At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

And after you just castigated Mikey for making an argument by assertion.

I invoked common sense but good point.

Your "common sense" conveniently dismisses the deeply militaristic and authoritarian character of Japanese society prior to 1945.

Don't forget, people are willing to die uselessly in your name if they literally think you're the descendant of Amaterasu.

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

[AUDub 11,158]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

And after you just castigated Mikey for making an argument by assertion.

I invoked common sense but good point.

Your "common sense" conveniently dismisses the deeply militaristic and authoritarian character of Japanese society prior to 1945.

Don't forget, people are willing to die uselessly in your name if they literally think you're the descendant of Amaterasu.

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

Ugh.

Do I really have to go back to Saipan and Okinawa? I've repeated it ad nauesum. Civilians willingly leapt to their deaths by the thousands.

Those that did not, and they were a minority, were "encouraged" with bayonets.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

And after you just castigated Mikey for making an argument by assertion.

I invoked common sense but good point.

Your "common sense" conveniently dismisses the deeply militaristic and authoritarian character of Japanese society prior to 1945.

Don't forget, people are willing to die uselessly in your name if they literally think you're the descendant of Amaterasu.

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

Ugh.

Do I really have to go back to Saipan and Okinawa? I've repeated it ad nauesum. Civilians willingly leapt to their deaths by the thousands.

Those that did not, and they were a minority, were "encouraged" with bayonets.

I can imagine they were encouraged. It's not uncommon for people among the losing population and or forces to commit suicide than to surrender.

[AUDub 11,158]

I can imagine they were encouraged. It's not uncommon for people among the losing population and or forces to commit suicide than to surrender.

And how do you reconcile that with this statement?

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

[aujeff11 6,243]

I can imagine they were encouraged. It's not uncommon for people among the losing population and or forces to commit suicide than to surrender.

And how do you reconcile that with this statement?

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

Were they jumping off the cliff because they were starving?

[AUDub 11,158]

I can imagine they were encouraged. It's not uncommon for people among the losing population and or forces to commit suicide than to surrender.

And how do you reconcile that with this statement?

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

Were they jumping off the cliff because they were starving?

Because Showa simply told them to do it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I can imagine they were encouraged. It's not uncommon for people among the losing population and or forces to commit suicide than to surrender.

And how do you reconcile that with this statement?

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

Were they jumping off the cliff because they were starving?

Because simply Showa told them to.

If you think the Japanese were so iron willed to starve themselves to death to the last man that is fine. I for one think there is a breaking point in everybody and starvation is one of the best ways to break somebody's will.

[AUDub 11,158]

I can imagine they were encouraged. It's not uncommon for people among the losing population and or forces to commit suicide than to surrender.

And how do you reconcile that with this statement?

Their will would've broke. Starvation would have already caused division among the population and that would have led to revolt. Do not pretend that women and children of Japan are impervious to starvation and that the men would have allowed them to die off.

Were they jumping off the cliff because they were starving?

Because simply Showa told them to.

If you think the Japanese were so iron willed to starve themselves to death to the last man that is fine. I for one think there is a breaking point in everybody and starvation is one of the best ways to break somebody's will.

I didn't say that, but the estimate of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 million dead through starvation before they cave doesn't seem that far fetched given their behavior before that point.

[WarTim 3,456]

We did what we needed to do at the time it was done. Period.

Well stated. We did not start the War. We DID end it...

[WarTim 3,456]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

[AUUSN 823]

On this 70th anniversary, we remember a conflict that engulfed the globe and took the lives of tens of millions of soldiers and civilians. We honor a settlement that has been foundational to the Long Peace since 1945. But even this peace agreement, and the postwar order that has been built in the decades since, has a darker side. The territorial clauses of the San Francisco Treaty, and the map on which they appear to be so precisely drawn, are reminders that the trappings of victory and reconciliation may also hold the seeds of future conflicts. This legacy of ambiguity in the postwar settlement is the unhappy inheritance of 21st-century maritime Asia.

http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/the-long-shadow-of-wwii-over-maritime-asia/

[AUDub 11,158]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

This is true. Marshall's plan (to be submitted Truman for approval) was to drop up to 6 atom bombs on Kyushu in advance of the invasion. He was also considering the use of chemical weapons. The residual effects of radiation from fallout had not been studied & fully understood -- consider how long it took before above-ground testing was banned. The plan was to invade 48 hrs after the bomb drops.

[WarTim 3,456]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

This is true. Marshall's plan (to be submitted Truman for approval) was to drop up to 6 atom bombs on Kyushu in advance of the invasion. He was also considering the use of chemical weapons. The residual effects of radiation from fallout had not been studied & fully understood -- consider how long it took before above-ground testing was banned. The plan was to invade 48 hrs after the bomb drops.

Wow!! Makes an even stronger case for the way it took place !!

[Strychnine 1,802]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

The "cleanup" operations of ships at Bikini Atoll for Operation Crossroads nearly a year later clearly demonstrated the pervasive lack of fallout understanding.

