Quote (Ep0ch @ 21 Dec 2017 05:41)
yeah, but, what government are you talking about exactly?
Or is that all sarcastic?
-e
I have such a hard time telling sarcasm in text...
Quote (Scaly @ 20 Dec 2017 20:13)
... and I've just stated that it would be highly unlikely that the Japanese could have mounted any opposition to the terms imposed in their surrender as evidenced by their complete military defeat and the surrender terms demanding that Japan have no standing military. They could not have 'openly rebelled' as they had nothing to openly rebel with.
Your assertion that somehow nuking two largely civilian populations makes them more likely to become an ally rather than a 'bitter enemy' seems preposterous to me.
It's common knowledge. You can google it.
Some quick notes from my research for a recent essay -
December '44 - Japanese approach Chiang-Kai-Shek to discuss peace with the US
April '45 - Suzuki Kantaro takes over the Japanese government with the explicit mission of ending the war.
US intercepted multiple messages from the Tokyo foreign office to Japanese diplomats in other countries indicating Japan was seeking peace.
April and May '45 - Japanese make three overtures through Portugal and Sweden asking what terms the US would accept for peace. US tells Swedish officials to 'show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter'.
April 19th 1945 - Article in Chicago Tribune and Washington Herald details memorandum given to Roosevelt. Memorandum details peace offers by Japanese, terms 'virtually identtical' to those agreed by Japan in their eventual surrender. (Winter 1985-86 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 508-512) Reporter, Walter Trohan, who broke the story had to withhold it for 7 months due to censorship from US government. General MacArthur corroborates the story.
There's a lot more but if you verify that these notes are accurate then I think that should be more than enough to convince anyone that the Japanese were seeking peace long before the atomic bombs were dropped.
It's just not a story you hear because it paints the US decision to use nuclear weapons in such a bad light. The popularly accepted story is that the bombs were necessary for the Japanese surrender because if they weren't then most people would see their use as unjustifiable. That's simply not the case. That's what I meant when I said earlier that 'You're subscribing to a popular narrative when the evidence tells a different story'.
