OldArmy71 said:
Quote:
there were, I believe, two fairly legitimate indirect approaches to the Allies by factions in Japan about surrender arrangements and both were ignored.
Since you can't remember the title of the book and are vague on the details, please don't feel I am attacking you in this response.
I am certainly no scholar or expert on the topic, but I have read quite a bit about the end of the war with Japan. The notion that the war with Japan was essentially over and that Japan was trying to surrender is often cited as "fact" by those who are opposed to the use of atomic weapons on Japan. (I do not mean to imply that you are doing that.)
It is true that Japan made overtures of surrender....to the Soviets. The USSR had not yet declared war on Japan and thus was "neutral" regarding Japan. The Japanese believed they could cut a deal with Stalin and offered to surrender, but with these conditions:
1. The emperor would stay in charge.
2. The fascist military system would not change.
3. Japan would not be occupied.
4. Japan would conduct its own war crimes trials.
5. Japan would keep some of the territory it had captured in China and Korea.
Obviously the Soviets knew that the US and Britain would never agree to these conditions, and the Soviets would not either. They simply played for time by pretending to consider the offer, meanwhile preparing to enter the war against Japan.
It is just not true that Japan ever made any true offer of surrender on any terms that the Allies would accept.
Good post and good content, no attack felt. I do need to remember the title of the book, I took it back to Texas to keep as I am working out of the country right now and read it last summer, thus the info void.
Please note, that I did not say that Japan tried to surrender, what I did say was that there were inquiries about surrender arrangements made. One of these was the Swedish overture and the other was the Russian one. What the book I read mentions, interestingly, is that the US was reading most MAGIC traffic so they had knowledge of the situations, and thus these were not novel to the influential powers. One of the points of the book was that the unwavering stance of the "unconditional surrender" mandated by FDR steeled the Japanese and the Hawks among them used this as leverage to cow the small group of moderates and others that might be open to Japanese capitulation. Truman, being new to the office and taking the place of a cherished president, the book relates was uncertain and uncomfortable with publicly and overtly backing of the unconditional portion of the surrender.
The scenario that you mention above was in the approach to the Soviets, who had no interest in the war ending without their joining the fun out east. But I do not remember reading about the approach through the USSR stating a condition to keep conquests in China nor Manchuria, but I could be wrong. The one communicated via the Swedes, while not official and which I believe contained no particulars, was basically ruled out as not worth considering. The criticism of the "unconditional surrender" in the book is obviously "Monday morning QB'ing", but there are many valid and logical points made in the book about how if there had been some backing off of this condition it might have enabled peace factions in both Germany and Japan to have maybe ended the war earlier, or at least given them the impetus to cause doubt and turmoil within the enemy.
Absolutely I believe the A-Bomb should have been dropped on Japan as things were playing out. I agree, as a cohesive country or group, the Japanese were not at any time trying to surrender, but there were factions in the Japanese government and upper society, and even in the military wings, that were for lack of a better phrase, possibly open to consider something.
Equally, this particular book made harsh criticism, and much of it was accurate and some of the points confounded Truman, of how much latitude and consideration FDR gave Stalin. As events unfolded in both China and Japan it might have been better to have a subdued and controlled Japan as a vassal state than to have it be a country that was completely crushed via the prolonging of WWII and use of the bombs on the country, at least that is what I understood the position of the book to be. I am not educated enough to truly have an opinion of that, but I can see the logic in it.
Below are two quick links about the Swedish approach and some other information, one if paraphrasing from Toland, but very informative:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/14/page/1/article/ignored-japanese-peace-bids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-beenhttp://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/1137/Japanese-Peace-Feelers-in-1945#.WK0MvfJlwoY[url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/14/page/1/article/ignored-japanese-peace-bids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been][/url]