Did Japan try to surrender before the a-bombs?

[Guerrilla22]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/

[ComradeOm]

Are you pointing to a certain part of the text? Are you actually asking a question or stating a fact?

In any case, AFAIK the Japanese made no efforts to surrender prior to August '45. Proposing unconditional surrender would have been completely unacceptable and out of character to the military establishment at the time. So no, I do not believe that the Japanese attempted to surrender. Peace feelers were extended by the more progressive/realistic elements towards Soviet Russia but these were rebuffed. In any case they would have been unacceptable to the Allies after the issuing of the Potsdam Declaration.

What is interesting is the degree to which the affects of the nuclear explosions have been overstated by the Allies in a similar manner to D-Day. Recent research by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa suggests that the Operation Autum Storm (the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) was of far greater importance than the atom bombs. Relations between Moscow and Tokyo had remained cordial during the war as Stalin portrayed himself as the "good cop" to the US's "bad cop". The sudden shock of the crushing Soviet offensive was far more surprising and devastating then word that the Allies had come up with a new way of levelling cities.

[chaz171]

well, there are many theories, the most poplular one is that there was attempted communication between the US and Japan after the First bomb was dropped. the rumour was that the translation was 'misinterpreted' which led to the second bomb being dropped....

I don't know what truth is to be taken from this.

[IronColumn]

The Japanese did try to surrender several months before the A-bombs were dropped.
That is precisely what makes the bombings so disturbing, that the US didn't care about some Japs, it just wanted to scare Stalin and assert its power.

[Floyce White]

It's no secret that Japan was trying to surrender to the United States to avoid the effects of invasion. One effect would be losing Hokkaido to USSR troops and a subsequent puppet government. Another effect would be the political downfall of the clique of big-rich families that totally dominated industry and distribution. Tojo was already blamed for the war--to try to deflect criticism from the rest of the power structure.

Japanese negotiations asked for one single condition: to keep the Emperor. (This was, in effect, the condition of keeping the social status of the elite imperialists.) The US refused, and instead demanded unconditional surrender. Once they got it, the Emperor was allowed to stay as a ceremonial figurehead--along with the other imperialists who had real power.

I seriously doubt that Japanese military experts thought that the US could produce an endless number of atom bombs. As you may recall, the US ran out of ordinary incendiary bombs and aircraft fuel a few days into their firebomb campaign some months before. They weren't idiots. They realized that the US totally avoided bombing a small number of cities, and the two atom bombs fell on two of these never-before-bombed cities. The atomic bombing was a demonstration project. It had no serious effect except to those burned and irradiated. The idea that "the A-bomb saved lives" and "ended the war" was invented about a decade after the fact, as propaganda designed to support the US Cold War atomic-bomb program. At the time, the bombing of cities was called "baby killers" and the A-bombs were seen as one of the more disgusting horrors of the war.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 8 2006, 04:39 AM
It's no secret that Japan was trying to surrender to the United States to avoid the effects of invasion.
Then you will have no trouble in presenting a source. As much as I like to think of the US as the "bad guy" in every single scenario the idea of Japan attempting to surrender prior to August completely jars with the mentality of the Japanese military command. The only possible deal that they would have been able to stomach was one in which Japanese territorial integrity remained intact and perhaps rule over some of their conquests was permitted. Unconditional surrender would have anathema to them, just as conditional surrender would have been unacceptable to the US.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:31 AM
Unconditional surrender would have anathema to them, just as conditional surrender would have been unacceptable to the US.
Nobody ever said the Japanese would have accepted unconditional surrender. There were, however, moderate elements in the Japanese government that would have accepted surrender on the condition that the Emperor remain in place as a figurehead. In fact, the Japanese ambassador to the USSR had asked Stalin to persuade the Western Allies to agree to a conditional surrender.

The USSR declaring war on Japan probably did more to convince the Japanese to surrender than the A-bombs did. Japan was scared shitless of Russia ever since the Red Army crushed Japan in that battle in northern Mongolia in 1938 (or somewhere around that time).

[Floyce White]

Comrade Om, I do not subscribe to the concept of authoritative opinion. So I do not play the game of matching the credentials of one source against the credentials of another. That I say so is good enough.

It is very odd that you can find this Web site, but can't find the many Internet articles on the subject. Here's one link: Hiroshima--The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved by Rufus E. Miles, Jr. (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/atombomb/strange_myth/article.html).

