[ioanpopovici]

All new evidence points to the fact that the Japanese were thinking of surrendering and that the Americans new it, before the bombs were dropped. Also it shows that the bombs had little to no effect on their reasoning. They whished to surrender on their own terms which they did, more or less, despite the "unconditional surrender" bs.

[dabeeeenster]

Further reading on this (really interesting piece)

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...

[talmand]

I find it interesting but doesn't convince me. Their timeline, 20/20 hindsight, ability to predict a future without the bombings, and definitive "we know, know!, they were unnecessary" doesn't make me think highly of their argument.

My favorite example is that the first bombing only required one initial report from the governor for the council to understand what happened. The second bombing had a similar verbal report but they had to wait another day to get the full report to understand what happened.

Never mind the fact they don't seem to grasp the significance that one bomb dropped from one plane equaled up to 10,000 bombs, or more, from around 500 planes. Is there no consideration in that leisurely dropping one bomb delivered more kilotons than a full scale air raid is a major show of force? With the obvious promise of more to come?

For my part, I would say that the bombing were not the full reason for the surrender. But they did play a major part. They faced either nuclear destruction from the US or being totally wiped out by the Soviets invading. If the Chinese didn't get their licks in too.

[sanoli]

What new evidence? I searched for this a couple of months ago and found that the "Japanese were close to surrendering" is one more recent 'internet myth' that's been propagating lately, with no real hard, substantiated evidence. Please help me correct myself on this issue.

[notahacker]

The intercepts collected by the Allies on the internal debates of some of the Japanese, and the internal debates the US decision makers had over whether to opt for unconditional surrender or something believed to be more likely to be accepted are pretty well documented by this reasonably neutral source: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/

[hga]

I'd really appreciate your at least calling out which of these 75 documents supports this thesis. I started skimming the titles and descriptions but didn't find anything contradicting the Official Story which I've been studying closely for the last few months before giving up.

Yes, of course, the Japanese were considering surrender, that was no secret to our decision makers, and yes, of course there was consideration of relaxing "unconditional" surrender, as we signaled to them WRT to the Emperor. We weren't stupid, that was one of many reasons War Secretary Stimpson removed Kyoto from all target lists (he was familiar with the east Pacific region and had visited the city prior to the war).

[notahacker]

Fair enough. Try documents 33 and especially 40

Of course it doesn't make it clear that some form of surrender is going to be straightforward since the Ambassador who's outspoken in acknowledging Japan should accept a settlement like that forced on Germany as the only way to preserve the Emperor is not in a position to influence an internal vote, and the more important Foreign Minister attempting to arrange "end the war" is also quite adamant that it won't be "like a unconditional surrender".

But it's also impossible to cogently argue that the US, being aware through intercepts that Japanese ministers both (i) want peace and acknowledge it might be painful and (ii) don't want peace if it involves "unconditional surrender", was sincerely interested in avoiding further casualties when after internal debate they chose to unambiguously insist upon (ii) being the condition for not wiping out cities.

Document 49, an appraisal of the situation which opens "President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia rather than some country like Sweden" is a reasonable indication the substance of these intercepts was available to Truman and other decision makers. Easy to see why the U.S. wanted to avoid protracted and potentially duplicitous negotiations via their frenemies; less easy to set the value of uncomplicated negotiations at ~200,000 lives...

As for Stimson, he wasn't stupid, but he was also heavily outgunned by the war party when it came to arguing for the relaxation of unconditional surrender, which is why it was not included in the Potsdam declaration against his express wishes. [There's also no evidence that signals of the relaxation of unconditional surrender were sent separately from this (and abundant evidence from cables the US was intercepting either side of Hiroshima that even Japan's peaceniks were only hoping they might be able to secure the Emperor's status)]

The US had of course outlined conditions for peace much earlier (before it was clear Japan had lost) which included a right to choose a form of government, were aware the Japanese ambassador was using this as a basis to argue the emperor's status might be an acceptable surrender condition prior to the Potsdam Declaration, and yet opted to remove signals of the Emperor's status from earlier drafts of that ultimatum before issuing it. Given all this was known and debated at the time, it's difficult to cogently argue the Potsdam Declaration that actually went out was intended as anything other than a prelude to dropping the bomb.

