Support NeoGAF

[Bracewell]

There is no reliable evidence that suggests that the Japanese were willing to surrender on even remotely reasonable terms. I am sorry, but your newspaper article is a bunch of crap. How can anyone take that seriously when that is the only evidence of Japan's willingness to surrender? There is no Japanese evidence nor US government evidence that supports it.

Apparently it was corroborated by MacArthur to Hoover, and Leahy was the one who leaked it to the journalist. Is it so hard to believe that the US government would conceal information of that magnitude from its own citizens, given how its final actions in the War would then be perceived? If you're willing to accept historical evidence that besieging a country with mass bombings has never brought about that country's surrender, why is it so hard to stomach the fact that an administration would put forth a narrative that places its wartime aggressions in the best light possible while simultaneously suppressing any information to the contrary?

Unless you're saying the US government has never done that before. Or that they did, but World War II was the exception. Enough high-ranking members of those wartime administrations have put out memoirs and journals detailing all of this, that I don't even feel the need to post links anymore.

 

[KHarvey16]

Apparently it was corroborated by MacArthur to Hoover, and Leahy was the one who leaked it to the journalist. Is it so hard to believe that the US government would conceal information of that magnitude from its own citizens, given how its final actions in the War would then be perceived? If you're willing to accept historical evidence that besieging a country with mass bombings has never brought about that country's surrender, why is it so hard to stomach the fact that an administration would put forth a narrative that places its wartime aggressions in the best light possible while simultaneously suppressing any information to the contrary?

Unless you're saying the US government has never done that before. Or that they did, but World War II was the exception. Enough high-ranking members of those wartime administrations have put out memoirs and journals detailing all of this, that I don't even feel the need to post links anymore.

Why did the war council refuse to surrender after the second bomb?

 

[Team Alucard]

I doubt it. As the Soviets were no near term threat to to main islands. If the US threat to the islands themselves didn't make them back down the Soviets themselves entering wouldn't have. Now if they had shown the ability to strike the home islands as well as the Americans that could ave been a significant factor but only then.

From what I understand, the Japanese had hoped that Stalin and the USSR could act as a mediator between them and the U.S to help negotiate more favorable terms of surrender, thus Soviet entry into the war completely ended any chance of that scenario happening.

Personally I feel that it was a combination of both the bombings and Soviet entry that ultimately forced their hand, but I feel that the latter doesn't get enough attention or discussion as being a major contributing factor to the end of the war.

 

[Lazyslob]

like political talk or whatever this is, is on the same level as conspiracy talk bunch of whats ifs and stuff

 

[Alucrid]

Given that the Potsdam Declaration didn't have a clear definition of "unconditional surrender", it basically didn't even give us the favourable outcome we claim it did. The Emperor wasn't dethroned, his prominence in Japanese society dwindled as a natural consequence of being on the losing side.

I find it strange that we're happy to imagine how the war would have been drawn out for months and years, somehow starving the Japanese populace but not eroding the resolve of the Imperial Council, but it's inconceivable that we could have accepted the same terms without resorting to the nukes. How is the former bit of conjecture more valid than the latter?



Well, yeah. We had the military advantage.



I wanted to ask what this was in reference to, but I'm not sure I want to know anymore.

since the japanese government didn't accept the treaty between when it was first issued and the first nuke dropped, what would we have done to force their hand into surrendering under those conditions?

 

[Bracewell]

Why did the war council refuse to surrender after the second bomb?

since the japanese government didn't accept the treaty between when it was first issued and the first nuke dropped, what would we have done to force their hand into surrendering under those conditions?

You realize that you're accepting the nukes didn't even work, right? This is basically what Eisenhower and the multitudes of other Generals and Admirals were saying. The nukes didn't change the government's mind.


And that only counts as a conspiracy theory if Neil DeGrasse Tyson suddenly ups and says "Boy, if we hadn't spent so much money faking the moon landing, we could have actually sent some astronauts to the moon."

 

[CrazyDude]

Apparently it was corroborated by MacArthur to Hoover, and Leahy was the one who leaked it to the journalist. Is it so hard to believe that the US government would conceal information of that magnitude from its own citizens, given how its final actions in the War would then be perceived? If you're willing to accept historical evidence that besieging a country with mass bombings has never brought about that country's surrender, why is it so hard to stomach the fact that an administration would put forth a narrative that places its wartime aggressions in the best light possible while simultaneously suppressing any information to the contrary?

