The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[Picaro]

Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb

The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence

Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million

Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one

China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war


Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid

Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111

Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress

Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111

FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.

LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.

According to you. You aren't a credible source for facts. Einstein was a postal worker, and had little to no knowledge of politics, much as you don't.

 

[Picaro]

Einstein said the biggest mistake he ever made was writing that letter to Roosevelt. He said he wished someone had chopped off his fingers so he couldn't write that letter that got the Manhattan project started and the bomb

The way America delayed to enter the world had the other nations thinking America was either on the side of hitler or was trying to weaken the world so that they would have more influence

Russia lost over 20 million and China lost over 20 million and America half a million

Many nations became really scared of America and of war and worked things to get ready for the next one

China had abortions in such a way to increase their male and female ratio. So that they could lose 200 million men if needed in the next war


Today America's deep state has been caught cheating their own voters and today the world is very afraid

Trump is trying to stop the crooked deep state in order to avoid world war 111

Trump wants the other nations to progress too but not cheat America's progress

Trump may be the worlds last chance to avoid world war 111

FDR and Truman were better geo-political strategists than Einstein, who had no clue what he was talking about, just parroting the usual commie 'peace at any price' nonsense popular with left wingers. Fact.

Einstein was a genius in cause and effect

Einstein wanted the bomb at first because he knew Germany may get it first So he got the bomb started

But then when Germany was beat and Japan controlled could not come out of their island Einstein was horrified

Einstein the best at cause and effect. He then knew there will now be a nuke race and in time nukes will be used since America did that

Russia was next in inventing the nuke bomb America dropping the bomb when not needed made them very scared of us same with China

And now we have a nuke race


Might does make right until bad decisions comes to give the might makes right to others

Einstein understood clearly that cause and effect

Russia didn't 'invent' a nuclear bomb; they stole the plans from us, some of Einstein's peers and commie friends gave it to them, for one, and Einstein spent most of his time on physics and math, not political analysis ; name any war he ever fought in or the armies he commanded. He knew nothing but pacifist sloganeering, like the fashion victim he was.

 

[Picaro]

LOL. FDR and Truman were criminals.

Only from the perspective of enemies of the USA

You won't find a single post form these types about the criminality of the Japanese or Nazis, or Stalin or Mao, or Ho Chi Min, or even Pol Pot. That's all one needs to know about them and their gibberish.

 

[Picaro]

Japan was indeed more brutal and close to hitler.

Japan was slaughtering peaceful China in 1937. We did not help until
Japan forced us with the peal harbor attack

Our entering the war late May have been a greed issue

The Japanese attacked us, Germany declared war on us; that's when we got into the war. You're just getting silly and deranged.

 

[Camp]

Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.

One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf

As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.

What is your definition of statist?

You

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.

 

[gipper]

Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.

One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf

As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.

What is your definition of statist?

You

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.

That’s right. STATIST!

 

[Camp]

Patriotism is not blindly defending immoral actions performed by the government. Patriotism is not arguing that anyone who disagrees with the nuking of Japan is somehow dishonoring the American military personnel who served in the Pacific War, as if those personnel were the ones who decided to drop napalm on dozens of Japanese cities and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just exactly how many Japanese women and children had to be fire-bombed and nuked to make up for the 2,335 people killed and the 1,143 people wounded in the Pearl Harbor attack? 100,000? 200,000? 400,000? About 220,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of whom were women and children. At the very least, another 150,000 people--mostly women and children--were killed in the 66 cities that we fire-bombed with napalm before we used nukes.

One of the most comprehensive, thorough rebuttals to the Truman-Stimson-Byrnes defense of FDR and Truman's conduct of the war, Truman's use of nukes, and the prosecution of 28 Japanese government and military leaders in the Tokyo war crimes trial is Dr. Keiichiro Kobori's 1995 book The Tokyo Trials: The Unheard Defense, which is available for free reading and/or download at the website of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact:

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/66_S4.pdf

As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.

What is your definition of statist?

You

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.

That’s right. STATIST!

So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.

 

[gipper]

As this thread proves, logic is not a trait statists possess.

What is your definition of statist?

You

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.

That’s right. STATIST!

So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.

I have tried educating you for nearly a decade, but you are unable to learn. The statism is too strong in you, so sadly you shall remain dumb forever.

 

[Picaro]

lol at 'statist'. As I've said before, the right wing loons use Gramscian vocabulary substitution as well as the commies do.

 

[Camp]

What is your definition of statist?

You

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.

That’s right. STATIST!

So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.

I have tried educating you for nearly a decade, but you are unable to learn. The statism is too strong in you, so sadly you shall remain dumb forever.

You have spent your whole day lamely attempting to evade answering a simple question and providing a definition of a word you use as if you know what it means or what it is supposed to mean or what you think it means. You seem to be determined to prove yourself as a fraud.

 

[gipper]

You

Obviously, you are not educated or knowledgable enough to articulate what you mean when you use the word. Something you read or saw in one of the propaganda sites you so often use as links and sources, but you can not actually define.

That’s right. STATIST!

So, the depth of the OP's scholarly knowledge is name calling with words or terms he does not understand and can not define or articulate even after hours of opportunity to research an answer. Yet, he thinks we should believe he is an expert on historical events from his reading of an opinion piece from an agenda driven article.

I have tried educating you for nearly a decade, but you are unable to learn. The statism is too strong in you, so sadly you shall remain dumb forever.