[hga]

Sorry for this not well proofread wall 'o text, I don't have time to condense it. It's based my analysis of the 3 documents you cited, and to the point of analyzing document #49 was written without close notice to all the points you make above.

The #1 point I'd make in response to them, which I touch on below, is that the Foreign Ministry had no power to speak of in the government to affect the needed change in posture. Not all ministries and ministers are created equal, the US traditionally elevated the Secretary of State to the highest level, xeno"phobic" Imperial Japan not at all.

33, MAGIC intercept (diplomatic PURPLE, and I'll note the leadership of Japan didn't trust the Foreign Ministry as of Pearl Harbor....), Foreign Secretary Togo to USSR Ambassador Sato, July 17th, a month after we took Okinawa, things were utterly dire, the US Navy was freely rampaging on the coasts and 3 days earlier had sunk 7 of the 12 railroad ferries that ran between Hokkaido and Honshu, taking out 80% of 1/4 of Japan's coal supply.

WHOA! I wrote the preceding before reading to the end of this document, based on Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan, 1942-1945 (https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10132884), and this exact set of facts with numbers is discussed in detail at the end.

Anyway, note this language in the message to Sato:

"Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not asking the Russians' mediation in anything like unconditional surrender."

40: Wow, Sato ... spoke truth to power, totally burned his relationship with the government back in Japan (the members of which would soon be tried as war criminals, e.g. Togo died in prison), put Togo, subject to assassination, in an untenable position, and Sato's suggestion for immediate action, what we signaled we were willing to do, and which we actually did, surrender with the one condition of retaining the Imperial House, was utterly rejected.

And in part II we see us signaling the all but Imperial House surrender prior to dropping the first bomb. And:

"I am fully aware of the delicate aspects this matter involves at home."

Yep, do the right thing, get assassinated for your trouble. A bit like Germany falling to the Nazi's, Japan was doomed in the 1920s when a culture of acceptable political assassination developed. That plus a constitution that required the Army to form a government (the Navy as well, but for Japan the Navy was survival, the Army a luxury, a very very expensive one in the end).

Also mention of the rail ferry sinkings in Sato's July 20 message to Togo; it really was a big deal.

Side note, the Japanese never had any air or civil defenses to speak of. They really were unprepared. And they're really concerned about food and the fall harvest, something I've heard before. Plans were being draw up to collect acorns....

Sato also realizes that the only path to peace is through the Emperor, only he had the station to get the Army etc. to stand down, and even then it was resisted with murder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident).

"The Government will surely choose the road..."; yeah, following this message, just barely after 2 cities got nuked, the Soviets invaded Manchuria, and the Emperor intervened at the possible cost of his life.

"We must also recognize that another cause for the evils we have drawn upon ourselves today lies in the fact that even before the Manchurian incident there were those who showed contempt for diplomacy and indifference toward international relations".

I.e. those who rejected this proposal by Sato.

"We should, however, give a fair hearing to the argument that 'if the enemy actually carries out a landing, we will concentrate all our strength on a counter-attack and will thus bring about his disillusionment."

Note, this is a strong argument. Kyushu had been massively reinforced, 9 division or so, enough to prevent a successful amphibious assault, along with 8,000 or so kamikazes, which, under more difficult conditions, a long flight over water, had off Okinawa inflicted the worse causalities in a battle on the US Navy. Something we had no answer to. BTW, we knew they had ... at least 6,000, our estimate turned out to be an underestimate.

Anyway, Sato is wrong here, Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, as originally planned was dead except in the eyes of MacArthur, who didn't believe the intelligence we were producing. Those who knew about the atomic bomb were planning on using a total of around 15 in the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu, 5-9 in the former. After the 2nd bomb was dropped, there was serious discussion about using the 3rd in another strike against the homeland vs. reserving it for Olympic. See this excellent account about that period: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691128189

Ah, those who didn't know about the bomb? They were planning the details of liberal use of poison gas, this was not a "clean" theater like the one in Europe, this was war to the knife.

And, as I noted above, Sato's proposal was soundly rejected.

