Americans, Patriotism and Pearl Harbor

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Are some of you so naive when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The bombs were dropped to prevent the loss of 100's of thousands of American lives.

The targets were chosen as areas to soften up if the time came to invade Japan. This is WAR people.

We pleaded for Japan's surrender prior to dropping the bombs....despite having dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo, the stubborn Japanese government refused to listen. If anyone's to blame its Hirohito and his gang.

What everyone seems to forget is how we built Japan back again after the war, and that we are helping the Japanese more than any other country when it comes to this earthquake.

AFBrat77

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings.

Here's something to read about Operation: Downfall

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

Dropping the atomic bombs was the right move.

pathetic comments but hey its internet!

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings.

T_P_O

Here's something to read about Operation: Downfall

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

Dropping the atomic bombs was the right move.

At the very least 250,000 Americans would have lost their lives. That is unacceptable.

This is War, drop the bombs.

I don't like killing civilians anymore than any of you do, but it was necessary to drop the bombs.

I still say Hirohito and his gang were responsible for the bombs being dropped, Japanese should have surrendered after Tokyo was being torched with incendiary bombs. No question the Japanese had lost at that point, though I realize they were working on atom bombs as well. I guarantee they wouldn't hesitate to bomb the mainland U.S. with atomic bombs if they had them ready. Do you honestly disagree?

Welcome to the internets.

Verge_6

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Here's something to read about Operation: Downfall

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

Dropping the atomic bombs was the right move.

AFBrat77

At the very least 250,000 Americans would have lost their lives. That is unacceptable.

This is War, drop the bombs.

I don't like killing civilians anymore than any of you do, but it was necessary to drop the bombs.

I still say Hirohito and his gang were responsible for the bombs being dropped, Japanese should have surrendered after Tokyo was being torched with incendiary bombs. No question the Japanese had lost at that point, though I realize they were working on atom bombs as well. I guarantee they wouldn't hesitate to bomb the mainland U.S. with atomic bombs if they had them ready. Do you honestly disagree?

Disagree with what part? If it's about the Japanese nuclear program, then I guess I do, since that research never finished the laboratory stage, and I don't see many ways they could've transported a bomber over the pacific to the mainland US without air superiority or naval superiority in their own sphere of influence. That was a non-option in every possible scenario at the time.

I guess I also disagree with the responsibility laying solely with the Japanese. Obviously, if they surrendered earlier, then yeah, everything would've been avoided, but the Allies didn't really do much to stimulate the chances of that happening. As far as I'm aware, the "unconditional surrender" clause existed in the Potsdam Declaration, and absolutely no exceptions, including one that could've stimulated an early surrender (institution of the Emperor being guaranteed), were made other than "prompt and utter destruction". I'd say there's a lot more to the diplomatic dimension of this issue than either of us are making it out to be.

edit: Anyway, I need dinner and some relaxation. Feel free to respond, and I may get back to you. I also didn't mean to come off as hostile to you, just in case I accidentally did.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] That source gives us the figures from the time of planning, which we know were prone to overestimation. That being my point, those figures may not even give a slightly accurate picture of what may have happened.T_P_O

At the very least 250,000 Americans would have lost their lives. That is unacceptable.

This is War, drop the bombs.

I don't like killing civilians anymore than any of you do, but it was necessary to drop the bombs.

I still say Hirohito and his gang were responsible for the bombs being dropped, Japanese should have surrendered after Tokyo was being torched with incendiary bombs. No question the Japanese had lost at that point, though I realize they were working on atom bombs as well. I guarantee they wouldn't hesitate to bomb the mainland U.S. with atomic bombs if they had them ready. Do you honestly disagree?

Disagree with what part? If it's about the Japanese nuclear program, then I guess I do, since that research never finished the laboratory stage, and I don't see many ways they could've transported a bomber over the pacific to the mainland US without air superiority or naval superiority in their own sphere of influence. That was a non-option in every possible scenario at the time.