You have spent your whole day lamely attempting to evade answering a simple question and providing a definition of a word you use as if you know what it means or what it is supposed to mean or what you think it means. You seem to be determined to prove yourself as a fraud.

That’s right my son.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor's memoir tells us how commonly it was known among top government officials that Japan was defeated, that Japan’s civilian leaders knew it, and that as early as May 1945 we knew from decrypted Japanese cables that Japan wanted to make peace. Telford was a reserve colonel in Army Intelligence. In May 1945, he returned to the U.S. from Europe and was thinking about trying to get an assignment in the Pacific. He spoke with his superiors in Army Intelligence, especially Colonel Alfred McCormack, who was a good friend of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy and the director of the Military Intelligence Service. Telford tells us what McCormack told him when he asked about the Pacific War:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​

 

[regent]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

 

[gipper]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?
How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

Because as has been stated several times in this thread, they feared the Americans would hang the Emperor. Do you need to be reminded that the Japanese revered the Emperor as a God and that nothing was worse than being disgraced. They thought they had no choice but to fight to the death, thanks to FDR’s murderous unconditional surrender requirement.

Truman massacred all those women and children, then agreed to their only condition. Does that make sense to you?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender?

How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

That argument might make some sense if Japan had had a king who could do anything he wanted, but WWII-era Japan was nothing like that. The cabinet had to be unanimous; the Supreme War Council had to be unanimous; and then the matter would be brought to the emperor. There were many good men in the imperial court and in the cabinet who were trying to bring about a surrender, but they had to contend with the hardliners, and Truman's insistence on "unconditional surrender" and his refusal to clarify the emperor's status in such a surrender gave the hardliners powerful ammunition.

Just about all of Truman's advisers, especially those with expertise on Japan, were telling him that if he would just specify that the emperor would not be deposed in an unconditional surrender, Japan's leaders would most likely surrender in very short order. As later events showed, even after we nuked them twice and after the Soviets invaded, even Japan's moderates insisted on the condition that the emperor would not be harmed, and we accepted it. This fact strongly suggests that if we had specified the emperor's earlier, Japan would have surrendered earlier.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)
​

And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​

 

[regent]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)
​

And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​

So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)
​

And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​

So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?

Have you even read one word that I've written in my last replies? You keep responding to them, but you don't address a single fact that I present.

"They simply did not know how to make peace"??? I mean, that is such a silly, evasive argument that I don't think it's worth taking the time to reply to it. If that ridiculous argument is all you have to say after the facts I have presented to you, there's really no point in further discussion with you, because it's obvious that you have no intention of engaging on a factual, objective basis.

Patriotism is not condoning the mass killing of women and children with the phony excuse that it was the only way to avoid an invasion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)
​

And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​

So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?

Have you even read one word that I've written in my last replies? You keep responding to them, but you don't address a single fact that I present.

"They simply did not know how to make peace"??? I mean, that is such a silly, evasive argument that I don't think it's worth taking the time to reply to it. If that ridiculous argument is all you have to say after the facts I have presented to you, there's really no point in further discussion with you, because it's obvious that you have no intention of engaging on a factual, objective basis.

Patriotism is not condoning the mass killing of women and children with the phony excuse that it was the only way to avoid an invasion.

You have no facts. The Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender, they never asked for terms and they never said if ONLY you spare the Emperor. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs they refused to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army which ran the Government staged a Coup to stop the surrender/

 

[harmonica]

Anxious to make peace why didn't they just wave the white flag and surrender? How long would it take for Japan to say: We surrender and will not harm your troops when they come ashore? I think the GI slated for the invasion knew the Japanese better.

Why do you keep trying to make this about the troops when you're presented with evidence that there was no need for an invasion by then? It's a phony issue that forms the basis for the false choice of invading vs. nuking. Let me repeat what Eisenhower said about this when Stimson approached him about the idea of nuking Japan:

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." (Mandate for Change, pp. 312-313, emphasis added)
​

And let me repeat what Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, said he was told about Japan's condition by Alfred McCormack, the director of the Military Intelligence Service, when he asked McCormack about it in May 1945:

I visited Jackson's staff headquarters and discussed the situation in the Pacific theater with my superiors in the intelligence division, particularly with Colonel Alfred McCormack, in peacetime a law partner of John J. McCloy, the Assistant Secretary of War. I knew that McCormack was as well informed and otherwise equipped as anyone to assess the prospects of the war against Japan. Whether or not he was in on the secret of the atom bomb I do not know, but he told me categorically that the Japanese military situation was hopeless, that the Emperor's advisers knew it, and that intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages revealed their anxiety to make peace. (The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, p. xi)​

So are you trying to say that as full of anxiety as the Japanese were, they simply did not know how to make peace?

Have you even read one word that I've written in my last replies? You keep responding to them, but you don't address a single fact that I present.

"They simply did not know how to make peace"??? I mean, that is such a silly, evasive argument that I don't think it's worth taking the time to reply to it. If that ridiculous argument is all you have to say after the facts I have presented to you, there's really no point in further discussion with you, because it's obvious that you have no intention of engaging on a factual, objective basis.

Patriotism is not condoning the mass killing of women and children with the phony excuse that it was the only way to avoid an invasion.

You have no facts. The Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender, they never asked for terms and they never said if ONLY you spare the Emperor. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs they refused to surrender and even after the Emperor ordered the surrender the Army which ran the Government staged a Coup to stop the surrender/

they don't understand facts for some reason