Unless you're saying the US government has never done that before. Or that they did, but World War II was the exception. Enough high-ranking members of those wartime administrations have put out memoirs and journals detailing all of this, that I don't even feel the need to post links anymore.

Where are these memoirs and journals detailing how Japan was willing to surrender with the same terms as after the bomb fell? All you have posted is a newspaper article about a supposed peace deal that has no other backing except the article itself.

You realize that you're accepting the nukes didn't even work, right? This is basically what Eisenhower and the multitudes of other Generals and Admirals were saying. The nukes didn't change the government's mind.


And that only counts as a conspiracy theory if Neil DeGrasse Tyson suddenly ups and says "Boy, if we hadn't spent so much money faking the moon landing, we could have actually sent some astronauts to the moon."

It proves that the first nuke was not enough to convince them to stop fighting. After the second nuke they surrendered.

 

[KHarvey16]

You realize that you're accepting the nukes didn't even work, right? This is basically what Eisenhower and the multitudes of other Generals and Admirals were saying. The nukes didn't change the government's mind.


And that only counts as a conspiracy theory if Neil DeGrasse Tyson suddenly ups and says "Boy, if we hadn't spent so much money faking the moon landing, we could have actually sent some astronauts to the moon."

You're all over the damn place. First, you said they were going to surrender. Now, it's that they weren't and the bombs didn't change that? Then you say they accepted the same terms they put forth before the bombs, but had to be forced into accepting them by the emperor, who they then tried to kill.

You don't know what the hell you're saying.

 

[Piecake]

Apparently it was corroborated by MacArthur to Hoover, and Leahy was the one who leaked it to the journalist. Is it so hard to believe that the US government would conceal information of that magnitude from its own citizens, given how its final actions in the War would then be perceived? If you're willing to accept historical evidence that besieging a country with mass bombings has never brought about that country's surrender, why is it so hard to stomach the fact that an administration would put forth a narrative that places its wartime aggressions in the best light possible while simultaneously suppressing any information to the contrary?

Unless you're saying the US government has never done that before. Or that they did, but World War II was the exception. Enough high-ranking members of those wartime administrations have put out memoirs and journals detailing all of this, that I don't even feel the need to post links anymore.

Then why isnt there any Japanese evidence that they were seriously willing to surrender?You would think if a nation was seriously willing to surrender there would be significant documentation and testimonials that all they wanted was to keep their emperor. The problem is, is that no such evidence exists. Don't you find that mighty problematic?

The only evidence we have is an American newspaper article that was then apparently later confirmed by hearsay, that supposedly some neighbor asked Macarthur about it and he said it was all true? Are we honestly suppsosed to believe that this, such a hugely important document, was given to General Macarthur and not given through normal diplomatic channels? I am sorry, but that evidence stinks and doesnt really pass muster.

Another major issue is that apparently this proposal shown to the general in February 1945. Problem is:

A staple of Hiroshima Revisionism has been the contention that the government of Japan was prepared to surrender during the summer of 1945, with the sole proviso that its sacred emperor be retained. President Harry S. Truman and those around him knew this through intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages, the story goes, but refused to extend such an assurance because they wanted the war to continue until atomic bombs became available. The real purpose of using the bombs was not to defeat an already-defeated Japan, but to give the United States a club to use against the Soviet Union. Thus Truman purposely slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese, not to mention untold thousands of other Asians and Allied servicemen who would perish as the war needlessly ground on, primarily to gain diplomatic advantage.

One might think that compelling substantiation would be necessary to support such a monstrous charge, but the revisionists have been unable to provide a single example from Japanese sources. What they have done instead amounts to a variation on the old shell game. They state in their own prose that the Japanese were trying to surrender without citing any evidence and, to show that Truman was aware of their efforts, cite his diary entry of July 18 referring to a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” There it is! The smoking gun! But it is nothing of the sort. The message Truman cited did not refer to anything even remotely resembling surrender. It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office’s attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact. No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States’ most basic war aims.

versus your article:

Walter Trohan, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune with impeccable credentials for integrity and accuracy, reported that two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms.

So, the Japanese were willing to surrender completely except keep their Emperor in February 1945, but we have reliable documentary evidence in July of 1945 that they were trying to go through the soviets, convince them to intercede on their behalf in order to convince the Americans that they should accept Japanese surrender, but allow Japan to keep all of its pre-war empire and keep its imperial system.

How do you explain this? My only explanation is either that the surrender document and thenewspaper article is a bunch of crap, the document was a complete ruse meant to confuse the Americans, or that it was the work of a minority peace faction that did not have full government support.

 

[Alucrid]

You realize that you're accepting the nukes didn't even work, right? This is basically what Eisenhower and the multitudes of other Generals and Admirals were saying. The nukes didn't change the government's mind.


And that only counts as a conspiracy theory if Neil DeGrasse Tyson suddenly ups and says "Boy, if we hadn't spent so much money faking the moon landing, we could have actually sent some astronauts to the moon."

Can you show me some quotes where they say it didn't change their mind? From what I've seen they've said it was unnecessary and that eventually they would be forced to surrender due to whatever operation that branch was conducting, not that the nukes didn't change their mind. The Emperor even references the bombs in his speech to the Japanese people. So clearly it did work in changing the governments mind. The question isn't if it did or didn't, because it did, it's if it was necessary or not.

 

[RustyNails]

I must have watched half a dozen JFK and Cuban Missile Crisis documentaries but none on the atomic bomb and the end of WW2...are there good, unbiased documentaries about this whole terrible chapter of humanity?

 

[Bracewell]

You're all over the damn place. First, you said they were going to surrender. Now, it's that they weren't and the bombs didn't change that? Then you say they accepted the same terms they put forth before the bombs, but had to be forced into accepting them by the emperor, who they then tried to kill.

You don't know what the hell you're saying.

For God's sake, mate, you already quoted the very post where I corrected myself, saying I meant to write "defeat" instead of "surrender".

From the start, I've said the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served no other purpose than to cause widespread death and destruction, and gave us no military advantage over the Japanese.

People in this thread have vacillated wildly between "Yes they absolutely worked and forced the Japanese surrender otherwise the war would have gone on for months" to "you dingus, why didn't the Japanese surrender after we dropped the first bomb?"

And now I'm being asked to vouch for a Chicago Tribune journalist who published an article in 1945 that was never refuted by the government, whose sources were highly placed? Let alone the fact that Trohan apparently had an unimpeachable record of journalistic integrity. Look at the dude's Wikipedia article (I said I wasn't going to post another link). Surely someone would have tried to discredit Trohan if he published such a work of utter fiction.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I must have watched half a dozen JFK and Cuban Missile Crisis documentaries but none on the atomic bomb and the end of WW2...are there good, unbiased documentaries about this whole terrible chapter of humanity?

I dunno if there's such a thing as an unbiased account of history, but the best discussion you'll probably find is this. Was free until relatively recently, Dan's old shows get put up for sale after they've been out for a year or two and the most recent stuff is free.

 

[RustyNails]

I dunno if there's such a thing as an unbiased account of history, but the best discussion you'll probably find is this. Was free until relatively recently, Dan's old shows get put up for sale after they've been out for a year or two and the most recent stuff is free.

Love me some Dan Carlin. Thanks.

Any PBS related work?

 

[Alucrid]

For God's sake, mate, you already quoted the very post where I corrected myself, saying I meant to write "defeat" instead of "surrender".

From the start, I've said the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served no other purpose than to cause widespread death and destruction, and gave us no military advantage over the Japanese.

People in this thread have vacillated wildly between "Yes they absolutely worked and forced the Japanese surrender otherwise the war would have gone on for months" to "you dingus, why didn't the Japanese surrender after we dropped the first bomb?"

And now I'm being asked to vouch for a Chicago Tribune journalist who published an article in 1945 that was never refuted by the government, whose sources were highly placed? Let alone the fact that Trohan apparently had an unimpeachable record of journalistic integrity. Look at the dude's Wikipedia article (I said I wasn't going to post another link). Surely someone would have tried to discredit Trohan if he published such a work of utter fiction.

I don't see how those statements contradict each other. "They" worked, "first bomb" did not.

 

[Piecake]

For God's sake, mate, you already quoted the very post where I corrected myself, saying I meant to write "defeat" instead of "surrender".

From the start, I've said the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served no other purpose than to cause widespread death and destruction, and gave us no military advantage over the Japanese.

People in this thread have vacillated wildly between "Yes they absolutely worked and forced the Japanese surrender otherwise the war would have gone on for months" to "you dingus, why didn't the Japanese surrender after we dropped the first bomb?"

And now I'm being asked to vouch for a Chicago Tribune journalist who published an article in 1945 that was never refuted by the government, whose sources were highly placed? Let alone the fact that Trohan apparently had an unimpeachable record of journalistic integrity. Look at the dude's Wikipedia article (I said I wasn't going to post another link). Surely someone would have tried to discredit Trohan if he published such a work of utter fiction.

Why discredit someone and give him lots of attention that he clearly didnt receive when you can simply ignore him and allow the story to simply fade away?

I'll ask again, but can you explain why the Japanese government was supposedly willing to surrender completely with the one provision that they wanted to keep their Emperor in February 1945, but made well documented overtures to the Soviets in July 1945 to convince the Americans to allow Japan to surrender with its prewar empire and its Imperial system intact?

My only explanation is either that the surrender document and the newspaper article is a bunch of crap, the document was a complete ruse meant to confuse the Americans, or that it was the work of a minority peace faction that did not have full government support. Do you have a better one?

 

[KHarvey16]

For God's sake, mate, you already quoted the very post where I corrected myself, saying I meant to write "defeat" instead of "surrender".

From the start, I've said the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served no other purpose than to cause widespread death and destruction, and gave us no military advantage over the Japanese.

People in this thread have vacillated wildly between "Yes they absolutely worked and forced the Japanese surrender otherwise the war would have gone on for months" to "you dingus, why didn't the Japanese surrender after we dropped the first bomb?"

And now I'm being asked to vouch for a Chicago Tribune journalist who published an article in 1945 that was never refuted by the government, whose sources were highly placed? Let alone the fact that Trohan apparently had an unimpeachable record of journalistic integrity. Look at the dude's Wikipedia article (I said I wasn't going to post another link). Surely someone would have tried to discredit Trohan if he published such a work of utter fiction.

You didn't understand what I was saying to you.

I asked you a question and you never answered it. If the Japanese were ready to surrender to the same terms they were given after the bombs, why did the council still not want to accept the terms (that, again, you claim they wanted to accept before the bombs) after the bombs were dropped?

Do you understand what I'm asking and why?

 

[Bracewell]

You didn't understand what I was saying to you.

I asked you a question and you never answered it. If the Japanese were ready to surrender to the same terms they were given after the bombs, why did the council still not want to accept the terms (that, again, you claim they wanted to accept before the bombs) after the bombs were dropped?

Do you understand what I'm asking and why?

See, there's a fundamental flaw to your question. Don't worry! It's still a very good question, it's just directed at the wrong person/entity.

You're labouring under the assumption that I need to support "my" claim further. That assumption is incorrect, because I didn't make the claim. In fact, I handed you the article from 1945 that originally put forth the claim, from a journalist who seemingly remained on good terms with the White House long after he published it. Whose source was a five-star general during World War II. Who was never forced to issue a retraction.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[DarkFlow]

See, there's a fundamental flaw to your question. Don't worry! It's still a very good question, it's just directed at the wrong person/entity.

You're labouring under the assumption that I need to support "my" claim further. That assumption is incorrect, because I didn't make the claim. In fact, I handed you the article from 1945 that originally put forth the claim, from a journalist who seemingly remained on good terms with the White House long after he published it. Whose source was a five-star general during World War II. Who was never forced to issue a retraction.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yeah, you still only have 1 source.

 

[KHarvey16]

See, there's a fundamental flaw to your question. Don't worry! It's still a very good question, it's just directed at the wrong person/entity.

You're labouring under the assumption that I need to support "my" claim further. That assumption is incorrect, because I didn't make the claim. In fact, I handed you the article from 1945 that originally put forth the claim, from a journalist who seemingly remained on good terms with the White House long after he published it. Whose source was a five-star general during World War II. Who was never forced to issue a retraction.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I see that you're desperately trying to escape the obvious fact that the claim being made is ridiculous. The ruling council did not want to surrender after two bombs. This is not in question. So tell me, to you personally, does it make sense that this same group was ready to surrender, on the same terms they reject after the bombings, before Hiroshima was even selected?

If that sounds stupid to you, and it should, you can't offer up that nonsense to support your position.

 

[Piecake]

See, there's a fundamental flaw to your question. Don't worry! It's still a very good question, it's just directed at the wrong person/entity.

You're labouring under the assumption that I need to support "my" claim further. That assumption is incorrect, because I didn't make the claim. In fact, I handed you the article from 1945 that originally put forth the claim, from a journalist who seemingly remained on good terms with the White House long after he published it. Whose source was a five-star general during World War II. Who was never forced to issue a retraction.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Well, then don't expect people to believe your claim if you are not willing to support it further considering that the following actions of the Japanese government completely contradict that supposed surrender document. Not to mention that there are no Japanese or American government documents that support it either. I mean, that is what is important here, Japan's actions and feelings about the war and surrender. As evidenced by their talks with the soviets in July 1945 and after the first atomic bomb, they werent willing to surrender in a reasonable manner. I mean, are you really telling us to believe a newspaper article more than the actual actions of the Japanese government?

This was pretty typical in the other thread as well. People constantly brought up incorrect or misleading evidence to support their claim that the bombs did not result in Japan's surrender. Likely because they really really really did not want the nuclear bomb to have such important consequences. I am sure their thinking was that if they could discredit the consequences of the bomb then they could discredit using nuclear bombs ever again. Or maybe it wasnt so calculated, who knows, maybe they simply believed it so deeply that they really couldnt see the evidence right in front of them. That there is no reliable evidence that Japan was willing to surrender and that the dropping of the atomic bombs, along with the soviets entering the war, caused Japan to surrender. I guess that is a noble goal. Too bad it is shit history.

This sort of shit really gets old. I was hoping this thread would be about Japan's WWII actions and current East Asian foreign relations, but apparently there are just too many people here have such an american-centric worldview that they can't help themselves talking about America, even in a thread about Japan apologizing to the world for the atrocities that they committed in WWII. But hey, its all about America, right?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

On topic. How often have we expected an apology from Germany in this regard (honest question I haven't heard ever of Germany formaly apologizing though I am sure it has happened)? It seems like Japan is more afraid of what they were with a sect looking to constantly apologize and another seeking to bury it in history with the emperor subscribing to the former.

Edit: do some still deny Nanking? That...is troubling.

Japan never really apologized for their war crimes as far as I'm (and the world is) concerned. Germany teaching their people history and the war crimes their country committed is an honest apology.

"sorry" is just a fluff word, like "like" and "uhm...". You have to change your actions.

 

[Soyongdori]

Japan never really apologized for their war crimes as far as I'm (and the world is) concerned. Germany teaching their people history and the war crimes their country committed is an honest apology.

"sorry" is just a fluff word, like "like" and "uhm...". You have to change your actions.

True. German government has always been serious and sincere with their apology. And they made sure the entire population of Germany learn about WWII and the war atrocities their ancestors committed with zero transparency or white washing. I believe their government also made it illegal to alter the slightest change taught from history textbooks regarding this subject, unless its approved by the government. Germany doesn't fuck around when it comes to WWII subject.

 

[boiled goose]

I think Japan reflected better, less because of the bombs, but for the same reason Germany got better. The allies, especially the USA learned from what they did in Versailles. Instead of cutting the countries down and humiliating their people, they moved to help them up and devlope a healthy democracy and a place in the world so that people could concenrate on rebuilding instead of harnessing hatred. Worked pretty well for a long time.I think it's the easiest to acknowledge that dropping bombs is shitty, but that shitty things are what happen in a war and that this particular shitty thing was successfully used to prevent even more shitty things. Don't try to call it humane, because it wasn't humane. Just call it what it was: necessary evil.

I wouldn't call it necessary. I would call it war. We should all apologize for all war.

 

[Anjelus_]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Didn't know that actually haha

Serious question: Why do people contribute to discussions they don't know about? This is almost as bad as the guy in the last thread saying we should have challenged Hitler to a televised debate in the 1940s.

 

[Hexa]

Serious question: Why do people contribute to discussions they don't know about? This is almost as bad as the guy in the last thread saying we should have challenged Hitler to a televised debate in the 1940s.

Nah. That was a whole other level of bizarre and dumb.
"Air dropping Rolexs could have stopped WWII. We don't know for sure it couldn't work because they didn't try." (paraphrased)
That thread literally made my head hurt.

 

[Anjelus_]

Nah. That was a whole other level of bizarre and dumb.

Maybe so, but "why didn't they bomb military sites" when talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is also pretty bad.

These threads blow my mind.

 

[NCR Redslayer]

Serious question: Why do people contribute to discussions they don't know about? This is almost as bad as the guy in the last thread saying we should have challenged Hitler to a televised debate in the 1940s.

People wanna seem smart.

 

[leroidys]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

On China:


On Textbooks:


Korean Occupation:





Comfort Women:



American POWs:


Abe just a few months back:


There are dozens upon dozens of examples not listed either. America has no right to judge Japan in regards to self-reflection.

I'm not a Japan apologist, but I don't understand how all of this always gets handwaved. It's always especially bizarre to see Chinese state news twist these statements every year into horrible offenses, especially considering how much their government has to apologize for.

 

[encephalon]

I'm consistently surprised by the amount of uninformed posters here who just blatanly ignore the facts about imperial Japan and the necessity of those bombs.

But hey, everyone loves a reason to bash America.

The bombs didn't end the war, Russia did.

 

[MisterFalcon]

The bombs didn't end the war, Russia did.

Then Russia could have ended the war months earlier and they are to blame for the atomic bombs.

 

[Hexa]

The bombs didn't end the war, Russia did.

Russia only joined when they knew that it was over, ie post atom bombs, despite them agreeing to join earlier, so they could make sure to take what they had planned to take from Japan.
No atom bombs = Russia entering the war even later most likely.
Also, URRR's navy was shit so the bigger blow was that there was no chance of the USSR brokering a better deal with the US. They would have had little to no involvement in an actual invasion.
Also, most if not all the evidence available on the reasons presented within the Japanese leadership on why the surrender happened that cites Russia as a reason also cites the atomic bombs.

 

[antonz]

Hirohito himself was disgusted with the way people tried to handwave what happened during the war. Maybe you could argue he did it to prevent his own role in the war from being a topic but when the Emperor who led the Nation during the war is opposed to the handwaving and embrace of Serious war criminals as heroes of the Nation you know shits bad.

 

[encephalon]

Russia only joined when they knew that it was over, ie post atom bombs, despite them agreeing to join earlier, so they could make sure to take what they had planned to take from Japan.
No atom bombs = Russia entering the war even later most likely.
Also, URRR's navy was shit so the bigger blow was that there was no chance of the USSR brokering a better deal with the US. They would have had little to no involvement in an actual invasion.
Also, most if not all the evidence available on the reasons presented within the Japanese leadership on why the surrender happened that cites Russia as a reason also cites the atomic bombs.

It was "over" before the bombs were dropped. The war council was already aware of America's ability to level Japan to the ground. The fire bombing made that abundantly clear.

But if Russia sites the atomic bombs, then perhaps they were indirectly responsible for ending the war. What a mess.

 

[Hexa]

It was "over" before the bombs were dropped. The war council was already aware of America's ability to level Japan to the ground. The fire bombing made that abundantly clear.

But if Russia sites the atomic bombs, then perhaps they were indirectly responsible for ending the war. What a mess.

The war was over well before the atomic bombs when it came to Japan having any chance of winning. However, that does not mean that it was coming to a close. Japan's leadership was divided at the time, but overall they were not operating logically and did not seem to have had any reasonable plans to surrender despite them clearly having no chance of victory.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Any PBS related work?

I am not familiar with PBS beyond "its some station from some country probably America". So idk.

Russia only joined when they knew that it was over, ie post atom bombs, despite them agreeing to join earlier, so they could make sure to take what they had planned to take from Japan.
No atom bombs = Russia entering the war even later most likely.

This is not really correct. They agreed to attack no later than 3 months after the defeat of the Germans, which they did, 3 months to the day (well possibly 1 hour late depending on time zones). One does not improvise the movement of millions, the attack was planned months in advance and they had been redeploying formations and supplies from Europe in preparation for the attack long before the first bomb dropped. Preparations had started before the Germans were defeated. The dropping of the atomic bombs had no direct connection with the timing of the Russian attack. It would have happened then whether or not the bombs existed in any capacity.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

It proves that the first nuke was not enough to convince them to stop fighting. After the second nuke they surrendered.

Even then it was six days after the 2nd.

 

[Walpurgis]

Since Germany and Japan are in similar positions, has Germany ever publicly given them advice or has Japan sought it? What kind of relationship do the two countries have regarding their past and overcoming it?

 

[CorvoSol]

Was America judging Japan? I don't have any idea where the implication they are came from.

The Emperor offered remorse. It's not like Obama got up and challenged him to a fight for his waifu's honor right after that.

 

[snap0212]

The idea that we can't possibly know the bombs were the best choice out of a group of terrible choices is absolutely false.

I've asked this in the last Thread, but how come regular people on forums always claim this (and the other way around as well) when historians (who probably spent a lot of time with the topics) don't even agree on it. They then cite people who agree with their argument as well. All I've ever read is that there are different opinions and that we can't really know for sure.