I guess I also disagree with the responsibility laying solely with the Japanese. Obviously, if they surrendered earlier, then yeah, everything would've been avoided, but the Allies didn't really do much to stimulate the chances of that happening. As far as I'm aware, the "unconditional surrender" clause existed in the Potsdam Declaration, and absolutely no exceptions, including one that could've stimulated an early surrender (institution of the Emperor being guaranteed), were made other than "prompt and utter destruction". I'd say there's a lot more to the diplomatic dimension of this issue than either of us are making it out to be.

edit: Anyway, I need dinner and some relaxation. Feel free to respond, and I may get back to you. I also didn't mean to come off as hostile to you, just in case I accidentally did.

No question the Japanese could not have dropped atomic bombs on mainland U.S. at that time, I agree with what you say there. My point is, if they were in a position to be able to do so, would they? I think the answer is an unequivocal "Yes".

I have to go as well soon, I will agree with you that Hirohito was not solely responsible for what happened, after all the U.S. did drop them, and we could have gone the nasty invasion route.

But I think the U.S. made the right move with dropping the bombs, I don't think its possible to convince me otherwise. Also, I'm certain most reasonable countries would have done the same thing. The British supported it for sure.

I don't see you as hostile, though I do see that in many who create these "America's always the bad guy" threads.

This is just one of the many reasons why I very rarely go on facebook anymore....

Oh look, this thread has turned into a large arguement about the nukes dropped and the war. What a surprise.

Being a history major, this depresses me. So many ignorant people. Wouldn't TWO atomic bombs be enough after Pearl Harbor?

Those people are really dumb lol

Flame_Blade88

Incessent firebombing of innocent Japanese citizens during WWII should have been enough.

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

And I would say you have no right to say if it was right or wrong because you hadn't spent 8 years in total World War, have hundreds of thousands of your soldiers die, and see the real effect of the atrocities committed by the Axis powers.

Do you really think the US made that decision lightly? It's so easy to say we are wrong 70 years after it happened. You have no idea.

Wasdie

Way to completely forget the 4 years of brutal fighting we did against the Japanese. Let's also totally forget the hundreds of civilians who jumped off of cliffs willingly just so they didn't surrender to American forces. How about the schools of civilians that the Japanese were teaching to fight with hand-to-hand combat after 5-6 years of propaganda brainwashing them. How about them giving bombs to their kids for when the allied tanks came ashore they could kamikaze the tanks...

The evidence was mounting that the Japanese were not going to surrender in a straight up fight. Taking the honor away from the fight caused them to surrender very quickly. It wasn't a good thing, but neither would be slaughtering millions of Japanese as they did everything they could defend their homelands.

This wasn't a quick "oh they bombed us at Pearl Harbor let's murder their civlians!" like you pretty much have stated. This was after countless battles between them and us observing their civilians on several occasions.

They jumped because they believed they would be victims of vicious rape. As for the war, the general public seemed thoroughly demoralized. They were not allowed to truly criticize it, however, because thought police systems were in place. Why the Japanese government felt they had to be put in place, you can probably guess ...

Wow. i never even thought of Pearl Harbor and karma after seeing the quake footage.Allicrombie

First of all. During WWII japans government was corrupt and dong wicked things even to its people. After WWII, Japan has been peaceful and has had a good government. This is probably the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Whats happening in Japan now is not good.

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

Welcome to the internets.

Adrianstalker

Welcome to the internets is a really dumb quote.

It comes from the prediction that these type of comments exist exclusively on the net, even though those are real people, with family, friends and jobs and they are spitting out their ignorance in real life too. I have heard it, not just read it. Does it really fall from our (yours) lack of experience with the outside world to see that this exact comments are being made here in real life too?

Welcome to the world

On a sidenote; roofles at lecturing someone who has worked retail for a half decade that people are stupid in the real world. Seriously, shoehorn much? It's easier for people to say stupid/condescending stuff on the internet because of anonymity/zero chance of reprisal. How does pointing that out equate to "the only dumb people on earth are on the internet"?

Now before i start this thread i would like to point out the fact that i am not American, but Australian and i cannot put myself in your shoes.

However i have I know Not all Americans are like this and i would hope most are very reasonable people but i just found this picture a bit shocking...

walkingdream

So you find this - about a small group of people - and not only post it but say you "Hope most are reasonable". Nice.

Saying "I would hope most are" means the first part (I know not all Americans are like that) is now invalid.

We do happen to have > 300 million people here, and you say you "hope most are reasonable".

[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"] this++++

Verge_6

Welcome to the internets is a really dumb quote.

