Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

A different take on the lives saved by the bomb

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by dash rip rock, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. Nicnac

    Nicnac Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    8
    Way to make a stand. :rolleyes:

    Have we therefore debunked the Chicago Tribune article from January 1945 by Walter Trohan stating that FDR received a Japanese offer of:

    • Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
    • Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
    • Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
    • Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
    • Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
    • Surrender of designated war criminals.
    ?

    Even if we do, several others have posted in this thread their belief that Japan DID attempt to make an offer with no conditions but that the Emperor remain untouched, but that it did not reach the U.S.
     
  2. Nicnac

    Nicnac Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    8
    The difference here being that for the most part, American casualties were military.
     
  3. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Yes and no. There were quite a few civillians caught overseas when hostilities erupted; a lot of Brits in Malaysia, Sigapore, Hong Kong, Peking etc. Not to mention the American construction workers that were caught up in stuff.

    On Wake Island for instance there were more civillians there then there were Marines.

    By 1945 Japan had turned war production into a cottage industry where they mandated civillians to turn out war materials from there homes, every thing from ration packaging to bandages and ammunition were produced in rivate homes. It was not uncommon for school children, expecially girls, to be involved in the manufacture of bandages and first aid kits. Young boys wer often involved in filling sandbags that their mothers would sew together.
     
    ULITHI likes this.
  4. Maghappy

    Maghappy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    No argument from me on that one, Phylo_roadking.
     
  5. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Let's not forget about the deaths of some 500,000 Filipinos during the Japanese invasion and occupation. Although not officially US citizens, the Philippines were still a US territory at the time.
     
  6. Tristan Scott

    Tristan Scott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    41
    Was this peace offer official? No, it wasn't. The official offers were not unconditional.
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I remember reading some time ago that Japanese scientist had a decent idea of what our capability of producing weapons grade Uranium was. They suggested that it would be a significnat amount of time before we had another bomb. They didn't know about the Plutonium processing so the second bomb came as another surprise and at that point it was clear that they didn't have a good handle on how fast the US could indeed produce bombs although based on their recent experiance with US production capablity the prognosis was not good.
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Just pointing out that your assumptions/opinions were far from certainties. As the proponent it's up to you to back them at this point.
    Something less than unconditional surrender. The article also states that FDR recived it form MacAurther. Hardly an official channel for diplomatic traffic.
    Which is pretty much the offer that the Tribune article states was made. However it was:
    1) Apparently from other than official sources.
    2) Not unconditional surrender.
     
  9. Nicnac

    Nicnac Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    8
    You used the word attempted, not completed or official. I answered with an attempted offer that had the terms I described.
    Then say that. Follow your own advice and stop being terse and vague. No one here wants to see a conversations go "yes it is" "no it isn't". Look at any of the answers around yours that contain clear explanations of opinions, showing serious consideration, not gut-reaction solely in order to win some sort of contest.

    I raise questions because I value the opinions of most of the members here. I read every answer and I consider what has been said. You will notice that agree or disagree, I often thank the person for replying. Try it sometime.
     
  10. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    I think we should remember that the Japanese government had a unique way of working that resembled the European monarchy system, but in fact was very different. There were in effect 3 party's in the Japanese Governmet and the Imperial Cabinet which actually ruled the country.

    The 'Army' Party, the 'Navy' Party, and the Civilian 'Imperial' Party. To form a Government (Cabinet) you had to have the support of both the Army and Navy. If either the Army or Navy disliked the direction of the government its members on the Cabinet would resign and no new officers would accept a seat in the Cabinet, effectively forcing the Cabinet to 'Fall' and bringing the government to a standstill.

    The Army/Navy used this veto power as well as intimdation and outright assanation of 'moderate' civilian politicians to control Imperial policy and to allow aggression into China in the '30s. By the early 1940's they had dispenced with any pretence of a 'civilian' government and named Tojo the head of the Cabinet.

    The Emperor Hirohito's role in the Imperial Government was a curious one. He was not expected to set or make or even decide imperial policy, but rather 'approve' a policy worked out by the Cabinet and aggreed to by a concensus of its members. The emperor had the ability to say' no', but it was inconcievable that he would ever do so.

    By 1945 the Civilian party of the Cabinet had gained strength and was pushing for a end to the war. This came about because the Navy Party was now split on the issue, some desired an end to the war and some felt as the Army did that one last "gotterdammerung" was called for. The Army faction had been weakened, but still retained its veto power and could cause the collapse of the Cabinet. All that could be aggreed upon was to explore peace talks thru Russia, but as we know they were not interested in becoming a go-between.

    I have little doubt that the civillian faction, some of the Navy faction and even the Emperor was ready for peace what ever the cost may be, even if it called for the abdication of Hirohito. The problem was that they could not say this publicly for fear of what the diehards of the Army and Navy might do. Hirohito could have pushed the Army into a corner and allowed them to collapse the Cabinet and then use that as a pretext to rule by Imperial fiat. But that was against tradition and his personal charecter to do.

    It would take both the Atomic bombs and the Russia attack in China to weaken the Army faction enough for the Emperor to break protocol to express his wish to accept the Allied terms for surrender. Even so Junior army officers entered Imperial grounds to prevent the Imperial broadcast of surrender by force. The Army High command knew of the plot, and they would do nothing to help it but als do nothing to stop it either.
     
    mikebatzel and brndirt1 like this.
  11. Tristan Scott

    Tristan Scott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    41
    Very well, Nicnac, I will assume that your argument is semantical and that you truly want to follow the lead given by the Tribune article.

