I am indifferent to it, on one hand, a lot of people didnd't need to die, and perhaps the U.S. could have ended the war through diplomacy, one the other, Japan was doing bad things to places like China, what is your opinion on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
filler text
Leave the past alone and worry about what we can do today to stop bull shit from happening tomorrow.
Whether they ultimately did or not, it provided the world with the knowledge of just how devastating these weapons are and they should used with the most extreme caution.
At 2/10/13 08:24 PM, Saen wrote: Whether they ultimately did or not, it provided the world with the knowledge of just how devastating these weapons are and they should used with the most extreme caution.
They shouldn't be used .
At 2/10/13 08:31 PM, MrPercie wrote:
The nuke was just too bring the war to a halt with little bloodshed despite the absolute destruction the bomb did in such a short time, in the long run it probably was better.
No nukes were used in Vietnam buddy.
At 2/10/13 08:31 PM, MrPercie wrote: Deserve it? I guess you can say its fair play, you rape, torture and experiment Chinese civilians so were going to experiment this here new nuclear bomb and see how well it fry's your Japanese civilians to dust.
Think of it like this, remember Vietnam and how long that was played out for? The Americans were winning but they still suffered a load of casualties and especially the south Vietnamese and allied troops. The nuke was just too bring the war to a halt with little bloodshed despite the absolute destruction the bomb did in such a short time, in the long run it probably was better.
No it wasn't better as the Earth is still scared from that Nuclear hit. Whats better is to not be stupid Americunts and mind your own dam countries affairs how much poverty is in the States still ? The way America treats other countries is frigging appalling.
To have a stance on whether or not an entire nation deserves something would imply you assume some sort of objective morality or position of judgement which I do not believe anyone should have on such a scale. The real question is: "Was the use of the atom bomb(s) necessary." My hunch is that those who would argue the affirmative are in the minority.
Given the information Truman had at the time and the unknown effects of fallout, the decision to bomb Hiroshima is understandable at best. However, I cannot for the life of me figure out why Nagasaki had to be bombed, considering the Japanese were willing to surrender prior to even the first bomb.
Regardless, seeking justification for either side would be a waste of time unless we reverted to 1940's technology. Weapons of today are much more devastating. What we should take away from the bombings is a somber attitude towards similar decisions in the future should they arise.
"The appearance of people was... well, they all had skin blackened by burns... They had no hair because their hair was burned, and at a glance you couldn't tell whether you were looking at them from in front or in back... They held their arms bent [forward] like this... and their skin - not only on their hands, but on their faces and bodies too - hung down... If there had been only one or two such people... perhaps I would not have had such a strong impression. But, wherever I walked, I met these people... Many of them died along the road - I can still picture them in my mind... like walking ghosts."
- Hiroshima survivor (Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima)
At 2/10/13 09:05 PM, MrPercie wrote:
At 2/10/13 08:36 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No it wasn't better as the Earth is still scared from that Nuclear hit. Whats better is to not be stupid Americunts and mind your own dam countries affairs how much poverty is in the States still ? The way America treats other countries is frigging appalling.So nuking japan twice which killed 150,000-246,000 civilians is somehow worse than the 10 million or 20 million Chinese killed? and yes I know the Chinese were also fighting a civil war with themselves which was 3 million or 4 million dead soldiers which still leaves 6 million to 17 million civilians killed most likely by Japanese soldiers and the Japanese military.
I would say china is still scared by the massacre the Japanese did to them, those atomic bombs just put them on even ground somewhat. Not like that's the reason they did it, but what do you think is better, two massive bombs that kill a mere hundred thousand and result in surrender in a days or a long drawn out affair of hundreds of thousands more casualties from ground fighting in open terrain and in towns near civilians resulting in more casualties?
The real travesty here is that you are oblivious to the massively detrimental effects to the planet when a Nuclear meltdown and or Nuclear Fission takes place as it;s about the most extremely toxic and absolutely destructive and harmful thing not only to human life but the whole Planet and ecosystems.