It comes from the prediction that these type of comments exist exclusively on the net, even though those are real people, with family, friends and jobs and they are spitting out their ignorance in real life too. I have heard it, not just read it. Does it really fall from our (yours) lack of experience with the outside world to see that this exact comments are being made here in real life too?

On a sidenote; lol @ lecturing someone who has worked retail for a half decade on how people are stupid in the real world. Preacher, meet choir.

Welcome to the world

What the **** are you talking about?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="Adrianstalker"]

Welcome to the internets is a really dumb quote.

It comes from the prediction that these type of comments exist exclusively on the net, even though those are real people, with family, friends and jobs and they are spitting out their ignorance in real life too. I have heard it, not just read it. Does it really fall from our (yours) lack of experience with the outside world to see that this exact comments are being made here in real life too?

On a sidenote; lol @ lecturing someone who has worked retail for a half decade on how people are stupid in the real world. Preacher, meet choir.

Welcome to the world

Adrianstalker

What the **** are you talking about?

[QUOTE="walkingdream"]

Now before i start this thread i would like to point out the fact that i am not American, but Australian and i cannot put myself in your shoes.

However i have I know Not all Americans are like this and i would hope most are very reasonable people but i just found this picture a bit shocking...

topsemag55

So you find this - about a small group of people - and not only post it but say you "Hope most are reasonable". Nice.

Saying "I would hope most are" means the first part (I know not all Americans are like that) is now invalid.

We do happen to have > 300 million people here, and you say you "hope most are reasonable".

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="VensInferno"]

Isn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki payback? Even the guys that drop the bomb regret doing it. The people that commented"Karma" or "Payback" need to be $&#* slapped hard. How can you be happy that millions of people lost their homes, and relatives? That I dont understand. I love how they involve God and Nature with the word Payback. This is sickening at its finest. They should watch out for karma.

T_P_O

Are some of you so naive when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The bombs were dropped to prevent the loss of 100's of thousands of American lives.

The targets were chosen as areas to soften up if the time came to invade Japan. This is WAR people.

We pleaded for Japan's surrender prior to dropping the bombs....despite having dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo, the stubborn Japanese government refused to listen. If anyone's to blame its Hirohito and his gang.

What everyone seems to forget is how we built Japan back again after the war, and that we are helping the Japanese more than any other country when it comes to this earthquake.

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings. Without air superiority in their own country, their navy all but outnumbered and outclassed, and relentless fire-bombs on targets on land (that links with the first). Even General Marshall's estimate in 1945 didn't put such an absurdly high number on it, saying roughly that American casualties wouldn't exceed 31,000 in the first month (McWilliams & Piotrowski: 2009, page 17). This estimate of course, doesn't take into account the situation of the Japanese military either at the time, there was a tendency to overestimate their capability and strength, and it's concerning that this still continues.

Also, the negotiations, according to McWilliams and Piotrowski on the very same page, were rather doomed due to the conflict of demands. The USA wanted an unconditional surrender, and the Japanese wanted an assurance that the holy institution of the Emperor would be guaranteed in defeat. It also seems in the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945, this is evident, with no mention to Hirohito or the institution of the Emperor.

I'm not in any real position, or location to gather information to assess whether the Japanese would've surrendered before the bombings if the institution was guaranteed, but it seems to have been of the utmost importance to the Japanese. I don't see how the Japanese government was solely to blame, or the only one acting stubbornly in the diplomatic negotiations.

now, I'm out of this thread, god help anyone who stays in it

edit: It's also suggested that Washington knew the urgency of the Japanese government in seeking to use the USSR as a mediator, since no formal diplomatic ties existed between Japan and the USA then, it's likely that Japan's government was really interested in a surrender in 1945. Though this example doesn't do that point justice, it remains an aside to ponder.

Of course, it's very easy to measure all of this in retrospect (what we did, what we should have done, etc.), but so much of life is spent thinking about things that way. In the heat of the moment, or within a very critical situation, sometimes you have to do things, and only years later do you realize that what you did might not have been the best or most viable course of action. You'll never know what would have happened if you acted differently, but that's part of the risk and uncertainty that is everywhere in life.

