 "2013-11-11T09:04:14Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > One possibility Ive wondered about is if it might have been a tad embarassing if it hadnt actually gone off and landed essentially intact as has happened with other bombs. > > As in letting it go off without warning somewhere less inhabited in the right location have prevented it being potentially captured and used back at them. > > Im sure the chances were low, particularly with Little Boy but its one practical argument that doesnt involve humanitarian reasons as such. > > Otara I’m sure there were contingency plans in place. My guess is that they would have lunched a massive conventional raid the same day, hoping to destroy the bomb on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/69 "2013-11-11T09:25:27Z")
More likely a stand-by bomber will arm and attack again. There were 5 cities on a special list so that means Americans had nearly that many bombs ready. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/70 "2013-11-11T09:54:50Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Military planners said that if we invaded Japan proper, we would’ve needed 500k body-bags. And that was only the estimate from during the war. After the war, when they had access to the Japanese plans and records, the American planners realized they had underestimated the amount of resistance Japan would have given during an invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/71 "2013-11-11T09:56:44Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > More likely a stand-by bomber will arm and attack again. There were 5 cities on a special list so that means Americans had nearly that many bombs ready. Actually, the U.S. only had the two bombs. If the Japanese hadn’t surrendered, they would have had to wait a few months until more were assembled. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/72 "2013-11-11T10:05:53Z")
**Nemo** -Based on what we found later, you could probably double the number I used. ---
**Author:** ![Garula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ea666f/32.png) [@Garula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garula)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/73 "2013-11-11T10:43:24Z")
TokyoBayer’s analysis is quite solid from my vantage point. We tend to think of the final days of the war as being limited pretty much to the bombing campaigns. Japan being completely confined to the home islands for the US to bomb at its leisure. But there were still tens of thousands of people dying every week and vast quantities of resources being fed into the war machines. Letting weeks or months pass to try and come up with a more benign plan to end the war would have had serious costs and no guarantee that things would work out. Wanting to end the war as quickly as possible was pragmatic and reasonable. And indeed, the bombings very nearly weren’t enough. Had the emperor’s surrender recording been intercepted before reaching the public, it’s possible the bombings would have been reduced to little more than a footnote in history compared to the horrors of a full scale invasion. ---
**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 11, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/74 "2013-11-11T12:44:19Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > The greatest supporters for this position are the anti-nuclear people. Some of whom very much love America. They do as well, but far, far too many folks who bring up the A-bomb in online conversations are in the category of ‘hate America for everything they did even when the problem was a Sophie’s Choice situation’. They are probably grossly overrepresented online. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/75 "2013-11-11T13:00:13Z")
OP hasn’t returned to address the _‘one that killed folks at Hiroshima wasn’t enough, so one that killed nobody would’ve been comical’_ point, right? ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/76 "2013-11-11T13:05:20Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > General Arnold, the author of the firebombing remarked that had the outcome of the war been different, the US could certainly faced charges of war crimes. I believe you mean Gen. Curtis Lemay (cite: Robert McNamara, **The Fog of War** > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > No. Would have been a spectacular failure. It would have taken even more Allie casualties to liberate China and only gained a defeated army. I don’t think you read my post correctly: instead of landing US troops, we’d land millions of Chinese troops, hell-bent on revenge. (BTW, you can just refute errors in posts as you see fit, without the “No, No, Nope.” We’ll still take your point.) ---
**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 11, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/77 "2013-11-11T14:19:10Z")
I don’t think the Chinese would be particularly interesting in being cannon fodder in an invasion of Japan, they were more interested in fighting each other. “The Japanese are a disease of the skin, the Communists are a disease of the heart.” - Chiang Kai-shek. Incidentally the radiation effects were not well understood at the time. Plans for Operation Olympic included nuking the landing areas then marching American troops through the area 48 hours later. “The historic fact remains, and must be judged in the after-time, that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb to compel the surrender of Japan was never even an issue. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise.” - Churchill. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/78 "2013-11-11T14:41:02Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > The Mitsubishi shipbuilding facilities was not specifically targeted in the attack. I know, the second place I lived in Japan was about 700 meters from Ground Zero. They were after the city. And the civilians, including the old women, old men, mothers, pregnant women, children and babies. And it was the right decision, despite the horrible, horrible cost. War is hell. [/QUOTE] > [@etv78](#): > > Yes **Bayer** , it was. What’s the straightdope on it? (I’m prepared to have, and want, my ignorance fought on this) > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And that was only the estimate from during the war. After the war, when they had access to the Japanese plans and records, the American planners realized they had underestimated the amount of resistance Japan would have given during an invasion. Yes, but not quite. Through Magic intercepts, at the time of the bombing, the US knew that the size of the IJA forces in Kyushu awaiting Operation Olympic was more than double the estimates. Admiral King was pushing to change plans and proceed with Operation Clarinet to attack Kanto directly, which would have bypassed Kyushu and the 900,000 men and 10,000 kamikaze attack aircraft waiting there, five times more than that employed in the Battle of Okinawa. It should be noted that while the US Navy had developed some remarkable tactics for defending against the _tokkotai_ in Okinawa, the invasion of Kyushu would have been much, much more difficult to defend against. In Okinawa, the Japanese planes needed to cross over 500 miles of open ocean from their bases in – Kyushu. Although the US would be conducting heavy attacks across the island, the Japanese had been able to successfully hide landing strips. Kyushu is has a heavily mountainous terrain, and the pilots were training to utilize that to avoid detection from radar. They had also changed targets to specifically go after the troop transports. It would have been a bloody fight. > [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > I believe you mean Gen. Curtis Lemay (cite: Robert McNamara, **The Fog of War** You are correct. I meant LeMay. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you read my post correctly: instead of landing US troops, we’d land millions of Chinese troops, hell-bent on revenge. I did read it correctly and based my answer of that. It would have taken as many US troops to liberate China, then we’d have to sit around and wait for 15 years for the Chinese to rebuild their army, hellbent for revenge or not. In the meantime, they would still be fighting their civil war. > [@](#): > > (BTW, you can just refute errors in posts as you see fit, without the “No, No, Nope.” We’ll still take your point.) I know. The frustration of fighting ignorance among friends. I don’t know if there is one single factoid thrown out in this thread which is correct. Some are like the tidbit for body bags. It’s actually for Purple Hearts (for wounded) rather than body bags (for KIA). That was a Vietnam War thing. The dead in WWII got buried there. Not a trivial difference but understandable that someone would get it mixed up. It does completely change the figures completely, though. Another thing is the cost of the program. Wrong by a factor of more than 10. The comment I’m challenging on Nagasaki and the false claim on the desire to avoid civilian deaths. And more. Not enough time. What is the source of all this bad information? Some stuff is just off the wall. Even a quick scan through Wiki can show that cities all over Japan were being bombed. The ones not destroyed by firebombs would have been attacked soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/79 "2013-11-11T14:57:34Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Couldn’t the message to the Japanese have been "we have a new weapon of unimaginable power, you are quite screwed. Didn’t read the rest of the thread before answering, so if this has already been stated, be kind. I read in a book it was the fear of the Emperor being killed that led to the surrender. The new bomb could kill him, even with him being hidden deep in a bunker. It was after the second bomb that they realized he was no longer safe. A demonstration bomb would not have caused the same anxiety and fear. IMNSHO ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588/80 "2013-11-11T15:51:00Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > If the US had a 3rd, or even 4th bomb odds are they would have been used before the Emperor could take a stand and evade the Palace coup. As it was the bomb that was being delivered would have been used as soon as the weather was good. The US had a 3rd bomb and it would have been ready about August 19th. The 4th wouldn’t have been ready until Sept or Oct, I don’t remember. There was a US airman shot down after Hiroshima and gave a story that the US had 100 bombs. It was BS, but some in the Japanese government believed it. General Anami, War (Army) Minister and the leader of the hardline faction didn’t, though. > [@Senegoid](#): > > As I’ve read the history, the United States didn’t originally intend to permit the monarchy to continue. That choice was only made during the negotiation of Japan’s surrender, after the bombs. It went something like this: > > America: Drops bombs. Calls for _unconditional_ surrender. > Japan: Hirohito uses his bully pulpit to convince warlords that the game is up. > Japan: Offers to surrender, asking only that “the person and office of the emperor be respected.” > America: **What part of _unconditional surrender_ don’t you understand?