At 2/10/13 09:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The real travesty here is that you are oblivious to the massively detrimental effects to the planet
This is also true if the argument remains "Did Japan deserve [it]?"
A moral question is abundantly harder to defend on the "pro-bomb" side than an analytical-utilitarian one. The radiation effects not only hampered the redevelopment of the area, but also severely damaged the environment and neighboring ecosystems not exclusive to ones in Japan. To justify this, you must argue that the generations following the ones who allegedly committed a crime inherit the punishment of their forefathers.
At 2/10/13 09:25 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:At 2/10/13 09:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The real travesty here is that you are oblivious to the massively detrimental effects to the planetThis is also true if the argument remains "Did Japan deserve [it]?"
A moral question is abundantly harder to defend on the "pro-bomb" side than an analytical-utilitarian one. The radiation effects not only hampered the redevelopment of the area, but also severely damaged the environment and neighboring ecosystems not exclusive to ones in Japan. To justify this, you must argue that the generations following the ones who allegedly committed a crime inherit the punishment of their forefathers.
Japan was not the only casualty although Japan was in fact ground zero but to be limited in scope to an event the effected the entire planet is dumb. The US needs to learn the term don't shit in your own fuckin bed.
Actually, the Japan was trying to surrender before the bomb, but the US wanted to test those new toy in a real situation so they could study the effects and show the word what kind of power they had. So they closed the door and delayed a little so they could bring the war to this abrupt end.
Also, it was easier to force the Japan to accept any diplomatic agreement in the aftermath. A surrender with Japan untouched could not force the Japaneses to agree for everything the US was going to ask.
Was it too much, or absolutely needed? Actually, it a lot more complicated.
At 2/10/13 10:51 PM, Dimitrilium wrote: Actually, the Japan was trying to surrender before the bomb, but the US wanted to test those new toy in a real situation so they could study the effects and show the word what kind of power they had. So they closed the door and delayed a little so they could bring the war to this abrupt end.
That's why the USA is more evil than was Hitler.
At 2/10/13 07:59 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: I am indifferent to it, on one hand, a lot of people didnd't need to die, and perhaps the U.S. could have ended the war through diplomacy, one the other, Japan was doing bad things to places like China, what is your opinion on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
It's an inexcusable crime.
Nimitz and many other officials said it was unnecessary, and Japan was going to surrender anyway.
At 2/10/13 10:51 PM, Dimitrilium wrote: Actually, the Japan was trying to surrender before the bomb, but the US wanted to test those new toy in a real situation so they could study the effects and show the word what kind of power they had.
No, they didn't want to surrender. They still wanted too many things that would've made a surrender pointless.
It's a very tough question as there is a lot that goes into it.
There's the idea that it shortened the war, but I've seen numerous pieces of very tenable literature that strongly suggest that the war was almost completely over as is. The idea that Japan was going to fight to the last man is VERY overstated. The Japanese populace was homeless and starving. They neither had the will, nor the physical strength to fight as hard as the "it ended the war" people claim. On top of that, there's evidence that the amount of actual military personnel in Japan pre-bombing was highly overstated. Some of this evidence indicates that not only were there not several fully strengthed armies waiting to fight, but a few meager garrisons. However, this evidence is also disputed, so in the end, the proposition that the bomb ended the war dramatically early and saved US lives can neither be proven or disproven.
Personally, I tend to believe the dropping of the A-bombs was just as much aout the burgeoning Cold War as it was about WWII. If you look at the dates, there's a stark concidence involved. The Russians nvaded Japan right around the time the US dropped the bombs. The US rushed the bombs into service, and actually had no idea that they would even work. In pressing the bombs into service early, they were able to get the Japanese to surrender quicker. The exedition of surrender was not to save lives (as I'm sure the American populace would have loved to turn Japan into a bloodbath at the time) but to keep the Soviets out of Japan, and to showcase American technological might to the new enemy. The US knew long before WWII was over that once the Axis was defeated they would have to deal with the Russians.