Pursuant to the situation, time was moving fast against the western allies, and even if they didn't think much of it at the time, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria which would be soon to follow, as you mentioned, would have much larger implications in Asia over the long- term than the circumstances of when and how the Japanese would accept surrender as an option. Even if casualties weren't heavy, getting bogged down in fighting or negotiations for even just a few more months would have been a critical time and opportunity cost.

...This disturbs me greatly.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Are some of you so naive when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The bombs were dropped to prevent the loss of 100's of thousands of American lives.

The targets were chosen as areas to soften up if the time came to invade Japan. This is WAR people.

We pleaded for Japan's surrender prior to dropping the bombs....despite having dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo, the stubborn Japanese government refused to listen. If anyone's to blame its Hirohito and his gang.

What everyone seems to forget is how we built Japan back again after the war, and that we are helping the Japanese more than any other country when it comes to this earthquake.

jetpower3

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings. Without air superiority in their own country, their navy all but outnumbered and outclassed, and relentless fire-bombs on targets on land (that links with the first). Even General Marshall's estimate in 1945 didn't put such an absurdly high number on it, saying roughly that American casualties wouldn't exceed 31,000 in the first month (McWilliams & Piotrowski: 2009, page 17). This estimate of course, doesn't take into account the situation of the Japanese military either at the time, there was a tendency to overestimate their capability and strength, and it's concerning that this still continues.

Also, the negotiations, according to McWilliams and Piotrowski on the very same page, were rather doomed due to the conflict of demands. The USA wanted an unconditional surrender, and the Japanese wanted an assurance that the holy institution of the Emperor would be guaranteed in defeat. It also seems in the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945, this is evident, with no mention to Hirohito or the institution of the Emperor.

I'm not in any real position, or location to gather information to assess whether the Japanese would've surrendered before the bombings if the institution was guaranteed, but it seems to have been of the utmost importance to the Japanese. I don't see how the Japanese government was solely to blame, or the only one acting stubbornly in the diplomatic negotiations.

now, I'm out of this thread, god help anyone who stays in it

edit: It's also suggested that Washington knew the urgency of the Japanese government in seeking to use the USSR as a mediator, since no formal diplomatic ties existed between Japan and the USA then, it's likely that Japan's government was really interested in a surrender in 1945. Though this example doesn't do that point justice, it remains an aside to ponder.

Of course, it's very difficult to measure all of this in retrospect (what we did, what we should have done, etc.), but so much of life is spent thinking about things that way. In the heat of the moment, or within a very critical situation, sometimes you have to do things, and only years later do you realize that what you did might not have been the best or most viable course of action.

Pursuant to the situation, time was moving fast against the western allies, and even if they didn't think much of it at the time, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria which would be soon to follow, as you mentioned, would have much larger implications in Asia over the long- term than the circumstances of when and how the Japanese would accept surrender as an option. Even if casualties weren't heavy, getting bogged down in fighting for even just another few months would have been a critical time and opportunity cost.

A handful of idiots on Facebook is far from a good sample of Americans.

However it is quite disgusting. I wonder how many of those fools own Japanese products, probably all of them.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings. Without air superiority in their own country, their navy all but outnumbered and outclassed, and relentless fire-bombs on targets on land (that links with the first). Even General Marshall's estimate in 1945 didn't put such an absurdly high number on it, saying roughly that American casualties wouldn't exceed 31,000 in the first month (McWilliams & Piotrowski: 2009, page 17). This estimate of course, doesn't take into account the situation of the Japanese military either at the time, there was a tendency to overestimate their capability and strength, and it's concerning that this still continues.

Also, the negotiations, according to McWilliams and Piotrowski on the very same page, were rather doomed due to the conflict of demands. The USA wanted an unconditional surrender, and the Japanese wanted an assurance that the holy institution of the Emperor would be guaranteed in defeat. It also seems in the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945, this is evident, with no mention to Hirohito or the institution of the Emperor.

I'm not in any real position, or location to gather information to assess whether the Japanese would've surrendered before the bombings if the institution was guaranteed, but it seems to have been of the utmost importance to the Japanese. I don't see how the Japanese government was solely to blame, or the only one acting stubbornly in the diplomatic negotiations.

now, I'm out of this thread, god help anyone who stays in it

edit: It's also suggested that Washington knew the urgency of the Japanese government in seeking to use the USSR as a mediator, since no formal diplomatic ties existed between Japan and the USA then, it's likely that Japan's government was really interested in a surrender in 1945. Though this example doesn't do that point justice, it remains an aside to ponder.