[chaz171]

I seriously doubt that Japanese military experts thought that the US could produce an endless number of atom bombs

no, but I bet the the US wanted the world to think that. Part of the theory is that the US wanted to boast a weapon no one else could possibly defend against. you shoot the plane down, it's still a helluva mess to clean up....

by ignoring surrenders, or perhaps overdemanding, this assured the US of showboating at the expense of a few hundred thousand japanese lives.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Sep 8 2006, 04:31 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Sep 8 2006, 04:31 AM)
Floyce [email protected] 8 2006, 04:39 AM
It's no secret that Japan was trying to surrender to the United States to avoid the effects of invasion.
Then you will have no trouble in presenting a source. [/b]
Guerilla22 actually presented an excellent primary source at the beginning of the thread.

See Section IV, "The Japanese Search for Soviet Mediation". Note that "Since September 1940, under the covername "Magic," U.S. military intelligence had been routinely decrypting the intercepted cable traffic of the Japanese Foreign Ministry." so the U.S. was aware of all these Japanese diplomatic feelers.

This may be a sematic disagreement. "Surrender" does not just mean "unconditional surrender." Whether the kind of peace sought in the Japanese diplomatic cables would be a conditional surrender - might be another semantic debate.

We don't know how the Japanese military government and Emperor would have responded to an offer of conditional surrender - to the terms that were actually imposed, where the Emperor remained on the throne.

We do know the U.S. didn't even attempt to offer those terms. They didn't seriously explore other options before nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn't even wait long between the two bombings.

[chimx]

Yes Japan was planning on surrendering and US forces knew it:

"U.S. intelligence had broken Japanese military codes and learned that although Japan's leaders could not defeat the United States, they were willing to keep fighting in hopes of winning an acceptable negotiated end to the war. Most importantly, this meant a guaranteed postwar role for the emperor. However, the United States also learned that Japan would reconsider this position and surrender unconditionally if the Soviet Union entered the war."
-Korea: division, reunification, & U.S. foreign polic by Martin Hart-Landsberg

(I believe this is what floyce white is referring to. Keep in mind this isn't by any means an official surrender.)

This happened directly before the Postdam conference, following the death of Roosevelt and Truman taking office. the Potsdamn declaration then called for the unconditional surrender of Japan with no promises for the emperor. significantly, russia was not allowed to sign the declaration while truman finished up working on the a-bomb.

we knew they were planning on surrendering, but we purposefully kept them waiting so we could use the bomb on the country. had we allowed the russians to sign the potsdam declaration they would have agreed to surrender, as they did do on aug 11 after the bomb was dropped.

"An official study by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, published less than a year after the bombings, concluded that Japan would most likely have surrendered in 1945 without the dropping of the atomic bomb and without the U.S. invasion of Japan."
-ibid.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." -Admiral William Leahy. quoted from The decision to use the atom bomb and the architecture of an american myth by Gar Alperovitz

so yes japan was militiristic, but they also knew when they were defeated. their primary concern was keeping their political system somewhat intact--preserving their emperor's power and minimizing their colonial loss.

its nice to see some real history discussions finally taking place on this board.

[chimx]

i think it is important to consider the specific time frame we are talking about. This occured significantly after FDR's Yalta conferences and closer after Truman's Potsdam conferences. The death of FDR and his diplomacy with Stalin really marked the beginning of the cold war. If you look at the Potsdam minutes, Truman was extremely curt with stalin following obtaining knowledge of the United States nuclear capabilities. He was critical of the Soviet's post-war aspirations, in particular his plans for Poland and other eastern European countries. While FDR tried to handle these issues with a relaxed "talk-it-out" diplomacy, Truman was very "by-the-books". He undermined a lot of what FDR had worked out and is responsible for re-kickstarting hostilities between the US and the USSR.

Our plans to nuke japan should be seen in this context. Truman purposefully delayed Potsdam so he could finalize bombing tests. This occured AFTER potsdam started and immediately following the news that the bomb tests were successful, Truman became extremely aggressive towards stalin in the meeting. He passed the declaration dealing with Japan without Russia's knowledge so as to force a situation where the US would be "forced" to use nuclear weapons--NOT because we needed Japan to surrender. We already knew Japan was ready to surrender. We did it to show off our arsenal to the Russians.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)Comrade Om, I do not subscribe to the concept of authoritative opinion. So I do not play the game of matching the credentials of one source against the credentials of another. That I say so is good enough.[/b]
Obviously I do not share the same high opinion that you appear to hold of yourself. If somebody presents a claim then I expect it to be supported by evidence. Your word doesn't cut it.


