75th Anniversary

[Unkotare]

Back to this again? Invasion was not the only other option to atomic bombing (for the 10000th time).

Yeah sure

And I told you the japanese were not serious about accepting total surrender with American occupation

archive.ph

 

[Mac-7]

We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta

Why would the japanese approach a general with no authority instead of the president?

I‘m sure the japanese wanted to talk

but they wanted a truce not total surrender

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All my life hearing this same mantra. I guess you really believe it.

And then one day a little birdie told you the truth huh?

...

How about studying primary sources from the time period in question? You know, actually studying history instead of clinging to a comfortable story from your childhood like a security blanket for your conscience?

LOL I inked to primary sources and YOU ignored them, and YOU have NEVER linked to a single actual source just second hand claims made years after the fact by politicians.

 

[Unkotare]

archive.ph

 

[Mushroom]

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic on many threads containing many links to many sources. It's time for you to get off your ass and at least look at what has already been posted over and over. Beyond that, there are many sources that I doubt you could read anyway.

Actually, what there are is hundreds of postings that actually give no real hard evidence.

"Mac says 5 tried to talk to him about surrendering". Yea, read that and many others like it a lot. But you know what is missing?

Who was actually trying to deliver this announcement, and by what authority did they have to make it?

Yea, it's not like the "Big Six" flew down to talk to MacArthur. And why in the hell would they do that in the first place? Once again, makes no sense. Governments do not surrender to military commanders who are not even in their country yet.

This is why I reject all such of the hundreds of nonsensical such claims I have read here and elsewhere. Because they are only claims, not an actual shred of proof that any such thing happened (no names), or proof that they had such an authority to make such a proposal in the first place (a right that could only have come from the Big Six).

And in all of the records I have ever read, the only thing even close was the 1943 Armistice proposal. Nothing in 1945 (other than still waiting on the reply through Stalin of their 1944 attempt).

 

[Unkotare]

Stop being lazy and read what is already here. There is a copious amount of "real evidence." Go read it.

 

[Mushroom]

archive.ph

Already been discussed. That is the exact same proposal (as I said previously) they shopped to the Swiss, Swedish, and Soviets. It was in absolutely no way a "surrender". It was a call for an armistice. A status quo ante bellium. A return to 1941 battle lines. With a few changes.

The Philippines would remain demilitarized, all captured Japanese territory returned to Japan, both sides essentially pretend that the war never happened.

That is not a surrender, but it was "peace". And in no way was that going to be accepted by ANY of the Allied powers. So even pretending it was a "surrender" is moronic. It is like your neighbor coming into your house, breaking it up, raping your wife and beating your children. Then when you pull out a gun, he just goes "Well, I will go home now, let's just pretend this never happened"

The same proposal they sent to the Swiss, and got rejected. And after the Swedes, they sent it to the Soviets who also rejected it. Sure they notified the other parties, but never formally "Presented it". All these nations knew better than to try that.

And even if that had, what would that have meant for the Germans and Italians? Can anybody even imagine what their responses would have been if the Japanese suddenly pulled out, after they had both declared war against the US?

 

[Mushroom]

Stop being lazy and read what is already here. There is a copious amount of "real evidence." Go read it.

As I just told (and showed) you, I have.

And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.

 

[Mushroom]

Look, I can play this game too!

Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

Manhattan Project: Japan Surrenders, August 10-15, 1945

 

[Mac-7]

And then one day a little birdie told you the truth huh?

Or was it a marxist revisionist historian?

Maybe you should further your education a little before saying any more. Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip.....

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

www.thenation.com

you folks are beating The Nation article to death

I followed up the alleged quote by Curtis lemay and could not confirm it

 

[Unkotare]

... That is the exact same proposal (as I said previously) they shopped to the Swiss, Swedish, and Soviets. It was in absolutely no way a "surrender". It was a call for an armistice. A status quo ante bellium. A return to 1941 battle lines. With a few changes.

The Philippines would remain demilitarized, all captured Japanese territory returned to Japan, both sides essentially pretend that the war never happened.
...

You haven't even read this one link. There is even a numbered list of the terms offered - which were exactly those we eventually accepted anyway. Stop being so fucking lazy and read what is already here.

archive.ph

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why would the japanese approach a general with no authority instead of the president?

Because of the divisions within the Japanese government. they weren't just worried about getting their hand smacked or some harsh words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.

Right, is is a step to surrender. So, when discussing whether or not Japan would have surrendered, it's right in the mix.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.

Right, is is a step to surrender. So, when discussing whether or not Japan would have surrendered, it's right in the mix.

