The poor poor Japanese
np.reddit.com/r/ShitAmericansSay/comments/882...Posted Mar 29, 2018, 6:46 PM UTC
2125
np.reddit.com
There is also the issue of terms of surrender. The Japanese had been willing to surrender, on the condition that Hirohito remained on the throne. However, the allies rejected this, as the surrender had to be unconditional.
And a few other tiny little details. Super minor, unimportant things, mostly regarding territory. No big deal. You've probably never even heard of most of the disputed territory. Some places called China, Korea, Manchuria, and a few others. No place important.
86
That's the bit that really pisses me off. People arguing about that completely leaving out the matter of territory, demilitarization, and war crimes prosecution. I mean, imagine if we let the Nazis keep their government, prosecute their own war crimes AND keep the areas they were occupying.
47
[Sarcasm intensifies]
4
Even in an alternate universe where no atomic bomb is used and the USA decides to go through with Operation Downfall, people like that would still be screeching about "Evil Amerikkka1488". They'd probably say something like "The Americans had a means to end the war quickly but chose to murder millions of Japanese in a massive, bloodthirsty military campaign."
45
I feel like if America did anything but accept Japan's "terms of surrender" (that is: "We'll keep all of our colonies and we pinky promise that we won't genocide anybody or let our war criminals off the hook"), these people would complain.
25
Even then, I'm willing to bet these people would say something like "AMERIKKKA1488 ALLOWED THE JAPANESE TO CONTINUE THEIR GENOCIDE IN CHINA" or something. No matter what the USA would have done they would have bitched and cried.
26
That kind of logic applies everywhere in life. No matter what you do, you won't ever be able to please everyone.
11
True, but with these people, they will latch on to any chance to criticize the US, no matter how unreasonable their arguments are. The US has done several shitty things that it deserves criticism for, there's no need to invent issues and misrepresent things. For example, according to their arguments, the bombs were the worst thing ever, but received no consideration in surrendering, doesn't really make sense. But like I said, anything to criticize the US, no matter how unreasonable.
12
Jesus the hell is going on..
30
Revisionism
11
Does anyone know where the "Japan would have surrendered if only we let them keep their emperor" thing came from?
20
It comes from the misinterpretation of the conditions that the Japanese wanted to past to the US through the Soviets.
It called for the emperor staying in power, keeping territories they had occupied, and holding their own war crime trials. All while not being occupied or forced to demobilize.
The US kept the Emperor on the throne to keep occupation requirements relatively low and so it becomes one of those parts of history that are put under the rug as the Japanese only wanted to keep the emperor but Amerikkka just wanted to nuke civilians!
If we follow the nukes bad logic, then the only feasible option was for an Invasion the likes of which make Normandy look like child's play.
I'd go into detail if you'd like to know more about the invasion.
22
Is there any way I can look at these surrender terms myself? I wanna know how much territory the Japnaese thought they could hold on to.
12
The months leading up to the bombing from the Japanese point of view can be summed up as "Suck up to Russia, but if we don't think it to be fair, stall/stop it"
In May, Japan's supreme council, known as the Big Six, voted 5-1 in favor of "the extinction of Japan to any taint of compromise." (Frank's Downfall: The end of the Imperial Japanese Empire, 94). [Great book btw]
Here's the MAGIC Intercepts as of July 45, there banking on the Soviets not entering the war.
Japan's Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation (Talks about 4 of the things the Japanese would accept before surrendering, though they'd get one of the four.
To Sum it up in a timeline way;
Early 44' Government knows wars going badly, but bank on US/UK war support fading, and Soviets helping them peace out (willing to give up occupied China, providing it was a recent addition, so anything added before 1940 is Japanese still.
Late 44': "Oh shit, okay so we'll give up things up to Korea, if" This is where they start banking on the Soviets to start negotiations to help not get occupied. They were willing to give the Soviets land for time to rebulid.
Early 45' They realize that the Soviets are just leading them in circles, possibly to invade? (they think not) Still bank on war weary US to give up.
July 45': They see the writing on the war, but only a few of the 5 are willing to give up.
August 45': the Emperor gives up on behalf of Japan due to Nukes and the Soviets, though they narrowed the options from 1 2 or 3 to just 1 or 2. Two was surrender, and one was to fight.
12
Ironically operation downfall was intended to be carried out with nuclear bombs used to ‘soften’ the landing zones.
5
26+ to recall the lowest number possible (if there's no nuke build rush)
7
I have a hard time believing anyone could have made the decision not to drop the bomb. Truman, after all, was a politician in a democracy (and he was unelected to the office he held). It reminds me of Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis having to limit his potential options in order to protect himself from public opinion backlash that he was being too weak. As in, he could have potentially had a great way out of the crisis but would never have been able to take it, if the public had deemed it weak let's say, because he'd be run out of office and the next administration would change it. That's one of the struggles with trusting a democratic nation's promises. The voting population is fickle and emotional.
Consider if you were a mother or father of a US service member killed in WW2. Consider that you then find out that the US spent untold of sums of money, manpower and intellect developing a super weapon (the a-bomb) that it then refused to use because of consideration for the lives of the population that killed him. How many more bullets, or better planes, or better landing craft, or better helmets could the government have bought/developed that would have saved your son's life but instead was spent on the Manhattan project and then some unelected VP decided that even though the project was successful,and the weapon wasn't worth using? Truman would have been strung up in the streets if that happened.
