The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II.

I'm not ignoring any facts. Our message telling Japan that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur is a matter of public record -- as is the fact that Japan accepted this term.

And Hirohito was indeed subordinate to MacArthur.

 

And he was damn lucky to have MacArthur, a man who had spent much time in the Far East during peace as well as war and understood it much more than most round eyes.

 

I disagree with your hypothesis, but if you were right, perhaps we should have nuked them over and over and over again. I'd be good with that.

 

Well, I do not believe the U.S. had any spare nukes to do the job a third time. That is precisely why Washington accepted Japan's condition.

 

You mean like the simple fact that any time anybody has asked you for a reference, you simply ignore it and continue to scream that you are right? Without any evidence, and no matter what evidence anybody else presents?

 

The next A-bomb was a week away from being dropped on Tokyo when Japan surrendered.

After that, we were going to produce seven additional A-bombs by the the end of October, another five in November, and then a minimum of seven a month from December on.

However, after Tokyo we were going to start saving them up and using them en masse to clear the way when we invaded.

Washington rejected Japan's request and told them that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.

 

Spare? Or in production almost completed in the coming weeks? What would Japan's recovery time had been when a 3rd one was dropped (let's say) 3 weeks later?

 

​

It is worthless to respond to this guy, he will never try to validate anything. However, I do validate my claims.

At least part of the bomb (suspected to be the arming trigger) was actually at the Seal Beach Net & Ammunition Depot at the time of the surrender. It would have been used to complete the bomb that would have been used on Tokyo in early September.

And the US did indeed have more bombs on the wat. In fact, by the end of 1945 they had 2 bombs in inventory. By the end of 1946 they had 9 bombs. 1947, 13 bombs. 1948, 50 bombs. By the end of 1949, 170 bombs.

And this is not claimed by some pro-war sabre rattling site, this is the numbers compiled by the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists". Everybody should know them, they are the ones that created the "Doomsday Clock".

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340213501363

 

After refusing Japan's condition the US (four days later) relented.

 

That is incorrect. Hirohito was subordinate to MacArthur.

 

You are arguing an ad hoc bread crumb introduced for the sole purpose of "saving face". The tactic is nothing new. "Peace with honour" is what Washington called losing the war in Vietnam. With Japan, the tactic was we will accept Japan's condition but only if they accept our condition to their condition and that henceforth it not be referred to as a "condition". It is merely defying definition as with calling suicide bombers "cowards".

Let's be honest here, the American occupation of Japan was a given. It wasn't a spontaneous quick-think to counter Hirohito's condition to remain as head of state. Do you agree with that? Japan was going to be occupied, plain and simple. Japan dictated its' only condition and won despite Washington's August 9 refusal. Saying, Well OK we will accept your condition as long as ... . That is NOT unconditional.

 

Japan's condition had nothing to do with MacArthur. It could have been Walt Disney for all it mattered. Hirohito remained head of state despite Washington's refusal to accept it. Japan's condition was met. Pure and simple.

 

Rejecting their request is not exactly a bread crumb.

Except, we rejected their condition. Hirohito did not retain unlimited dictatorial power.

The condition was not that he remain head of state. The condition was that he retain unlimited dictatorial power.

No.

Their condition was rejected. Hirohito did not retain unlimited dictatorial power.

We did not accept their condition. Hirohito was not allowed to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

Making Hirohito subordinate to MacArthur meant that Hirohito no longer had unlimited dictatorial power.

True.

But he didn't retain unlimited dictatorial power.

That is incorrect. Hirohito did not retain unlimited dictatorial power.

 

You continue to interject a false claim which makes it very clear that you are not willing to discuss the subject honestly. I see no reason to waste any more of my time with you.

 

My claim is not in any way false. Hirohito did NOT retain unlimited dictatorial power.

 

When you anchor one of your battleships in their harbor and they come aboard to sign a treaty of surrender...

You won, they lost...

 

Glad to be corrected if I am wrong but I seem to remember an interesting point about the peace terms which ended the US Civil War. During the surrender talks at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 the terms were agreed to in short order and signed by both parties. However Lee then asked for an additional consideration which was not included in the official terms of surrender. Lee was aware that confederate officers and soldiers of the Calvary and Artillery Corps actually provided/owned their own horses, (unlike their opposite numbers in the North who were issued their mounts by the US government). As a result he asked Grant to let the owners keep their mounts when they returned home.