Perhaps, in a perverse Alfred Nobel sort of way, the atomic bombs saved more lives than we know. Perhaps, as dynamite was originally intended to do, the pure destructive power and potential of the A-Bombs kept the Allies and Russia from fighting each other shortly after the cease of WWII hostilities. We have strong proof that it kept the war cold numerous times after that. It is often forgotten how tense the East-West relations were in 1945 when both nations were extremly mobilized and capable of slugging it out with muti-million sized armies who were already battlehardened and fully ready. (<- in a military readiness sense)
Um to correct you Camar they knew if the weapons would work. In the very least since trinity worked, so they knew Fat Man would.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings _of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. However, the record shows otherwise. American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, which is precisely what they did. In the three days between the bombings, the Japanese minister of war, for instance, refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki, he told the cabinet that 'the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs... they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.'
In fact without the Russian declaration of war in between we may not have even seen Japan surrender.
We can't really know the what might have been though.
At 2/11/13 12:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There's the idea that it shortened the war, but I've seen numerous pieces of very tenable literature that strongly suggest that the war was almost completely over as is. The idea that Japan was going to fight to the last man is VERY overstated. The Japanese populace was homeless and starving. They neither had the will, nor the physical strength to fight as hard as the "it ended the war" people claim.
The Japanese people were starving and homeless, but the army wasn't. It had been hoarding supplies for months in preparation for a last-ditch campaign. Neither was their willingness to fight overstated; massive Japanese casualty rates on every island campaign proved it. The population wasn't about to give in either. The Japanese government had exerted a huge propaganda campaign to convince people that US soldiers would be bloodthirsty savages that would endlessly rape and pillage the countryside. When US soldiers landed and people learned it was totally untrue, there was a great backlash and loss of faith in the government.
The exedition of surrender was not to save lives (as I'm sure the American populace would have loved to turn Japan into a bloodbath at the time) but to keep the Soviets out of Japan, and to showcase American technological might to the new enemy.
That's a theory put forth by revisionists. Only Henry Stimson saw the deployment of the bomb in this way, and he was not the closest advisor to Truman by that point, though he had been before. Truman's own diary entries state that he was happy the Soviets began the campaign against Japan and had been hoping to secure their involvement as quickly as possible precisely because it would lead to a quicker surrender.
At 2/10/13 11:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Nimitz and many other officials said it was unnecessary, and Japan was going to surrender anyway.
Nimitz and those other officials had little to do with the decision. Not one of those actually involved (namely Truman and his closest advisors) have ever said it was unnecessary.
Not even the postwar interviews with Japanese high-level officials said the country was going to surrender, including during the time after the first bombing. The militarists on the emperor's war council had too much influence and control.
The Japanese were only willing to agree to a surrender that allowed their existing government structure to remain in place with few changes and escaped any sort of occupation by US forces.
At 2/11/13 11:13 AM, adrshepard wrote: Nimitz and those other officials had little to do with the decision. Not one of those actually involved (namely Truman and his closest advisors) have ever said it was unnecessary.
Nimitz' and MacArthur's opinion outweighs Truman's, IMO. Men who were actually there, and were some of the most brilliant military minds of the time, and witnessed the situation. Truman was some dork in an office.
At 2/11/13 12:10 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Nimitz' and MacArthur's opinion outweighs Truman's, IMO. Men who were actually there, and were some of the most brilliant military minds of the time, and witnessed the situation. Truman was some dork in an office.
Nimitz and MacArthur were not in a position to make strategic decisions of this sort. They would not have had access to the briefings Truman had, or the the same level of familiarity with the diplomatic exchanges with Japan up to this point, and I doubt that either of them were concerned with the political realities of the Japanese Emperor's war council.
Besides, what would you expect them to say? "Our naval and land forces would have been entirely ineffective or would have suffered massive casualties in an invasion were it not for the power of science and the air force. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude."