Originally posted by "Severian"@
This may be a sematic disagreement. "Surrender" does not just mean "unconditional surrender." Whether the kind of peace sought in the Japanese diplomatic cables would be a conditional surrender - might be another semantic debate.
Which to my mind is the crux of the matter and has absolutely nothing to do with semantics. There is an obvious difference between a negotiated surrender and unconditional surrender.

Unconditional surrender of the Axis powers had been a platform adopted by the Allies and USSR since Casablanca in '43. Obviously if Japan had attempted but been rebuffed in making such a surrender then there would be an issue here. However I am not concerned about the merits of unconditional surrender. If Japan attempted a negotiated peace offer, in full awareness of the Allied position on this issue, then the claim that they offered to surrender is highly misleading.

Himmler offered a deal to the Allies in the dying days of the war in Europe. Does that mean that Nazi Germany attempted to surrender?


We do know the U.S. didn't even attempt to offer those terms. They didn't seriously explore other options before nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They didn't even wait long between the two bombings.
And why should they have? Their position was clear and had been recently reaffirmed at Potsdam. Given that this was a war of Japanese aggression I see little reason why the US should have suddenly abandoned its position and offered terms. That would have been totally unacceptable to the government and meaningless considering the huge numbers of Japanese civilians already dying in conventional air raids.


chimx
so yes japan was militiristic, but they also knew when they were defeated. their primary concern was keeping their political system somewhat intact--preserving their emperor's power and minimizing their colonial loss.
Of course the problem is that both these were unacceptable to the Allies. This was hardly a secret. Would a surrender of Germany that offered to retain the status of the Nazi party and Austria have been accepted?

I stress that I am not defending the bombings but rather challenging the notions that they were either pivotal in forcing Japanese surrender or that a Japanese offer of unconditional surrender had been rebuffed.

[chimx]

well i agree that the bombings were irrelavent to japan surrendering as i stated above. japan was already willing to surrender, but they made no offer to do so because of the way the US manipuated the situation.

[Ze]

Watch the Fog of War. Robert S. Macnamara, former US Secretary of Defense pretty much spelled it out plain as day that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with atomic bombs were unnecessary and consistent with the definition of a war crime.

The United States have already fire-bombed civilian targets which were mostly made of wood in every major city in Japan.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:11 AM

Which to my mind is the crux of the matter and has absolutely nothing to do with semantics. There is an obvious difference between a negotiated surrender and unconditional surrender.
Sure - but you're the only one who's specified unconditional surrender. The topic of the thread is "Did Japan try to surrender." Says nothing about unconditionally.


And why should they have? Their position was clear and had been recently reaffirmed at Potsdam. Given that this was a war of Japanese aggression I see little reason why the US should have suddenly abandoned its position and offered terms.

Gee, in order to avoid killing tens of thousands of civilians? To avoid letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle - setting a precedent that it's OK to use nuclear weapons?

The question should be, why not offer a conditional surrender in order to avoid nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is always on the advocates of greater bloodshed.

And of course, when people justify this decision even today...they're suggesting that Washington likely would use them again in similar conditions. And heck, if Washington will use them in a war that's all but won - Washington will use them even more willingly if a war is being lost or stalemated.

So if that's accepted, if becomes all the more likely that others with nuclear weapons will do likewise.....

And why not offer it?

Here's what happened:
1. The U.S. nuked Japan without even exploring a conditional surrender offer that let the Emperor stay on the throne.
2. The U.S. let the Emperor stay on the throne.

So what was the purpose of insisting on unconditional surrender to start with? Even from Washington's class standpoint?

Additionally: "a war of Japanese aggression"?

No, this was an inter-imperialist war. A war between two imperialist powers over the division of the world - specifically China and the Pacific. Who fired the first shot is not decisive in determining the communist attitude towards a war.

In that context, why support the insistence of one imperialist power for a harsh peace?

Everyone remembered Versailles - a harsh, punitive peace which inflicted a lot of suffering on the German population, especially working people. And which many historians agree, helped set the stage for WWII.