No it isn't the Japanese Government never had an intent to surrender. EVER. They wanted a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines with NO concessions in China. That is all they ever offered.

 

[Mushroom]

How about studying primary sources from the time period in question? You know, actually studying history instead of clinging to a comfortable story from your childhood like a security blanket for your conscience?

Fine. Show us a "Primary source" where a representative from Japan was given the authority to present to the Allied Powers terms that followed the Potsdam Declaration, or have otherwise been acceptable.

And no, not that silly Armistice call that they had been trying to shop around since 1943. The Swiss, Sweden, and Soviets all refused to even forward that nonsense, knowing it would not even be considered.

YOu are the one insisting there were offers, so you present your primary source. ANd not just an opinion, the actual source.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic on many threads containing many links to many sources. It's time for you to get off your ass and at least look at what has already been posted over and over. Beyond that, there are many sources that I doubt you could read anyway.

Since it is very likely that you are too lazy to do any of the above, why not focus on what is already in agreement? We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta, and that fdr summarily dismissed it. Do you think fdr would have ever considered any earlier conclusion to the war?

Funny, you demand "primary sources", but can not provide your own. Then scream when others ask them of you.

I could not give a damn if Mac sent him a 5,000 page document, if he did not include specifics to show that anybody was given the authority to make such an offer, then it should have been ignored. Period.

And pretty much every historian knows that half the time, Mac was full of crap. He made stuff up all the time, frequently to glorify himself. He also claimed that the Philippines would never fall, the "Boys will be home by Christmas" in Korea, and that China would never dare get involved in the conflict.

And of course when they did get involved, he wanted to nuke China. And this is the man you are using as your reference?

 

[Mushroom]

And like the others, this is also rejected. An Armistice is not a Surrender.

Right, is is a step to surrender. So, when discussing whether or not Japan would have surrendered, it's right in the mix.

No, it was not. If you really think that, then you know nothing.

 

[Unkotare]

How about studying primary sources from the time period in question? You know, actually studying history instead of clinging to a comfortable story from your childhood like a security blanket for your conscience?

Fine. Show us a "Primary source" where a representative from Japan was given the authority to present to the Allied Powers terms that followed the Potsdam Declaration, or have otherwise been acceptable.

And no, not that silly Armistice call that they had been trying to shop around since 1943. The Swiss, Sweden, and Soviets all refused to even forward that nonsense, knowing it would not even be considered.

YOu are the one insisting there were offers, so you present your primary source. ANd not just an opinion, the actual source.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this topic on many threads containing many links to many sources. It's time for you to get off your ass and at least look at what has already been posted over and over. Beyond that, there are many sources that I doubt you could read anyway.

Since it is very likely that you are too lazy to do any of the above, why not focus on what is already in agreement? We know that MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page communique about peace overtures before he left for Yalta, and that fdr summarily dismissed it. Do you think fdr would have ever considered any earlier conclusion to the war?

Funny, you demand "primary sources", but can not provide your own. Then scream when others ask them of you.

I could not give a damn if Mac sent him a 5,000 page document, if he did not include specifics to show that anybody was given the authority to make such an offer, then it should have been ignored. Period.

And pretty much every historian knows that half the time, Mac was full of crap. He made stuff up all the time, frequently to glorify himself. He also claimed that the Philippines would never fall, the "Boys will be home by Christmas" in Korea, and that China would never dare get involved in the conflict.

And of course when they did get involved, he wanted to nuke China. And this is the man you are using as your reference?

What rank did you hold when you served in the Pacific theater during WWII?

 

[Mushroom]

archive.ph

Which your own article even admits was a "Cease Fire".

You keep posting that stupid thing over and over again as if it means something. That you do not even seem to grasp that they wanted to try and end the war, keeping their stolen territory and without losses I can not understand.

Yea, peace. With them in command of Burma, China, Singapore, Indochina, and the Philippines.

Which by the way WAS US TERRITORY AND OCCUPIED BY US CITIZENS!

That was not even a good opium fantasy when they made that offer, which is why nobody would forward it for them.

 

[Mushroom]

What rank did you hold when you served in the Pacific theater during WWII?

I have been studying this in depth since 1982. Can you say the same?

You only seem to be able to post the same article, over and over again. And even though I have tried to point out you are not reading it correctly, you still try to claim it shows you are right.

Go back, read it again. Try to open your brain this time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it isn't the Japanese Government never had an intent to surrender. EVER.

It appears that they did. They just wanted to retain their emperor and hopefully negotiate back some of their gains. That wasn't going to be a declaration of victory. that was going to be a surrender. Now, arguing whether or not this is an acceptable end for the US is a worthy discussion.