T_P_O

Of course, it's very difficult to measure all of this in retrospect (what we did, what we should have done, etc.), but so much of life is spent thinking about things that way. In the heat of the moment, or within a very critical situation, sometimes you have to do things, and only years later do you realize that what you did might not have been the best or most viable course of action.

Pursuant to the situation, time was moving fast against the western allies, and even if they didn't think much of it at the time, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria which would be soon to follow, as you mentioned, would have much larger implications in Asia over the long- term than the circumstances of when and how the Japanese would accept surrender as an option. Even if casualties weren't heavy, getting bogged down in fighting for even just another few months would have been a critical time and opportunity cost.

Oooh boy, we're running down

territory now.

P.S. Stick out your head a little more so I may have a nibble.

Only old people say those types of things. It is hard for a lot of the older people to get over what happened during that time. There are a lot of crazy stories about what the Japanese did to our soldiers. The younger population (anyone under 65) mostly do not have a problem with the Japanese at all. I think it is pretty sick to wish this type of destruction on any people, especially when it might affect the 3DS launch :)

Oooh boy, we're running down

territory now.

P.S. Stick out your head a little more so I may have a nibble.

DucksBrains

Oh, a quick google search clears the relevance up. I thought you were lambasting me for a bit there. 'Sall good.

also, you might enjoy this:

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

There are still many of us here who have parents with vivid memories of Japanese occupation and atrocities during WW2. Most of them (including my folks) wouldn't wish death and destruction on the Japanese people. Whatever "paybacks" that were coming already happened before that war ended and soon afterwards.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="VensInferno"]

Isn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki payback? Even the guys that drop the bomb regret doing it. The people that commented"Karma" or "Payback" need to be $&#* slapped hard. How can you be happy that millions of people lost their homes, and relatives? That I dont understand. I love how they involve God and Nature with the word Payback. This is sickening at its finest. They should watch out for karma.

T_P_O

Are some of you so naive when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The bombs were dropped to prevent the loss of 100's of thousands of American lives.

The targets were chosen as areas to soften up if the time came to invade Japan. This is WAR people.

We pleaded for Japan's surrender prior to dropping the bombs....despite having dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo, the stubborn Japanese government refused to listen. If anyone's to blame its Hirohito and his gang.

What everyone seems to forget is how we built Japan back again after the war, and that we are helping the Japanese more than any other country when it comes to this earthquake.

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings. Without air superiority in their own country, their navy all but outnumbered and outclassed, and relentless fire-bombs on targets on land (that links with the first). Even General Marshall's estimate in 1945 didn't put such an absurdly high number on it, saying roughly that American casualties wouldn't exceed 31,000 in the first month (McWilliams & Piotrowski: 2009, page 17). This estimate of course, doesn't take into account the situation of the Japanese military either at the time, there was a tendency to overestimate their capability and strength, and it's concerning that this still continues.

Also, the negotiations, according to McWilliams and Piotrowski on the very same page, were rather doomed due to the conflict of demands. The USA wanted an unconditional surrender, and the Japanese wanted an assurance that the holy institution of the Emperor would be guaranteed in defeat. It also seems in the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945, this is evident, with no mention to Hirohito or the institution of the Emperor.

I'm not in any real position, or location to gather information to assess whether the Japanese would've surrendered before the bombings if the institution was guaranteed, but it seems to have been of the utmost importance to the Japanese. I don't see how the Japanese government was solely to blame, or the only one acting stubbornly in the diplomatic negotiations.

now, I'm out of this thread, god help anyone who stays in it

edit: It's also suggested that Washington knew the urgency of the Japanese government in seeking to use the USSR as a mediator, since no formal diplomatic ties existed between Japan and the USA then, it's likely that Japan's government was really interested in a surrender in 1945. Though this example doesn't do that point justice, it remains an aside to ponder.

Just read this document, it details most of what transpired leading up to the decision to use the atomic bombs. It was well known that Japan was on its knees by the time the decision was made. It seems Trumans views are thought in history books in the U.S and I don't find it unreasonable that it is that way. The victor writes the history and this can be seen in other countries throughout thw world.