Of course both government and population in both Germany and Japan feared another Versailles. The best way of keeping them from fighting to the death - the populations, if not the governments - was to make it clear there would be no new punitive peace.

The Allied governments were incapable of doing this.


That would have been totally unacceptable to the government and meaningless considering the huge numbers of Japanese civilians already dying in conventional air raids.

Circular reasoning; it was unacceptable because it was unacceptable.

But lemme make it clear I'm not opposing the nuclear bombings in order to support the slaughter of Japanese and German civilians by conventional bombings.


Would a surrender of Germany that offered to retain the status of the Nazi party and Austria have been accepted?

Probably not. Are you saying that's analagous to letting the Emperor stay on the throne?

Your problem, if so, is that the U.S. actually did let him stay.

So if the purpose of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to avoid such a surrender....then it served no purpose.
****

The atomic bombs certainly did accelerate Japanese surrender. But I'd argue that was because the Japanese Navy and warplanes were already beaten militarily.

Terror against civilians, by itself, is rarely successful. It usually backfires and produces anger and an intensified desire to resist rather than surrender to such a despicable enemy.

There are exceptions: if it is applied on a sufficient scale - usually by a government in power - and especially if the enemy is already beaten by other means.

The firebombing of Tokyo - which others have referred to - killed even more people. But it did not make Japan surrender. Because at that time, Japan still had a hope of military victory.

So since Japan was already beaten at sea and in the air, and it was just a matter of how to finalize their surrender, you gotta ask if there were other reasons for the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and especially the short pause between the two.

I'd suggest two reasons:
1. Simple policy inertia: the bombs had been made, with great expense and effort, so of course they were used. With little effort to explore alternatives.

But that kind of policy inertia can only prevail when there is little concern for the lives of thousands of Japanese civilians (and Korean slave laborers) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2. Letting the USSR, and all potential postwar adversaries, see the power of the atomic bombs...and the willingness of the U.S. to use them.

Some people have suggested that Dresden was incinerated for similar reasons - it had little military or industrial significance, but it was in the path of the advancing Red Army. The Soviets got to see what the British Air Force could do.

[ComradeOm]

The recurring problem here Severin is that you are passing judgement on the actions rather than looking at the historical context in which they occurred and, most importantly, the goals that they furthered. I don't condone the bombings but I do accept that they were justified within the logical framework of the American bourgeoisie at the time.


Originally posted by Severin
Sure - but you're the only one who's specified unconditional surrender. The topic of the thread is "Did Japan try to surrender." Says nothing about unconditionally.
So in effect you are willing to acknowledge any Japanese moves to negotiate a peace deal as surrender? Despite the fact that anything but unconditional surrender would have been dismissed out of hand by the Allies?

I know it sounds great - OMG Japan tried to surrender but the US bombed them anyway - but such a simplistic view is totally false. Japan was not at any stage prepared to match the terms required by the US to end the war. These were the same terms offered to Nazi Germany and the same terms that had been on the table for close to two years.


Gee, in order to avoid killing tens of thousands of civilians? To avoid letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle - setting a precedent that it's OK to use nuclear weapons?
Wow. All of a sudden my faith in the US government has evaporated. Is it possible that they are not the force for peace I always imagined? :o

Stop telling me what you would have done and start weighing up the concerns of the US government at the time. In that regard I suspect that chimx is fully correct when he mentions the relationship between the bombings and beginnings of the Cold War. The goal of the US government was, like in Germany, the complete destruction of the fascist Japanese regime and the installation of a client liberal state. With that in mind why should the Allies have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender?


The question should be, why not offer a conditional surrender in order to avoid nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is always on the advocates of greater bloodshed.
There are two primary reasons why these weapons were probably dropped:

1) Because Washington actually thought they'd end the war.
2) To spook the Russians. See chimx above


And of course, when people justify this decision even today...they're suggesting that Washington likely would use them again in similar conditions. And heck, if Washington will use them in a war that's all but won - Washington will use them even more willingly if a war is being lost or stalemated.
Scary 'innit. Of course its not surprising that the bourgeois state would use these weapons if they felt it necessary or justified.


So what was the purpose of insisting on unconditional surrender to start with? Even from Washington's class standpoint?
I'll tell you what, I'll call up Truman and ask him.