    My point is that, according to the article, "Japan" did not attempt to surrender. Some unnamed Japanese sent messages through channels that such condition would be acceptable, yet all of the evidence told the administration that it would not. We knew of the intransegence of the Japanese military, and we knew at that point that Japanese diplomats working under official direction were looking for a better deal. The article even spells all of this out. So, I stand by my initial statement that Japan did not attempt to surrender under the conditions you have outlined prior to the bombs being dropped.
     
  12. Nicnac

    Nicnac Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    8
    Even ignoring the Trohan article, others here have discussed a late attempt by Japan to talk to the Russians with the same terms, again before the bombs were dropped. Is this is also semantics, then there is nothing left for me to say.
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    You are the proponent. If no one questions your hypothesis then fine. Once it's brought to question it's up to you to make an attempt to defend it. When you do so I and other will either agree or post something substansive as a counter point.

    But the point is the postion of the allies was only unconditional surrender was acceptable and these weren't. Indeed they weren't even conducted through official channels. It was viewed as critical to get a clear admission from the Japanese that thier defeat was total.
     
  14. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    What may be worth thinking about is what effect Yamamoto might have had if he had not been killed when his aircraft was shot down. He did not think Japan could win a war with the US. Could he have pushed for an earlier end to the war?
     
  15. Tristan Scott

    Tristan Scott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    41
    Please don't take umbrage to my pointing out that we were arguing semantics over whether the offer was actually made or just attempted. It's an important point, semantical or not. (I think semantics are essential in this type of communication.)

    And no, I don't think the attempts at brokering a deal with the USSR is semantical, but it seems clear from the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Ambassador Sato that unconditional surrender was not going to fly. These messages were intercepted and were a primary source to our leadership for what was going on in Tokyo.

    First you have Togo instructing Sato to tell Molotov that the Emperor wants to end the war, but " so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."

    Sato informs Togo that uncondition surrender is the best deal they are going to get, and that the Soviets will want to know if Togo is speaking for the Government of Japan. Their messages go back and forth, with Sato pushing for negotiating unconditional surrender while preserving the Imperial Family. Finall Togo sends the message, "With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever..." and goes on suggesting that Sato keep the talks going but not to negotiate anything specific.

    No, the Japanese, as late as the end of July when the last of these messages took place, were no where near being ready to accept unconditional surrender, even with the continuation of the Emperor. The Americans were fully aware of this situation.
     
  16. Tristan Scott

    Tristan Scott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    41
    Perhaps, but I think he knew the war was over after Midway. What slim hope he held hinged on a "decisive battle" in the first year of the war because he felt the only chance they had was to beat us so badly that we would agree to an armastice and concentrate on Europe. After Midway it was clear that a decisive battle was not going to happen, and he then saw his duty to carry on as best he could.
     
  17. belasar

    belasar Court Jester

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,515
    Likes Received:
    1,176
    Actually I suspect he thought Japan was doomed well before Midway. He was purported to say during the Pearl Harbor planning that he could 'run wild with the Combined Fleet for six months, but after that he could make no garruntees'. Further after he learned that the Japanese envoy botched the DoW in Washington he commented ' I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant'.

    My thought was that perhaps someone of his stature saying that the war was in no way winable, and that the US would pursue it to the bitter end might be enough to sway the Emperor to speak up sooner and order the acceptance of 'Unconditional Surrender'.

    On the flip side him surviving the war might have made Leyte Gulf far more bloody for the US and could have strengthened the hardliner arguements with reguard to one last decisive battle.

    In the end with the military in control of the government any decision about surrender had to come from the Emperor. The mindset of Japanese officers in either branch could never accept responciblity for a capitulation that would entail the loss of the Emperor. To die in battle was the only course in their estimation and a suitable result of their failure.

    The rub is that Japanese culture and political tradition did not allow for an Emperor to speak openly on such a matter. This is why, in my opinion, it took so long and so much to compell Japan to accept Unconditional Surrender.
     
  18. Nicnac

    Nicnac Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well said.

    I guess then, what sours some opinions (including mine) is that the final surrender terms appear to be the same thing Japan might have offered,but this is only as the result of a concession by the U.S.

    Very interesting. Thanks.
     
  19. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    What's wrong with that? ;) You can be magnanimous in victory - with YOUR boots on the ground.

    But you have to HAVE the victory to allow you to be generous....and to be able to give "generously" on your terms, so to speak.
     
  20. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    That shouldn't "sour" your opinion. It had been the considered thought of the "Japan hands" in the US government for months before the surrender was even a possibility that the Emperor should be retained in a "subservient, non-diety" role to make the transfer of power less stressful for both the victors and the vanquished.

    This was mainly put forward by Joseph Grew, not General MacArthur. As ex-Ambassador, and now as an assistant sec. of state Grew was in the possition to influence the thought of how to deal with the Japanese post-war. Until the end of July the Japanese hadn't been able to make any "concrete" offers for surrender through any office, not the Soviets, not the Swedes, not the Swiss. When they finally did make an offer (the day after Nagasaki) it was rejected by Sec. of State Byrnes.

    They accepted his counter-offer.

    On August 10th, through the Swiss the Japanese offered this as surrender terms.

    "The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945 by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler. (emphasis mine)
     
    Goto:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-08-10a.html

    And the following day (August 11th) Sec. Byrnes’ reply definitely rejects that portion of the "offer" by the Japanese with this statement;

    "With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the terms of the Potsdam proclamation but containing the statement, 'with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:

    "From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. (emphasis mine)

    Goto:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/1945-08-11a.html

    For the two weeks beteen their futile attempt to involve the Soviets, and the dropping of the two atomics, the Japanese had made no offers of any sort to bring the war to a close. Once again, the term "unconditional surrender" doesn’t mean NO TERMS, it means accept our terms without negotiation or equivocation, or continue to fight.
     

Share This Page