Grant immediately consented to this request even though it was not recorded under the formal terms of surrender. As a matter of military expediency he had every right to expect the surrender of all horses along with the weapons and artillery being seized from from Lee's army - they were military 'assets' after all.

Instead he consented to a condition not discussed/approved previously with or by Lincoln and not laid out in the formal terms signed by the defeated party.

If you insist of following this persons logic then I'm afraid the South actually won the Civil War ladies and gents - who knew? We need to start re-writing the history books immediately.

 

I was stationed on Okinawa when Hirohito died. Wanna guess how much sorrow the Marines showed in the mourning period? Zero..we rejoiced.

Japan put up a hellua of a fight, fought like demons to the last. No one can question their will, but they got their backside kicked. Anybody to tries to debate that is sadly ignorant.

 

Of course, it also must be remembered that General Lee was not surrendering for the Confederate States of America. He only surrendered for the Army of Northern Virginia. The fighting did continue for weeks afterwards, but there was never an actual "surrender" since the Confederate States pretty much simply dissolved.

This is not unlike the Revolutionary War either. When General Cornwallis surrendered in October 1781, he only surrendered his own forces in that battle, he did not surrender for the Crown. However, once the word reached London that he had surrendered, the Parliament by a single vote voted to end the war in November 1781. The motion to continue the war was brought up again in February 1782 and it was soundly defeated.

After this Lord Germain (Secretary of State for the American Colonies) stepped down from his post in exchange for peerage (he became Baron Bolebrooke), and then shortly afterwards the Lord North Government collapsed.

However, the British still had a lot of troops in the Americas. Over 30,000, between New York, Charleston, Savannah, and other garrisons. They did not finally leave until after the 1783 Treaty of Paris was signed, and all of them either returned to England, or other colonies.

 

Allowing for the fact that diplomatic communications during this period were limited to dispatches delivered by steam ship/train, telegraph (if you were lucky) and horse couriers it was impossible for anyone to synchronize the surrender of disparate parts of a previously belligerent power across long distances. Unlike the situation in 1945 when Japan surrendered.

This meant Grant (and other Generals his position) were always going to be the 'man on the spot' and therefore empowered to negotiate legally binding terms of surrender on behalf of their Governments. The fact that not all parts of the Confederate Army surrendered at once is therefore irrelevant, they couldn't surrender at once because there was no way to co-ordinate the actions of all the various Union and Confederate commanders across the distances involved. Instead they surrendered as word reached them of the events at Appomattox.

In any event the Army of Northern Virginia was the single most important/powerful element of the Confederate Army then in existence. Lose it and the war was lost anyway. Are you really going to argue that, had they been present at Appomattox or had otherwise been informed of events in real time that any of the the remaining Confederate commanders would have kept on fighting?

 

No?

There's the false claim. You are using that phrase as though it were the bargaining chip between an unacceptable surrender and an agreeable one. First, it is not true and Second, it wouldn't make any difference even if it were.

 

No. If I say I'll spot you 5 points and I score 4 more points than you then I cannot claim victory by my very own terms. I have lost.

 

A very nice story but it's apples and pears when you try to link it with Japan's surrender.

1. The matter of horses was (by your own account) not mentioned in the terms of surrender nor was it the stated goal of the Northern Government as the only acceptable term by which surrender would be admissible. In other words, the horses were not a consideration prior to the surrender.

2. In the case of Japan's defeat the terms of an acceptable surrender had been declared and reiterated demonstratively time and time again and although the specific term was not met, Japan's CONDITIONAL surrender was accepted.

 

Correct.

The claim is not false. Hirohito was not allowed to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

It is the request that Japan asked of us when they finally asked to surrender.

It is very true. Hirohito was not allowed to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

There is a difference I think between "Hirohito retaining unlimited dictatorial power" and "Hirohito not retaining unlimited dictatorial power".

Japan accepted every one of our surrender terms. This includes the requirement that he be subordinate to MacArthur.

 

You might be right but he certainly was a narcissistic b'stard.