[autigeremt 6,657]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

The "cleanup" operations of ships at Bikini Atoll for Operation Crossroads nearly a year later clearly demonstrated the pervasive lack of fallout understanding.

It was the dawning of a new era. No one at the time fully understood fallout because there was no reference to it yet.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

The "cleanup" operations of ships at Bikini Atoll for Operation Crossroads nearly a year later clearly demonstrated the pervasive lack of fallout understanding.

Thats

It was the dawning of a new era. No one at the time fully understood fallout because there was no reference to it yet.

Thats when it's practical to look before you leap.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Supposedly, America was planning on sending troops to Ground zero literally days after the bombs with no gas masks if no surrender. America was going to kill its own soldiers

#goodjob

Supposedly? Link?

Not sure about Jeff's claim, but Operation Downfall was to be enacted with multiple nukes to clear the landing area before the amphibious assault began. We didn't really grasp the concept of fallout.

This is true. Marshall's plan (to be submitted Truman for approval) was to drop up to 6 atom bombs on Kyushu in advance of the invasion. He was also considering the use of chemical weapons. The residual effects of radiation from fallout had not been studied & fully understood -- consider how long it took before above-ground testing was banned. The plan was to invade 48 hrs after the bomb drops.

Wow!! Makes an even stronger case for the way it took place !!

umm what?

[Mikey 16,656]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

A blockade does not have to withhold food. We could airdrop basic rations while blocking all other raw materials needed for industry and military. And that could be combined with continued targeting of military and major industrial and transportation infrastructure to destroy their ability to make war. Between those things, the Soviet threat and a possible a-bomb demonstration on the mainland (but in a remote area) with the threat of Tokyo being targeted, we could have driven them to surrender. Such a combination would have shown the inevitability of defeat and their lack of leverage at the bargaining table.

If this is your "humane" solution, how many more Japanese deaths would have resulted from this than resulted from the A-bombs? Tens of thousands? Or, more likely, hundreds of thousands? How many more Americans would have died from the kamikaze ships and planes? Certainly into the thousands, even with no land invasion.

Please, lets discontinue ascribing logic and western thinking to this particular enemy. Their behavior and conduct up to the point of the Nagasaki bomb gives not the slightest indication that demonstrations of superiority, hardship on the civilian population or reasoned discourse would have worked to any extent. If Hiroshima itself wasn't sufficient to bring them to surrender, what possible effect would dropping a bomb in some woods have had? Logic dictates "none whatsoever".

"Shown them the inevitability of defeat"? They had already known, for months, that defeat was inevitable. Yet, they had not the slightest inclination to surrender prior to the threat of ADDITIONAL atomic bombing. Remember, one bomb destroying one major city wasn't sufficient, it took two bombs, two cities and the threat of many more. They were prepared to fight down to the last man, woman and child. The earlier mass suicides are an indication of the Japanese mind-set. Those two A-bombs saved a bunch of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

I have yet to see an alternate solution that wouldn't have resulted in more damage to Japan than the two bombs delivered, let alone taking into consideration our own losses.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

If this is your "humane" solution, how many more Japanese deaths would have resulted from this than resulted from the A-bombs? Tens of thousands? Or, more likely, hundreds of thousands? How many more Americans would have died from the kamikaze ships and planes? Certainly into the thousands, even with no land invasion.

You're just pulling figures out of your southern end again. If you target military, industrial and rail for instance, you don't have "hundreds of thousands" of deaths.

And again, you seem to avoid the issue that just because something is quicker and easier, that doesn't make it moral. You do not commit evil (and deliberately targeting innocent civilians - the elderly, women, children and babies - is by any decent person's calculus, evil) that good might come of it. We don't make decisions solely on bean counting methods.

Please, lets discontinue ascribing logic and western thinking to this particular enemy. Their behavior and conduct up to the point of the Nagasaki bomb gives not the slightest indication that demonstrations of superiority, hardship on the civilian population or reasoned discourse would have worked to any extent. If Hiroshima itself wasn't sufficient to bring them to surrender, what possible effect would dropping a bomb in some woods have had? Logic dictates "none whatsoever".

We gave them all of three days. You don't know if Hiroshima would be enough to make them surrender or not with such a timeframe. And you don't know what the effect of a demonstration in a remote area would have had either. But you refuse to even consider it your mind is so made up.

"Shown them the inevitability of defeat"? They had already known, for months, that defeat was inevitable. Yet, they had not the slightest inclination to surrender prior to the threat of ADDITIONAL atomic bombing. Remember, one bomb destroying one major city wasn't sufficient, it took two bombs, two cities and the threat of many more. They were prepared to fight down to the last man, woman and child. The earlier mass suicides are an indication of the Japanese mind-set. Those two A-bombs saved a bunch of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

I have yet to see an alternate solution that wouldn't have resulted in more damage to Japan than the two bombs delivered, let alone taking into consideration our own losses.

Because you frame the arguments only in ways that slant to your preferred conclusion.