I think it's mostly all those crazy fanatics that think "God" defends America, also, I love how they all preach about karma when it isn't even part of their religion. Rather stupid, they are. Also,

Fire-Bombing of Tokyo - 124,711 casualties.

Pearl Harbor - 2,350 casualties.

Well, gee, that surely made me feel better.

Also, Also,

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/September/20050915165123ajesrom9.768313e-02.html

americans have a weird sense of blind patriotism, i bet those people go on facebook and bash japan and then go back and play call of duty on their ps3

Wow. i never even thought of Pearl Harbor and karma after seeing the quake footage.Allicrombie

Um, it wasn't by choice.

There are lots of internet trolls. Most americans have pretty favorable opinions of Japan. If you go reading the comments in most forums, it's usually disgruntled and antisocial teens making those comments. I wouldn't take much of that seriously. Most people's sentiments echo that of President Obama's: they are heartbroken over this tragedy and are willing to offer whatever help they can.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Are some of you so naive when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The bombs were dropped to prevent the loss of 100's of thousands of American lives.

The targets were chosen as areas to soften up if the time came to invade Japan. This is WAR people.

We pleaded for Japan's surrender prior to dropping the bombs....despite having dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo, the stubborn Japanese government refused to listen. If anyone's to blame its Hirohito and his gang.

What everyone seems to forget is how we built Japan back again after the war, and that we are helping the Japanese more than any other country when it comes to this earthquake.

Nkemjo

100's of thousands? That seems really excessive, considering the state of the Japanese imperial forces at the time of the atomic bombings. Without air superiority in their own country, their navy all but outnumbered and outclassed, and relentless fire-bombs on targets on land (that links with the first). Even General Marshall's estimate in 1945 didn't put such an absurdly high number on it, saying roughly that American casualties wouldn't exceed 31,000 in the first month (McWilliams & Piotrowski: 2009, page 17). This estimate of course, doesn't take into account the situation of the Japanese military either at the time, there was a tendency to overestimate their capability and strength, and it's concerning that this still continues.

Also, the negotiations, according to McWilliams and Piotrowski on the very same page, were rather doomed due to the conflict of demands. The USA wanted an unconditional surrender, and the Japanese wanted an assurance that the holy institution of the Emperor would be guaranteed in defeat. It also seems in the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945, this is evident, with no mention to Hirohito or the institution of the Emperor.

I'm not in any real position, or location to gather information to assess whether the Japanese would've surrendered before the bombings if the institution was guaranteed, but it seems to have been of the utmost importance to the Japanese. I don't see how the Japanese government was solely to blame, or the only one acting stubbornly in the diplomatic negotiations.

now, I'm out of this thread, god help anyone who stays in it

edit: It's also suggested that Washington knew the urgency of the Japanese government in seeking to use the USSR as a mediator, since no formal diplomatic ties existed between Japan and the USA then, it's likely that Japan's government was really interested in a surrender in 1945. Though this example doesn't do that point justice, it remains an aside to ponder.

Just read this document, it details most of what transpired leading up to the decision to use the atomic bombs. It was well known that Japan was on its knees by the time the decision was made. It seems Trumans views are thought in history books in the U.S and I don't find it unreasonable that it is that way. The victor writes the history and this can be seen in other countries throughout thw world.

Japan could be on its knees and still be uncooperative. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender. The Japanese refused feeling they can still inflict massive casualties on the Allies in the event the Home Islands were invaded. After the carnage in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Allies probably weren't in the mood to endure more casualties. The only way the Japanese leaders would surrender is if they faced certain extermination if they didn't. The nukes had that effect.

Emperor Hirohito noted that the entry of the Soviets on the Allied side had more of an impact on his decison to surrender because he was relying on the Soviets to act as middle man in negotiations. But, I doubt that would've mattered since to the Allies, nothing else mattered except Japan's unconditional surrender. There's not going to be any more negotiations.

Edit: Also, the Japanese mindset was different then. If the Emperor told his people to disembowel themselves, many would probably do so without question. The Japanese nowadays are more uh, wimpier.That's something else Allied soldiers would have had to deal with if the bombs weren't dropped. A whole population ready to die for the Emperor.