Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.
So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.
|
The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.
World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.