Submitted by ClownfishSoup t3_10mrjak in todayilearned
Reply to comment by ialsoagree in TIL about the Kyujo Incident that occurred on Aug 14, 1945 where several Japanese officers occupied the Japanese Imperial Palace in an attempted coup of the Emperor to prevent him from surrendering to the Allies. They murdered several people and when their plot failed, they committed suicide. by ClownfishSoup
This is an argument that's super popular with tankies, but it's not really supported by many serious historians. The loss of the troops on the Asian mainland was almost completely irrelevant by the time of the nuclear bombings. The IJN no longer existed by that point, and it was completely impossible to relocate for defense of the home islands. They could have had a billion troops in China, and all they could have done was watched as their home burned.
On a more basic level though, we don't really need to speculate on the driving causes of the surrender. We can just look at what the Japanese actually said about it. The most succinct explanation probably comes during the Emperor's surrender broadcast, where he explicitly states that the nuclear bombs are the primary cause.
>Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
If anything, the entrance of the Soviets might have prompted the Americans to be more willing to just accept a Japanese surrender with terms rather than an unconditional surrender. But the Japanese themselves were most certainly throwing in the towel either way.
I mean, the Japanese wanted to throw in the towel long before the bombs dropped. It was mostly the Soviets delaying things (so they could invade).
The US had been willing to accept surrender with conditions long before the first bomb dropped, but the Soviets wouldn't allow it because of the agreement under the Potsdam Declaration. So the Soviets were effectively sabotaging the negotiation while acting as a middle man (no doubt to buy time for an invasion).
You're absolutely correct about the Emperor's speech - but I wouldn't exactly say that speech defines everything that was happening. It ignores the fact that Japan - even after the drop of the 1st bomb - was still largely confident that they could broker peace via the Soviet negotiations:
>Japan’s leaders felt little urgency. The imperial military had amassed an astonishing number of troops for a desperate homeland defense, while politicians fantasized about a Soviet-brokered peace. Lacking a guarantee of his safety, the emperor supported the effort to reach out to Moscow and busied himself with protecting sacred relics. Even after the first A-bomb incinerated Hiroshima, he asked the government to seek Allied concessions, underscoring Gallicchio’s claim that Japanese officials “seemed uncertain of what they were doing.”
>
>With the Red Army suddenly deep into Manchuria, Japanese leaders were weighing evaporating options when the second bomb incinerated Nagasaki. What had been chimeric was now clearly delusional.
>
>The emperor finally intervened.
(Emphasis added)
https://cis.mit.edu/publications/analysis-opinion/2020/unconditional-japanese-surrender-world-war-ii
I think ignoring the declaration of war by the Soviets, and the rapid losses that were incurred by the Japanese to the Soviets over the period of less than 2 weeks overestimates the relevance of the bombings.
The Japanese were more concerned about the Soviet invasion than the 1st A-bomb, that's not really in doubt. It's a question of whether we think the 2nd A-bomb played a larger role than the Soviet betrayal.
It's at least possible that it didn't.
Garbage.
I'm happy to hear and discuss your criticisms.
But telling me that an article published on MIT is "garbage" with no further explanation isn't going to convince me of anything except that you have a bias and refuse to read anything that doesn't confirm your bias.
Care to try again?
Ok, where in that does it say the US was willing to accept conditions other then keep the emperor? Because Downfall by Frank says nearly the exact opposite of you.
Japan's "Conditions" were No trials, no occupation, and keeping captured territory. In other words, letting Japan win.
>Ok, where in that does it say the US was willing to accept conditions other then keep the emperor?
...[Conservatives] argued that giving Japan a respectable way out of the conflict would save lives and, at the same time, block Soviet ambitions in Asia.
This line follows statements specifically about unconditional surrender:
President Harry Truman believed unconditional surrender would keep the Soviet Union involved while reassuring American voters and soldiers that their sacrifices in a total war...
>Because Downfall by Frank says nearly the exact opposite of you.
Okay?
I'm not saying that this is the ONLY opinion that exists. I'm not arguing that this MUST be true and all other statements are false.
Read what I wrote:
"It's at least possible that it didn't."
Where does this even suggest that it could not be wrong?
>Japan's "Conditions" were No trials, no occupation, and keeping captured territory. In other words, letting Japan win.
I don't see the relevance of this statement. Even if it's agreed that this is 100% true, how does this refute my statement that it's possible the Soviet invasion had more to do with the surrender than the A-bombs?
I mean, let's be clear here, between August 9th and August 15th, there was no negotiation. The only thing Japan did during that time was agree to surrender unconditionally according to the Potsdam declaration.
It's tough to say that it was the A-bomb that made them change their mind, when we know that they didn't consider the first A-bomb sufficient to warrant unconditional surrender and were still exploring options to negotiate terms.
Did you seriously just ask why Japan's conditions matter when talking about the US not accept Japan's conditions?
No.
I don’t see anything in that post that shows any evidence that America was willing to accept a conditional surrender
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments