It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dooper
Yeah, I suppose we should have extended the war another year or two. That way, using conventional weapons, we could have slaughtered a few million more Japanese.
Anyone with any sense and any sense of history knows the Japanese were going to fight until the last man, woman and child.
May 28
Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy argues to Secretary of War Stimson that the term "unconditional surrender" should be dropped: "Unconditional surrender is a phrase which means loss of face and I wonder whether we cannot accomplish everything we want to accomplish in regard to Japan without the use of that term."
...
May 28
In a State Department Memorandum of Conversation, Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew describes a meeting with President Truman that day. Grew writes: "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the Throne. If some indication can now be given the Japanese that they themselves, when once thoroughly defeated and rendered impotent to wage war in the future will be permitted to determine their own future political structure, they will be afforded a method of saving face without which surrender will be highly unlikely."
...
May 31
The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) reports on receiving a Japanese peace feeler through a Japanese diplomat stationed in Portugal. The Japanese diplomat says that the actual terms are unimportant so long as the term "unconditional surrender" is not used.
Must have worked. The Japanese to this day, in accordance with their Constitution, don't have a standing military.
Point made.
Japan's Cabinet last month endorsed a bill to upgrade the Defense Agency to a full-fledged ministry, reflecting the growing role of the military at home and abroad. The upgrade would bolster the agency's status within the government and put it in a better position to negotiate for more funds.
Japan now spends about $43 billion on defense each year, putting it behind the United States, Russia, China and Britain.
It has a standing army of about 150,000, and its air force and navy are among the most powerful in Asia.
We were bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki for months before the "atomic" bombs were dropped.
Originally posted by dooper
You start a fight, you better win.
The Japanese were NOT going to make the surrender rules, and thousands and thousands of American family members who were killed by the Japanese weren't going to tolerate it.
Originally posted by dooper
Anyone with any sense of courage, conviction, and honor to those who suffered and perished in a damned war started by someone else was only going to have it end one way.
Unconditional surrender.
Originally posted by dooper
Boy, it must be nice to sit back some sixty years later and somehow intuit and evaluate what should have been done.
In that day, in that time, with that enemy, after four long years of bloody fighting, you'd have to be one big candiass to settle for anything less than full victory.
America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.
The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by TrustMeImaSalesman
Want to compare Hiroshima to Pearl Harbor?
Well how many civilians were killed in pearl harbor (Not many, becuase the japanese struck at THE MILITARY)
How many civilians were killed in Hiroshima? 250k with continuing health problems of those who lived.
It's pretty barbaric if you think it's OK to bomb civilians.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by passenger
Um, in case you didn't know your history. Japan hoped to sue for peace as they knew they couldn't win.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by TrustMeImaSalesman
Hm, shall we compare the civilian losses at Pearl Harbor to the civilian losses at Hiroshima? And while we are at it we can add all the losses of Nagasaki. And those lost to bombing the main island of Japan. I am not saying the Japanese are blameless in that war but the response was a little overblown as compared to the slight.
Or, more accurately, we had to bigass bombs that we had spent THAT much money on, damned if we weren't going to use them at least to scare the crap out of Russia.
Hiroshima was Japan's main military port, and held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.
Originally posted by TruthParadox
America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.
The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.
www.ihr.org...