If I had to guess it would be to ensure the complete dominance of Washington in the post war world. That and the public and private guarantees that the US had made that unconditional surrender was all they would accept.


Additionally: "a war of Japanese aggression"?

No, this was an inter-imperialist war. A war between two imperialist powers over the division of the world - specifically China and the Pacific. Who fired the first shot is not decisive in determining the communist attitude towards a war.
You'd be surprised just how few decision makers in Washington were in possession of "communist attitude" back then. Not just the diplomats. You try telling Average Joe American in 1945 that Pearl Harbour was irrelevant. Japan started the war in both the Pacific and China. In abstract terms that might not matter for much but in the real world it counts for a lot.


Of course both government and population in both Germany and Japan feared another Versailles. The best way of keeping them from fighting to the death - the populations, if not the governments - was to make it clear there would be no new punitive peace.
So you'd want to roll out the welcome wagon for the war criminals? Hmmm I'm not sure why the Allies didn't do that…

Reality check Severin. The US approach worked out pretty well for them. An alternative to liberalism was smashed and within two decades Germany and Japan had been "rehabilitated" and returned to the Western fold. Two societies were rebuilt from scratch with free market ideals. Now I know that that's not what you or I would have done but, here's the reality bit, it wasn't up to us. The US actions make perfect sense when you acknowledge the aims of the Allied capitalist class.


Circular reasoning; it was unacceptable because it was unacceptable.
Unconditional surrender was unacceptable to the US due to their public and private aims. Do you have any reason to dispute this?

[chimx]

Gee, in order to avoid killing tens of thousands of civilians? To avoid letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle - setting a precedent that it's OK to use nuclear weapons?

neither of us are arguing about history from a moral stand point. we are merely trying to objectively explain the material conditions present that caused the US to decide to use nuclear weapons. History wasn't meant to be a purposeful battleground of opposing ideologies, it is the exploration of past events--why they happened. we are telling you that the US wanted to bomb Japan because it was in their interest. None of us are saying that it is morally justifiable, just a matter of historical fact.

[Floyce White]

ComradeOm: "Your word doesn't cut it."

Look who's talking: an anonymous Internet nickname is pretending to tell an open communist how to be credible.

There is no excuse for the ad hominem fallacy. You are totally out of line to treat comrades as proven liars who must provide "true" sources upon demand. You attack my credibility but don't disagree one bit with the substance of what I say. That's outright trolling. Forget you.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

2. Letting the USSR, and all potential postwar adversaries, see the power of the atomic bombs...and the willingness of the U.S. to use them.

Give that man a cigar!

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Sep 12 2006, 03:59 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Sep 12 2006, 03:59 PM)
Severian
Of course both government and population in both Germany and Japan feared another Versailles. The best way of keeping them from fighting to the death - the populations, if not the governments - was to make it clear there would be no new punitive peace.
So you'd want to roll out the welcome wagon for the war criminals? Hmmm I'm not sure why the Allies didn't do that… [/b]
They did do that.

They did "roll out the welcome wagon for the war criminals." Starting with the Emperor of Japan - during Tojo's trial, he said of course the Emperor approved all his actions. The U.S. prosecutors called a recess, took Tojo out of the room - and when he came back, Tojo said he misspoke, the Emperor had no idea what was going on. What a whitewash.

Similarly, a whole number of Nazi spies who were incorporated into the U.S. intelligence apparatus. Some war criminals were helped to escape to South America. There are other examples, if you're really unaware of this.

My point was something else, obviously: would the whole population of Japan and Germany - including working people - be punished for the actions of their governments?

In Japan, as it turned out, they weren't. Since Washington sought to enlist its ruling class as an ally in the cold war. But no assurance of this was given in advance (and due to Washington's nature, and the post-WWI history, no such assurance would have been particularly credible.)


The US approach worked out pretty well for them. An alternative to liberalism was smashed and within two decades Germany and Japan had been "rehabilitated" and returned to the Western fold. Two societies were rebuilt from scratch with free market ideals.

You think that's what the war was about? Liberalism vs fascism? Explains a lot of your mistakes.

No. It was about inter-imperialist competition - that part of WWII, anyway. Germany and Japan were never outside the "Western" or "free market" (if that means capitalist) fold.

Fascism is not an "alternative to liberalism" - except in the sense of an "alternative" way of saving capitalism.