[Mikey 16,656]

We had our Rosie the Riveter, are we to suppose that no Japanese civilians were aiding the war effort, or is it more rational to believe that like most Americans, Japanese civilians were contributing something to their war effort?

I'm not pulling numbers out of anywyere except reasonable estimations. You're not really kidding yourself into thinking that 1945 bombing methods would have spared civilians are you? Check with the Germans. Your alternatives have every probability of killing many, many more Japanese than did the bombs, plus you ignore the fact that all through the long, drawn out process American men would have been dying in large numbers every day.

The estimates of Japanese loss by knowledgeable people have been posted again and again in this thread. Land invasions, blockades, conventional bombing or whatever I have seen none that involved anywhere near the relatively few deaths that were caused by the bombs. The only people thinking that optional methods would have resulted in fewer losses are the ones that think that for some odd reason the Japanese were going to change their way of doing things and suddenly capitulate because they wanted to play nice guy.

No, I do not think a demonstration bomb would have made any impact beyond the crater it blew in the landscape. If Hiroshima didn't impress, why would blowing up some woods have obtained a desirable reaction?

[aujeff11 6,243]

We had our Rosie the Riveter, are we to suppose that no Japanese civilians were aiding the war effort, or is it more rational to believe that like most Americans, Japanese civilians were contributing something to their war effort?

I'm not pulling numbers out of anywyere except reasonable estimations. You're not really kidding yourself into thinking that 1945 bombing methods would have spared civilians are you? Check with the Germans. Your alternatives have every probability of killing many, many more Japanese than did the bombs, plus you ignore the fact that all through the long, drawn out process American men would have been dying in large numbers every day.

The estimates of Japanese loss by knowledgeable people have been posted again and again in this thread. Land invasions, blockades, conventional bombing or whatever I have seen none that involved anywhere near the relatively few deaths that were caused by the bombs. The only people thinking that optional methods would have resulted in fewer losses are the ones that think that for some odd reason the Japanese were going to change their way of doing things and suddenly capitulate because they wanted to play nice guy.

No, I do not think a demonstration bomb would have made any impact beyond the crater it blew in the landscape. If Hiroshima didn't impress, why would blowing up some woods have obtained a desirable reaction?

Why Hiroshima? Why not another city?

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

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

The following is copied from the above link and is under the section, "Surrender of Japan and Subsequent Occupation:"

Until August 9, Japan's war council still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kōichi Kido to "quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us." He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Shigenori Tōgō to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler."[213]

On August 12, the Emperor 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 could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "Of course."[214] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.[215]

In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.[216]

In his "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" delivered on August 17, he stressed the impact of the Soviet invasion on his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the bombs.[217] Hirohito met with General MacArthur on September 27, saying to him that "[t]he peace party did not prevail until the bombing of Hiroshima created a situation which could be dramatized." Furthermore, the "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" speech he told MacArthur about was just personal, not political, and never stated that the Soviet intervention in Manchuria was the main reason for surrender. In fact, a day after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Hirohito ordered his advisers, primarily Chief Cabinet Secretary Hisatsune Sakomizu, Kawada Mizuho, and Masahiro Yasuoka, to write up a surrender speech. In Hirohito's speech, days before announcing it on radio on August 15, he gave three major reasons for surrender: Tokyo's defenses would not be complete before the American invasion of Japan, Ise Shrine would be lost to the Americans, and atomic weapons deployed by the Americans would lead to the death of the entire Japanese race. Despite the Soviet intervention, Hirohito did not mention the Soviets as the main factor for surrender.[218]

[Mikey 16,656]

https://en.wikipedia...ma_and_Nagasaki

The following is copied from the above link and is under the section, "Surrender of Japan and Subsequent Occupation:"

Until August 9, Japan's war council still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kōichi Kido to "quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us." He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Shigenori Tōgō to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler."[213]

On August 12, the Emperor 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 could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied "Of course."[214] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.[215]

In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.[216]

In his "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" delivered on August 17, he stressed the impact of the Soviet invasion on his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the bombs.[217] Hirohito met with General MacArthur on September 27, saying to him that "[t]he peace party did not prevail until the bombing of Hiroshima created a situation which could be dramatized." Furthermore, the "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" speech he told MacArthur about was just personal, not political, and never stated that the Soviet intervention in Manchuria was the main reason for surrender. In fact, a day after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Hirohito ordered his advisers, primarily Chief Cabinet Secretary Hisatsune Sakomizu, Kawada Mizuho, and Masahiro Yasuoka, to write up a surrender speech. In Hirohito's speech, days before announcing it on radio on August 15, he gave three major reasons for surrender: Tokyo's defenses would not be complete before the American invasion of Japan, Ise Shrine would be lost to the Americans, and atomic weapons deployed by the Americans would lead to the death of the entire Japanese race. Despite the Soviet intervention, Hirohito did not mention the Soviets as the main factor for surrender.[218]

Nice find, Loggerhead.