I don't think 49 is at all definitive, I'm not sure it's even useful. It was clearly drafted after the fact, it's undated but written after the surrender, and is a brief summary of two consecutive days two days before Hiroshima.

It's usefulness depends on one non-major actor's interpretation of events that I'm not even 100% sure he was a eyewitness of. I'm not even sure what the hell the content of the middle sentences of the first day is about.

What news was Leahy supposed to be holding out on? Neither he nor his Navy were involved in the future atomic bombings besides potential rescue of crews if ditching was required. It was all Army/War Department, and it almost resulted in the effective abolition of the Navy under Truman (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals).

Anyway, I still see no better alternative to the bombings as soon as we could possibly do them.

[JoeAltmaier]

Documentary (Nova?) showed Emperor was planning how to secure his sigils of power, hide out. They were planning to lose, at any rate. But this is hearsay; I don't have a reference to that documentary.

[bpodgursky]

What are you talking about? Japan completely gave up on declaring their own terms. Taking away the godhood of the emperor was a colossal blow. If Japan surrendered on their own terms, there would absolutely have been no occupation.

Japan for a decade after the war was a completely occupied, controlled, planned state (by the US). They got NONE of their own terms. What about "unconditional surrender" is BS?

[JoeAltmaier]

The Emperor remained in his palace, with his traditional signs of power. For the Japanese, that was huge.

[bpodgursky]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

"U.S. General Douglas MacArthur insisted that Emperor Hirohito retain the throne. MacArthur saw the Emperor as a symbol of the continuity and cohesion of the Japanese people. "

That was a tactical US decision to help reconstruction. It had nothing to do with the Japanese govt wanting it.

[davidjeet]

What is your source for this new evidence? There is overwhelming evidence that is quite the contrary to what you are saying at the time it happened (which is why they dropped the bomb) and even now in retrospect.

[Jeema101]

I've heard that claim made before, but the fact is that the Emperor specifically mentioned the atomic bomb in his surrender speech.

That seems to me to be the most powerful evidence against the notion that it had 'little or no effect' on their reasoning...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyokuon-h%C5%8Ds%C5%8D

[maratd]

> All new evidence points to the fact that the Japanese were thinking of surrendering and that the Americans new it, before the bombs were dropped.

What new evidence? This doesn't even make sense. There were fighting until the last man on every island up to that point. What signs of surrender were there?

[JoeAltmaier]

Internal documents (unavailable to the Allies) show they were actually coming up with terms of surrender. But that's not fair; the Allies didn't know. Its hindsight.

[notahacker]

The Allies responsible for making the decision did have access to intelligence reports making it clear that senior representatives of the Japanese were trying to mediate an end to the war, including explicitly quoting many of the Japanese comments - both intentional communications and intercepts - to that effect.

There's no shortage of notes to suggest that White House decision makers were aware of these and debated the possibility that including a guarantee of the Emperor's position in the Potsdam Declaration might have made surrender possible, but didn't want Russians as mediators and were more concerned about domestic opinion of demanding anything other than unconditional surrender than actually hastening the surrender. Ultimately these considerations (and others) took precedence over saving lives, and if anything is hindsight bias it's the [plausible] argument that a more stable, peaceful and prosperous Japan was achieved through insisting on total defeat and not involving any Soviet "mediation".

[hga]

Well, by then we were starting to get a good take on what the post-war Soviets were going to be like, and with FDR's death and Truman, not previously an insider, the government wasn't quite so in thrall to them.

However we did signal flexibility to the Japanese about the Emperor's position; we weren't stupid, we knew that might be part of an acceptable and otherwise "unconditional" surrender.

[maratd]

For reference to the conversation above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

A declaration was made and unconditional surrender requested. The Japanese were warned that they would face complete destruction if they refused. The Japanese refused. It is only at that point that the US dropped the two atomic bombs.

[hga]

Indeed, and my awkward essay https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10132884 shows that we know we let the Japanese know prior to the bombings the one condition we were willing to allow, maintaining the position of the Emperor (well, eventually his position was diminished, but not abolished).

The Government, that is, the ministers including Army and Navy forming their parliamentary Cabinet (NOT a US style Cabinet), rejected it out of hand prior to bombings and the Soviet invasion of the Army's precious Manchuria.