So Washington, during and after the war, was quite happy to cooperate with fascists - including the Spanish and Portuguese fascist regimes.

And West German and Japanese society were certainly not "rebuilt from scratch!"

I.G. Farben and Krupp, etc., continued to dominate the West German economy. The West German army was the same institution as the Third Reich's Heer. Etc.

Similarly Japan. That's why today, the Japanese prime minister has been stoking the coals of imperialist chauvinism by visiting the WWII-era Yasakuni Shrine, and generally trying to rehabilitate the heyday of Japanese imperialism. If you don't understand the significance of this...well, people in China and south Korea do. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6916/691603.html) As well as many in Japan.

Now east Germany, that was a society rebuilt from scratch.


The goal of the US government was, like in Germany, the complete destruction of the fascist Japanese regime and the installation of a client liberal state. With that in mind why should the Allies have accepted anything less than unconditional surrender?

The fact you continue to avoid even mentioning: they did in fact keep the Emperor on the throne.

Protected him from war crimes prosecution, in fact. Used the monarchy as a stabilizing instrument against "Communism."

Kinda cuts across your idea that a conditional surrender - keeping the Emperor - would have interfered with their supposed goal, "the complete destruction of the fascist Japanese regime and the installation of a client liberal state."

Their real goal, of course, had nothing to do with liberalism vs fascism. (Fascist isn't even an especially accurate adjective for the Japanese military regime.)

U.S. imperialism's goal was simple: world domination. And they got it. Coming out of WWII, Washington became the undisputed "leader of the free world" - i.e. the capitalist world. It smashed its rising enemies, Germany and Japan. And more subtly replaced its declining allies, the British and French Empires.

In particular - since we're talking about Japan - no other advanced capitalist country contested Washington's claim to the huge Chinese market and labor force as its exclusive sphere of influence. Only the Chinese Revolution blocked it there.

[chimx]

comradeom said that the purpose was to create a client state and dominate japan financially, as well as the rest of the region. the emperor was kept in power only as a figurehead. youre arguing our point.

[Guerrilla22]

Here's what happened:
1. The U.S. nuked Japan without even exploring a conditional surrender offer that let the Emperor stay on the throne.
2. The U.S. let the Emperor stay on the throne.

Exactly. It was not an unconditional surrender, the US most likely could have got the same deal without dropping two atomic bombs. The US simply wanted to make a statement to the Soviets.


Are you pointing to a certain part of the text? Are you actually asking a question or stating a fact?
I was just trying to get a conversation started on the topic, I saw that the document raised the question of an attempt by the Japanese to surrender before the bombings. I didn't read through all of the docs obviously, but I put the link there just in case anyone wanted to take a look at the docs on the bombings in the national security archive.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:58 PM
well, there are many theories, the most poplular one is that there was attempted communication between the US and Japan after the First bomb was dropped. the rumour was that the translation was 'misinterpreted' which led to the second bomb being dropped....

I don't know what truth is to be taken from this.
this is what I heard. but whether they were trying to surrender is irrelevant to the victims, the U.S had no quarrel with murdering innocent civilians. They just wanted to flex their muscle to the Russians.

[VRKrovin]

Comrades,


I am pretty convinced, after studying the period intensively, that the real reason that the USA nuked Japan was because the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army of the USSR was planning an invasion. The USA did not want to give up that potential foothold in Asia, so they dropped the bombs. Yet to this very day, people believe that the nazi-harboring capitalist Truman did it for all the right reasons. They believe he wanted to save lives. But we all know that this is bourgeois propaganda.


Krovin

[chimx]

that is completely 100% fabrication. At the Yalta conference held in February 1945, the united states begged the Soviet Union to get rid of its policy of neutrality against Japan and enter the war. Stalin then said at Yalta that he would enter the war against Japan 3 months after the war in europe ended. the USSR beat the germans, and three months later he declared war on Japan.

This is during the early and mid parts of 1945 when we felt Japan was militarily significantly stronger than it was. US war policy makers were still assuming that a mainland invasion of Japan was necessary. We knew that Japan would surrender if the USSR entered the war (see my quotation above), and we were desperate to end the war as soon as possible.

essentially:
In early 1945 we were begging the USSR to enter the war.
We knew Japan would surrender if the USSR did enter the war
By mid 1945 we were planning on the USSR to enter the war.
So what was the point of the nukes?