** > MacArthur (stage whisper): Uh, let’s take them up on that. We can work with Hirohito. > America: Okay, Japan, we’ll accept your surrender, and we will respect the person and office of the emperor. MacArthur was not involved at all in the negotiations for the end of the war. The question for the conditions had been seriously debated among the various parties and when Japan replied with conditional acceptance, the US gave in slightly, but used different wording on the status of the emperor. The Japanese military almost didn’t accept it. > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > I don’t think keeping the Emperor was part of MacArthur’s plans until after the unconditional surrender. He pretty much decided after being put in charge of the occupying force. > > In addition, Japan’s efforts and negotiating a peace were, to put it mildly, pathetic. What they were asking for was for the Americans to go away while they sorted out all the war crimes & demilitarized. Yeah. Right. It wasn’t his decision. He did find a way to work with the emperor, though. And absolutely correct. No one can say that the Japanese leadership ever enjoyed rationality. > [@etv78](#): > > Yes **Bayer** , it was. What’s the straightdope on it? (I’m prepared to have, and want, my ignorance fought on this) OK. Sort of longish and I don’t have time to google everything so I may be guilty of the same sloppy memory that I’m bitching about from every one else. It’s important to realize that unlike the Inca ruler whose commands must be obeyed even if ordered under duress, Japan never considered the emperor divine in any real, personal nature. Yes, he was a symbol of Japan and an important part of it, and the military had set up a cult of the emperor, but what the military gives, they can take. They were planning on military rule and had built a huge underground bunker government complex in Matsumoto with a place to keep the emperor in a gilded cage. He had refused to relocate there, just to avoid that very scenario. For most of Japanese history, the emperor had served in that sort of capacity, as a symbolic leader with no actual political power. The Meiji Restoration and then that insane Meiji Constitution which ensured that civilian leadership would and could never control the military placed the emperor in a more powerful position, but still with no constitutional authority to push an agenda. His role was limited to accepting the decisions of the cabinet. There were two issues concerning the surrender and keeping the emperor. First was that, the status of Hirohito but there was also a question of _kokutai_ > [@](#): > > こくたい【国体】 > 1 〈国家形態〉 the structure of a state； 《形式》 the national polity （of a country） > 句例 > 国体を維持する 《形式》 retain the fundamental character of the state. a word which defiles simple translation and which most places get wrong. Wiki gets it wrong by calling it _imperial sovereignty_ and probably the best translation would be as given in the sample sentence. The problem was that the military in general and the army in specific had hijacked the term to mean a military-led government in which the civilians were to blindly follow them. The hardliners had tried to argue for preserving the _kokutai_ and with it the ensuing of another war in however many years later. Clearly that would not be acceptable. The Meiji Constitution, which placed the military outside of the control of the cabinet and nominally reporting to the emperor, had to go. Had the US insisted that the emperor be treated as the war criminal he was, then the Japanese would have kept on fighting. As it was, Hitohiro agreed to toss the military under the bus and allow his personal survival by agreeing to not insist on the _kokutai_. As the most powerful person in Japan at the time, the War (Army) Minister Anami was deeply troubled by that turn of events. He had a great deal of personal loyalty to the emperor, having served as his aide-de-camp for a while prior to the war. He was torn between loyalty to the emperor, to his view of the nation and to his officers. I wrote on a recent thread that because of the structure of the constitution, all he needed to do was simply walk out of the cabinet room (or the Big Six meeting) for a piss and keep on walking. The cabinet would have fallen, no other government could have been formed and he would have been made the supreme leader. He and his officers could fight their glorious war and died like soldiers. If the tables were turned and the Russians had been that much stronger, invaded the US and were going to capture us, kill the men and rape the women, force everyone to abandon Christianity and become godless communists, wouldn’t we want the military to fight to the bitter end? Often the question is posed on which historical figure you would like to talk to. For me, I’d love to be able to ask the question on what brought him back into the room after stepping out for a leak. The emperor? Opportunist? A man of great bravery? He’s been called both. Maybe he is both. He had known for a long time that things were bad, but did not attempt to force the issue earlier. Perhaps he couldn’t. Maybe his didn’t try hard enough. The blood of millions were on his hands. Had there even been the tiniest shred of justice in the world, he would have died for that. But, Truman wisely decided to save a lot of lives, US, Allied, Chinese, other Asian and even Japanese. The question was never if he were to not be considered divine or not. That’s just bad writing. But it was the end of the horrible mindset that enslaved and murdered millions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-couldnt-the-first-atomic-bomb-have-been-dropped-on-empty-territory/673588.md?page=5)