 

[Sumio Mondo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

On China:


On Textbooks:


Korean Occupation:





Comfort Women:



American POWs:


Abe just a few months back:


There are dozens upon dozens of examples not listed either. America has no right to judge Japan in regards to self-reflection.

By the looks of that, Japan have apologised plenty. Love how everybody ignores that though. We're still due to apologise over how we did things too (British Empire). Our PM even stood up for our atrocious "legacy". Looks like all other nations have plenty to learn from Japan about apologising.

 

[Chariot]

Since Germany and Japan are in similar positions, has Germany ever publicly given them advice or has Japan sought it? What kind of relationship do the two countries have regarding their past and overcoming it?

Germany and Japan have a warm relationship. We celebrate our friendship a lot and Germany has some events celebrating japanese culture, including but not limited to anime and manga.

And yes, the chancellor indeed suggested publicly to Japan while visiting that they should ebgage with their bad history. Merkel in Tokio: Der Kriegsschuld stellen (Merkel in Tokyo: Confront the war guilt)

 

[Nephtis]

They can stop apologizing when they stop trying to change the history books by whitewashing the actions of the empire of Japan.

 

[Bregor]

The 'Morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' debate would probably be well served with an exclusive thread like the 9-11 conspiracy theories thread.

 

[Hermii]

If anything the atomic bomb was humane compared to what he had been doing to them up to that point.

They firebombs didn't cause cancer / birth defects and other things for decades.

It's a stretch calling atomic weapons humane.

 

[superseohyun]

I'm not a Japan apologist, but I don't understand how all of this always gets handwaved. It's always especially bizarre to see Chinese state news twist these statements every year into horrible offenses, especially considering how much their government has to apologize for.

By the looks of that, Japan have apologised plenty. Love how everybody ignores that though. We're still due to apologise over how we did things too (British Empire). Our PM even stood up for our atrocious "legacy". Looks like all other nations have plenty to learn from Japan about apologising.

actually its pretty easy to understand. a "sorry" is powerless while government officials keep visiting shrine with war criminal, government try to whitewash in textbook, government officials outright deny the existence of nanking and comfort women, the common citizens who have no knowledge of the atrocity....
it is pretty hard to take the apology seriously, no?

Now thats not to say china and south korea dont have problem because they do. A lot. But lets not do a stupidity race to the bottom with stuff like "if china hasnt apologize for killing its own people, why the hell should we? lol"

 

[Moronwind]

I think I know what you mean but you're going to have to elaborate just a whee bit to make sure. Do you mean most nations show no remorse and Germany, through its consistent expressions of remorse, is the outlier?

I am saying Japan-level remorse is pretty average, yeah. The thing about Germany is that they didn't get to where they are now on their own. In contrast with the de-nazification process the Germans were put through, the Americans seemed quite willing to sweep some of Japan's misdeeds under the rug, furthermore the Koreans and the Chinese were too busy being embroiled in civil war and famine to feel very assertive towards the country that up until quite recently was the undisputed center of the region. So things were chugging along just fine for like fifty years until shit really started hitting fan, a Willy Brandt to come out and fall to his knees now.
Unfortunately I think this issue is gonna have to go away by itself, and that won't happen in a long time.

 

[Bracewell]

I see that you're desperately trying to escape the obvious fact that the claim being made is ridiculous. The ruling council did not want to surrender after two bombs. This is not in question. So tell me, to you personally, does it make sense that this same group was ready to surrender, on the same terms they reject after the bombings, before Hiroshima was even selected?

If that sounds stupid to you, and it should, you can't offer up that nonsense to support your position.

Well, then don't expect people to believe your claim if you are not willing to support it further considering that the following actions of the Japanese government completely contradict that supposed surrender document. Not to mention that there are no Japanese or American government documents that support it either. I mean, that is what is important here, Japan's actions and feelings about the war and surrender. As evidenced by their talks with the soviets in July 1945 and after the first atomic bomb, they werent willing to surrender in a reasonable manner. I mean, are you really telling us to believe a newspaper article more than the actual actions of the Japanese government?

This was pretty typical in the other thread as well. People constantly brought up incorrect or misleading evidence to support their claim that the bombs did not result in Japan's surrender. Likely because they really really really did not want the nuclear bomb to have such important consequences. I am sure their thinking was that if they could discredit the consequences of the bomb then they could discredit using nuclear bombs ever again. Or maybe it wasnt so calculated, who knows, maybe they simply believed it so deeply that they really couldnt see the evidence right in front of them. That there is no reliable evidence that Japan was willing to surrender and that the dropping of the atomic bombs, along with the soviets entering the war, caused Japan to surrender. I guess that is a noble goal. Too bad it is shit history.