So many innocent people were killed, and some suffered horrible physical effects from the fallout. I remember seeing a documentary in school about Japanese people who had to live with terrible effects of the bombs long after they fell. It didn't really help my pride as an American citizen.
But you could argue, "who knows how much longer it would have drawn out if Truman didn't authorize it?". After all, their soldiers were killing themselves just for the sake of doing damage. They were relentless. It sounds a bit like our current enemies, eh? Only these guys had a much more competent, capable, and intimidating force.
But, no, of course they didn't deserve it. What kind of asshole would say that?
At 2/10/13 08:24 PM, Saen wrote: Whether they ultimately did or not, it provided the world with the knowledge of just how devastating these weapons are and they should used with the most extreme caution.
huh. That's actually kinda well put.
At 2/11/13 12:52 PM, adrshepard wrote: Nimitz and MacArthur were not in a position to make strategic decisions of this sort. They would not have had access to the briefings Truman had, or the the same level of familiarity with the diplomatic exchanges with Japan up to this point, and I doubt that either of them were concerned with the political realities of the Japanese Emperor's war council.
LOL.
Yeah, he was only Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. He had no idea what was going on strategically.
At 2/11/13 11:13 AM, adrshepard wrote: The Japanese people were starving and homeless, but the army wasn't. It had been hoarding supplies for months in preparation for a last-ditch campaign.
This is why I say the idea can neither be proven or disproven, as there are fact on both sides. The army may have been storing a great deal of food, but there wasn't much food to begin with. Most of the food was imported, and by that time there was nowhere else for them to import from. There was some army in Jyushuu for the invasion, but the size of that army is heavily in question.
Neither was their willingness to fight overstated; massive Japanese casualty rates on every island campaign proved it.
That was the army, not the civilians. he civilians committed mass suicides and did not fight. Also, watching a rock hundreds of miles from home get pounded is quite different from watching your actual home get ravaged.
The population wasn't about to give in either.
They actually were. There was huge pressure from the people to stop the war. The only people who didn't want to end it were the fascist party, and because they didn't care about the people and had control over the Emperor, the war went on. The regular Japanese people welcomed the US army, post war, with open arms. Hardly something to expect from a people hell bent on keeping the Allies out.
That's a theory put forth by revisionists. Only Henry Stimson saw the deployment of the bomb in this way, and he was not the closest advisor to Truman by that point, though he had been before.
I'm not one to trust the word of Truman's advisors on this, for reasons I'll say below.
Not one of those actually involved (namely Truman and his closest advisors) have ever said it was unnecessary.
And admit the killing of 120,000 people in a matter of seconds was unecessary? Right. That will never happen. The pure gravity of the A-bombs and their aftermath essentially rules any of the top advisor's statements irrelevant. They are trying to avoid two things: admitting to the World they committed a horrible atrocity by mistake, and admitting to themselves that they did such a horrific act without justification. Those two obstacles make me highly inclined to believe they would say whatever they could to save face and conscience.
Not even the postwar interviews with Japanese high-level officials said the country was going to surrender, including during the time after the first bombing. The militarists on the emperor's war council had too much influence and control.
The fascists didn;t want to surrender, but the people wanted it extremely bad. There's still a high level of bitterness among the families of Nagasaki about the Showa Emperor not surrendering. They commonly say that had the Emperor truly cared for his pople he would have surrendered before either bomb was used, and most definitely before the second one was dropped.
The Japanese were only willing to agree to a surrender that allowed their existing government structure to remain in place with few changes and escaped any sort of occupation by US forces.
But they were willing to surrender. They had said so numerous times. It is highly wuestionable that it was going to take an atomic bomb or an invasion to nudge it from conditional to unconditional surrender.
At 2/11/13 03:28 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Um to correct you Camar they knew if the weapons would work. In the very least since trinity worked, so they knew Fat Man would.
