>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.