On Nov 3, 10:28?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:

You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to
the conclusion that they would surrender?

Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy.

Leahy's observations to that effect were not made "during that time".
They were made years after the war had ended.

Ike is about the only one who claimed Japan was trying to surrender,
but he didn't make a big deal over it, and the only person he told
(Stimson) didn't take him very seriously.

Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Not necessarily. Historians have access to pretty much all the
knowledge that they had during the war.

Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?

According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a
position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were
willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to
remain on his throne.

That was MacArthur's view years after the war. Just after Hiroshima
his view was still that Japan wouldn't surrender until the US invaded
Japan.

And we never made any agreement regarding keeping the Emperor. The
surrender terms gave MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor if he
felt like it.

Why would MacArthur change his view after the war was over?
He may have waited to express his opinion, but what could have
possibly happened to change his view entirely?

More importantly, what would motivate him to lie about the conclusions
he reached in 1945? I can't think of a single thing.

Even today, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an action that
many Americans feel must be defended as a good, right, maybe even holy
episode in our history. Voicing any willingness to examine whether
there were alternatives and whether in retrospect we still think we
chose the best if there were is an unpopular exercise even afer 60
years. Closer to the event, public sentiment in favor of the bombing
was
undoubtedly stronger. It was pretty courageous of MacArthur to voice
his private conclusions at any time, even if the doubts and
reservations he later expressed didn't prevent him doing his public
duty at the close of WWII.