They didn't know fat man would work. There was an extremely high chance it would have been a dud. There were numerous talks about not using the bombs in anger, but giving a mere demonstration of their power and then using that power to coerce surrender. However, as the did not know if the bombs would actually work when detonated (they knew they could work, but were unsure that they would actually function on command) so they decided to use them in anger, as in that case if they failed to detonate, they could more or less get away without anyone knowing they had dropped it. Also, when the Allies tried to threaten Japan into surrendering with the Postdam Declaration, they left the Atomic Bomb off, even though the atomic had already been successfully tested by that point. There is a phrase threatening "prompt and utter destruction" to which many point as an intentionally vague threat of the A-bomb. Many history scholars (including the one who taught me) believe this phrase was intentionally vague as to hint at the A-bomb, but not directly state it, in case of what was believed to be a hghly likely chance of the bombs failing.
But they were willing to surrender. They had said so numerous times. It is highly wuestionable that it was going to take an atomic bomb or an invasion to nudge it from conditional to unconditional surrender.
We have statements by their officials at the time that suggest otherwise. The ones in our service who argued against the need for the weapon would have otherwise continued naval bombardment//blockade and continued fire bombing in populated cities. if they decided not to go ahead with Operation Downfall.
Japan's geography made this invasion plan quite obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to predict the Allied invasion plans accurately and thus adjust their defensive plan, Operation KetsugÅ, accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of KyÅ«shÅ«, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties[1] and several times that number for total Japanese casualties.
For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable-Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history.[17] Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war.
By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[23] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand-the proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; at this point the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[24] Additionally, these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful military members of the Japanese government.[25]
speaking in the name of the cabinet, TÅgÅ repeated
With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms
The targeting committee's list included 18 Japanese cities. At the top of the list were Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura, and Niigata.[61][62] Ultimately, Kyoto was removed from the list at the insistence of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, who had visited the city on his honeymoon and knew of its cultural and historical significance.
Read the sections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
The Potsdam Declaration
Japanese reaction
At 2/11/13 03:28 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Um to correct you Camar they knew if the weapons would work. In the very least since trinity worked, so they knew Fat Man would.They didn't know fat man would work.
Yes they did, the first nuclear bomb tested (Trinity) worked and it was the same design. The first one dropped (Little Boy) was untested but considered likely to work because it was so much simpler.
Once the emperor had left, Suzuki pushed the cabinet to accept the emperor's will, which it did. Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would "prejudice the prerogatives" of the emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan's form of government[93]-that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power.
[edit]August 12
The Allied response was written by James F. Byrnes and approved by the British, Chinese, and Soviet governments, although the Soviets agreed only reluctantly. The Allies sent their response (via the Swiss Political Affairs Department) to Japan's qualified acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 12. On the status of the emperor it said:
From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.
That day, Hirohito informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, then asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai (national polity) could not be preserved. The emperor simply replied "of course."
There was right up to the end people who were willing to preform a coup to continue fighting as well.
It's unfair, but effective.
Those people were innocent, but destroying them was easier than attacking military targets.
That's how it always is. Realistically, it's the army / the politicians of a nation who deserve to be punished, not random people. But they are well guarded / armed so... yeah...
Once again, the little guy pays for the big guys.
At 2/11/13 04:39 PM, poxpower wrote: It's unfair, but effective.
Those people were innocent, but destroying them was easier than attacking military targets.
That's how it always is. Realistically, it's the army / the politicians of a nation who deserve to be punished, not random people. But they are well guarded / armed so... yeah...
Once again, the little guy pays for the big guys.
It's also considered Genocide which is creepy and really fucked up that a country can get away with it. How would we go about punishing a whole country or rather the "shot callers" of country in question without effecting the predominately innocent and hard working population of said country ?
See I find it difficult to moralise situations like this. The question to me isn't, "did Japan deserve the bomb," it is, "did every single person who was obliterated in the bomb, and all the people who have suffered long-lasting damages as a result of the bomb, deserve to be bombed?" And the answer would therefore be 'no'. Everything that happened back in that war seems to be completely disgusting and the only victims were the civilians. None of them deserved it.
