Do any of you have any books about the Japanese age of exploration?

Yeah, that's about what I thought, which is why I thought it was so strange that a published author was saying that Truman did accept a conditional surrender. But I guess he is just wrong on this point

So I was watching the US National Archives interview with Peter Shinkle about his new book, and one thing he brings up towards the end is that, according to him

>"After the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, the Japanese formally offered to surrender, again on the condition that the Emperor keep his throne.

https://youtu.be/sRBes3Bs6I8?t=2730

He then goes on to say that Truman accepted this proposal from the Japanese. Also, if you rewind that video a bit, he says that the Japanese had made a similar offer before the atomic bombs were dropped.

This kind of contradicts a lot of what I have heard. My previous understanding was that prior to the August 14th, the Japanese had offered to surrender several times, but always with the condition that the Emperor would not only remain alive, but also retain his powers as an absolute monarch. Then on August 14th, they agreed to surrender unconditionally. I've occasionally heard things saying that prior to the Japanese agreeing to surrender we told them we would let the Emperor stay alive, but these seemed to come from less reliable sources.

Tl;dr, do any of you know exactly what kind of guarantees did the Japanese have about the treatment of the Emperor, and Japan in general, in the postwar environment in 1945?

One thing I've seen mentioned a lot in various discussions of WW2 is the Japanese interservice rivalry, but I haven't been able to find a book specifically about this subject, which is kind of annoying since it seems like it would be very interesting. Do any of you know of a book like that?

I'm currently reading Japanese Destroyer Captain and I assume that will have at least some passing mentions of the relationship the IJN had with the IJA, but I'm really looking for a book that is focused on the rivalry instead of one that just mentions it in passing.