This sort of shit really gets old. I was hoping this thread would be about Japan's WWII actions and current East Asian foreign relations, but apparently there are just too many people here have such an american-centric worldview that they can't help themselves talking about America, even in a thread about Japan apologizing to the world for the atrocities that they committed in WWII. But hey, its all about America, right?

You two believe that the nukes were the catalyst that brought about the immediate end of the war.

Except they didn't. August 6th, Little Boy was dropped. Japan didn't capitulate right away, but around 140,000 people were vaporised in an instant.

Three days later, August 9th, Fat Man was dropped. More than 70,000 people are dead in Nagasaki. No immediate surrender either, but the Soviets invade.

Almost a whole week later, we have the Japanese Empire announcing their surrender. If the nukes were so singularly effective, why didn't this happen on the 6th, or the 9th? When two of their cities blinked out of existence? This is rhetorical, by the way.

From the start, I said I believed that Japan would have surrendered without the use of nuclear bombs on a civilian populace (innocent of the crimes committed by the Imperial Army), under the very same terms that they later accepted. The nukes were unnecessary, horrific, and could very easily be construed as an act of terror. My stance never changed. You wanted me to cite my sources, I posted several, starting from around page 3 of this thread. You can go back and read them, if you want. If you'd like to call the sources into question, it's on you to find actual evidence disproving it, not pull some "absence of evidence" argument of ignorance shit.

Unless you didn't want your perception of our role in the conflict challenged in any way? That America and her decisions in the War were somehow infallible? Then why even enter into a debate? Our military leaders couldn't be convinced that our actions were morally justifiable at the time, where do you find your surety now?

Yeah, you still only have 1 source.

I enjoy a spirited debate as much as the next person, but this is weak.

 

[KHarvey16]

You two believe that the nukes were the catalyst that brought about the immediate end of the war.

Except they didn't. August 6th, Little Boy was dropped. Japan didn't capitulate right away, but around 140,000 people were vaporised in an instant.

Three days later, August 9th, Fat Man was dropped. More than 70,000 people are dead in Nagasaki. No immediate surrender either, but the Soviets invade.

Almost a whole week later, we have the Japanese Empire announcing their surrender. If the nukes were so singularly effective, why didn't this happen on the 6th, or the 9th? When two of their cities blinked out of existence? This is rhetorical, by the way.

From the start, I said I believed that Japan would have surrendered without the use of nuclear bombs on a civilian populace (innocent of the crimes committed by the Imperial Army), under the very same terms that they later accepted. The nukes were unnecessary, horrific, and could very easily be construed as an act of terror. My stance never changed. You wanted me to cite my sources, I posted several, starting from around page 3 of this thread. You can go back and read them, if you want. If you'd like to call the sources into question, it's on you to find actual evidence disproving it, not pull some "absence of evidence" argument of ignorance shit.

Unless you didn't want your perception of our role in the conflict challenged in any way? That America and her decisions in the War were somehow infallible? Then why even enter into a debate? Our military leaders couldn't be convinced that our actions were morally justifiable at the time, where do you find your surety now?



I enjoy a spirited debate as much as the next person, but this is weak.

Why did it take them that long to accept terms you claim they already gave to the allies before the bombs?

 

[MisterFalcon]

In a situation where the atomic bombs were not used the Russian declaration of war and invasion would not have produced a surrender as quickly as historically happened. Let's say the bombs would not be ready before August 15th 1945 and Japan was confronted with the Soviet declaration of war. This would not be as big a thing as losing Okinawa for several reasons:

-The Soviet Union had very little capacity and experience in large amphibious landings and would not have been able to invade Hokkaido until 1946 earliest
-Japan had already lost the economical use of its occupied territories in China through Allied submarines and mines sinking most of its merchant fleet
-All the good troops had already been withdrawn from China to defend against the Americans and replaced by poorly trained and equipped units. Losing all them as they did histroically did not alter the capacity of Japan to defend their homeland

The fantasy that somehow the Soviet Union could be played against America by Japan to get concessions was truly dead now but the hardliners would still have their strategy of making Japan too costly to invade. The atomic bomb reduced the cost in Allied lives of destroying Japan to zero and that was the last thing that could be used as a strategy. Still there were plenty of hardliners who would rather die but enough were now faced with a situation where there was a binary choice between surrender and annihilation.