I proclaim that the people that were the ones to decid to call the shot to have a bomb dropped on Japan well there families should bare the punishment and public reticule and humility for at lease a dozen generations. That should be a sufficient punishment. This kind of punishment would make those son of bitches that we refer to as the "power elite" really think twice before they make a dumb move like dropping a nuke. Then again we need to know the names and faces of every single shoot caller in the crime ring that makes up the world "power elite" before we can hold them to there crimes against humanity.
At 2/11/13 02:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is why I say the idea can neither be proven or disproven, as there are fact on both sides. The army may have been storing a great deal of food, but there wasn't much food to begin with. Most of the food was imported, and by that time there was nowhere else for them to import from. There was some army in Jyushuu for the invasion, but the size of that army is heavily in question.
It can't be proven definitively, but we can be reasonably certain that Japanese resistance would have been great. Japan had enough supplies to field hundreds of thousands of soldiers and had months to prepare for a ground invasion. No US casualty estimate of the time ever suggested that the fight would be less intense than the invasion of Okinawa, which witnessed substantial US casualty rates. US losses would have been well over 100,000 men even by conservative estimates. That's in addition to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians who would have been killed or wounded during intense ground fighting.
That was the army, not the civilians. he civilians committed mass suicides and did not fight. Also, watching a rock hundreds of miles from home get pounded is quite different from watching your actual home get ravaged.
I'm guessing you're referring to Okinawa. The Japanese enlisted thousands of Okinawans to fight, and it was only when defeat was imminent that they forced large numbers of civilians to commit suicide. In any case, it was pretty clear that the Japanese government did not want its people to suicide honorably but to fight to the death. People who had not already been conscripted, like women, were trained in hand-to-hand combat and forms of guerilla warfare.
There was huge pressure from the people to stop the war. The only people who didn't want to end it were the fascist party, and because they didn't care about the people and had control over the Emperor, the war went on.
They wanted an end to the war, obviously, but they didn't want a full surrender and American occupation. The public reaction to the Japanese surrender was shock and disbelief, not "thank god they've come to their senses."
Not one of those actually involved (namely Truman and his closest advisors) have ever said it was unnecessary.They are trying to avoid two things: admitting to the World they committed a horrible atrocity by mistake, and admitting to themselves that they did such a horrific act without justification. Those two obstacles make me highly inclined to believe they would say whatever they could to save face and conscience.
Why would that even come to their minds? There was never any reason for them to believe it was a mistake or to think that there wasn't any justification. Obviously they didn't make the decision lightly, but why assume that they would regret it?
The fascists didn;t want to surrender, but the people wanted it extremely bad. There's still a high level of bitterness among the families of Nagasaki about the Showa Emperor not surrendering.
Sure, it's easy for them to say that now after their military culture had been completely destroyed and the deception of its leadership exposed. That doesn't mean that prior to the bombings, they were perfectly willing to put themselves at the mercy of a nation whose soldiers were said to be just as bad the Mongols.
The Japanese were only willing to agree to a surrender that allowed their existing government structure to remain in place with few changes and escaped any sort of occupation by US forces.But they were willing to surrender.
That's not a surrender! The US and Russian goals were one in the same: unconditional surrender. There was speculation on the American side that making some provision about the emperor would be enough to bring about peace, but the Japanese never made that clear. It wasn't as if the Japanese said "we'll agree to a complete surrender if only the emperor remains as a figurehead." The only concrete peace offer they made was a pledge to disarm themselves and give back captured territories (which they were about to lose anyway) in exchange for no occupation or tribunals. After that was rejected, there never was any concrete counter-offer; cables from their ambassador to Switzerland, through which all communication took place, show that he was never given any real proposal to make.
In any case, the militarists in control of the emperor's council and of the legislature were gambling everything on a last-ditch defense of Japan to bring about a stalemate that would prevent any unconditional surrender, emperor or no, from taking place.