On a personal note I'm glad they dropped the bomb for a different reason, callous as this may sound: the world needed to see what these things did. It's why we fought a cold war with the Soviets instead of a hot one. Hiroshima and nagaski scared the shit out of everyone. It ensured that the only time we ever used them was when we barely had any to use (single digits). If they hadn't been used so early o , we'd have only found out what it means to use an atom bomb on a city when it was used on a large scale on Moscow or LA and with hundreds in the air. Then the retaliation and counter retaliation would have never ended (in my humble opinion) and it would be left to cockroaches to debate the merits of dropping them.
19
The one guy posts some stuff about Truman saying he was unsure if even the atomic bomns would be enough to end the war, and then uses that as evidence that Truman would drop them no matter what, despite the claim that the Japanese would surrender?
Fucking wat? Isn't that completely contradictory? Feel like I must be missing something here. Like on one hand, you're claiming the Japanese are ready to surrender, but Amerikkka is evil so Truman is going to bomb them anyway...and your evidence is Truman saying, yeah even these atom bombs might not be enough to make them surrender.
18
and both American and Japanese soldiers treated each other with some level of barbarity, as the expectation of civil treatment had never really developed between them the way it had between the Americans and the Germans
When you make something up whole cloth, at least check wikipedia to see if its plausible. Cannibalism was common in the Japanese Army, and only one side forced a death march on the other.
13
Should we consider that sub low hanging fruit? They’re not really playing with a full deck and are essentially willing to say anything if it makes Americans look bad.
12
That subreddit really hurts my soul to be honest. I mean, this sub can get really circle / counter-jerky at times too, but at least here it's usually at the expense of an indefensible fascist regime responsible for millions upon millions of deaths and one that seems to be making a horrifying resurgence in popularity.
There, at times, it seems to go straight to "DeathtoAmeriKKKa" standards, despite the sidebar noting that it should only be in humor and not hard rhetoric...
Anyways on topic: I'm not any kind of professional historian (isn't that everyone's favorite phrase lol?), but it's always seemed to me that the topic of whether to drop the bombs or not was truly an extremely muddy one, but imo the decision really did come down to wanting to avoid the same hilariously costly (in life and materials) island invasion that had been so destructive across the Pacific front.
I've read a few books about the decision and what went ahead of it as well as some of the first-hand accounts from some of the people involved that seem to corroborate this, though of course there's always the thought that they might have softened the decision for future consumption.
Off-topic, that automod auto-reply image really isn't a good look. Is there any chance that could get replaced with an ahhhh not so slightly racist image? The Nazi reply one isn't as... unfortunate I think.
11
Just following orders!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
I thought we decided SAS was low-hanging fruit?
10
HORY SHET WE'VE GOT ANOTHER ONE
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
You're a big guy
5
FOR YOU
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
10
B E G O N E B O T
0
http://www.japanww2.com/wt_list.htm
a compendium of why everyone in that thread is a moron.
2
Person who needs to see a documentary on unit 731 and Bridge over the River Kwai.
2
[deleted]
1
well the op they were commenting on did say the US didn't actually ever kill anyone in ww2. and Germany and japan were responsible for all deaths in the war. kinda hard not to read his comment as victim blaming.
7
I meant to say it's wrong to call the governments of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan victims, which you could potentially take that comment as.
12
Oh yea I agree, but I definitely consider the soilders and citizens victims of the war
-7
I'd disagree about most Axis soldiers being victims. In Nazi Germany (and I'd assume it was similar in the Empire of Japan too), many soldiers signed up to conquer Europe, kill communists and various "Untermenschen" in occupied countries, and exterminate Jews and other minorities at home. However, those who were conscripted (the 12-year-olds and old men forced into the Volkssturm to certain death, for example) definitely count as victims of war.
The only Axis soldiers who as a whole were like the Allies were the Italians. They mostly just wanted the war and fighting to be over, and many surrendered or defected to the Allies at their first chance during the invasion of Italy.
Edit: Even that's wrong, see explanation below
12
At first I thought this was an okay sub for making fun of extreme revision, but if even "The nukes were unnecessary" is seen as some tankie idea and not a position still debated by legitimate academics this sub sucks ass
1
[deleted]
1
The Japanese were willing to surrender! That's why there was an attempted coup when they tried to.
To be fair, the japanese had attempted coups over all sorts of things.
“This tea is too hot.”
Aaron Burr voice “Welcome folks, to the Sengoku Jidai!”
what? that came out of no where
The rest of the thread contains some of that rhetoric
you meant this?
I mean that seems a lot more grounded than the usual claims of Japanese peace deals
Except that it ignores Togo's testimony that Hirohito called for the August 9 meeting to come up with a surrender offer in response to Hiroshima and before the Soviets broke off diplomatic relations. It's part of the mythology that the bombs played no part in the decision to surrender, and everything good happened due to the sacrifices and efforts of the glorious and peace-loving Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (as recorded by top historian, Oliver Stone).