Opearation merciful angel

[Genivaria]

So are you incapable of answering the question?

Are you incapable of shutting up?

So you can't answer the question, thank you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

Literally impossible. The Soviets took higher casualties than the Japs when it came to a few insignificant islands and the Soviet Pacific Fleet was, like, 20 ships. They couldn't do anything.

[Genivaria]

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

Literally impossible. The Soviets took higher casualties than the Japs when it came to a few insignificant islands and the Soviet Pacific Fleet was, like, 20 ships. They couldn't do anything.

Fair but then the question is how is the war ended?
Minus the Soviets I'm only seeing 3 paths here.
Use the nukes, Operation Downfall, or accepting Japan's CONDITIONAL surrender.
Allowing their government to remain in power is not a valid option imo.

[Saiwania]

Allowing their government to remain in power is not a valid option imo.

Much of Japan's government after World War II, was allowed to remain in power. That is a big reason why it went so smoothly. Iraq isn't a homogenous people, so the question of which group would be in charge was zero sum. The Iraqi military was deposed for a time after 2003, and all the experienced officers and enlisted personnel with no money anymore; they gravitated to terrorism or backing ISIS when the opportunity to take power away from Shia Muslims arose.

[Agarntrop]

Literally impossible. The Soviets took higher casualties than the Japs when it came to a few insignificant islands and the Soviet Pacific Fleet was, like, 20 ships. They couldn't do anything.

Fair but then the question is how is the war ended?
Minus the Soviets I'm only seeing 3 paths here.
Use the nukes, Operation Downfall, or accepting Japan's CONDITIONAL surrender.
Allowing their government to remain in power is not a valid option imo.

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Then do you support Japan falling to and then being occupied by the Soviets?

Literally impossible. The Soviets took higher casualties than the Japs when it came to a few insignificant islands and the Soviet Pacific Fleet was, like, 20 ships. They couldn't do anything.

Soviets during the Kuril islands had about 900 dead and a 1000 wounded, but overall in their conflict the Japanese lost more soldiers. But you are spot on about the soviets being unable to invade the Japanese home islands, they didnt have the transport capability or the navy to escort and protect any invasion force.

[Dogmeat]

Fair but then the question is how is the war ended?
Minus the Soviets I'm only seeing 3 paths here.
Use the nukes, Operation Downfall, or accepting Japan's CONDITIONAL surrender.
Allowing their government to remain in power is not a valid option imo.

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

What part of Japan's surrender do you believe to be conditional?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Wasnt the whole reason the Americans kept the emperor around simply because it was easier to rule through him whilst they occupied the country?

[Hurdergaryp]

Wasnt the whole reason the Americans kept the emperor around simply because it was easier to rule through him whilst they occupied the country?

It was also because Japan might have become a communist country once the emperor disappeared from the scene. Given the rapidly changing geopolitical situation after the second world war, that was not something the USA desired.

[Korasta]

You make it sound as though military blocs consisting of several great powers would give a damn about justification.

[The New California Republic]

Fair but then the question is how is the war ended?
Minus the Soviets I'm only seeing 3 paths here.
Use the nukes, Operation Downfall, or accepting Japan's CONDITIONAL surrender.
Allowing their government to remain in power is not a valid option imo.

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

No, they really didn't. The surrender was unconditional.

[Agarntrop]

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

No, they really didn't. The surrender was unconditional.

But we kept the emporer and that was their condition anyway

[The New California Republic]

No, they really didn't. The surrender was unconditional.

But we kept the emporer and that was their condition anyway

Nope. It was a prudent move on the part of the Americans, to ensure stability.

And why has this thread turned into a discussion on the U.S. policy in postwar Japan anyway?

[Agarntrop]

But we kept the emporer and that was their condition anyway

Nope. It was a prudent move on the part of the Americans, to ensure stability.

And why has this thread turned into a discussion on the U.S. policy in postwar Japan anyway?

Exactly

[Genivaria]

Fair but then the question is how is the war ended?
Minus the Soviets I'm only seeing 3 paths here.
Use the nukes, Operation Downfall, or accepting Japan's CONDITIONAL surrender.
Allowing their government to remain in power is not a valid option imo.

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

No we didn't, they unconditionally surrendered, do some basic research before you post.
Conditional surrenders do not lead to your nation and capital being occupied and your government officials and military officers being put on trial.

[Genivaria]

Nope. It was a prudent move on the part of the Americans, to ensure stability.

And why has this thread turned into a discussion on the U.S. policy in postwar Japan anyway?

Exactly

Exactly nothing.

[Agarntrop]

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

No we didn't, they unconditionally surrendered, do some basic research before you post.
Conditional surrenders do not lead to your nation and capital being occupied and your government officials and military officers being put on trial.

I writ TECHNICALLY

[Shofercia]

Accept CONDITIONAL surrender because we technically did anyway just after the bombs. That's why it was pointlessly evil in my eyes.

No we didn't, they unconditionally surrendered, do some basic research before you post.
Conditional surrenders do not lead to your nation and capital being occupied and your government officials and military officers being put on trial.

Actually they can if you accept those conditions, and counter with some conditions of your own, i.e. I'll let you have the military brass, but let me keep my Emperor, since the Emperor protects.

[Dogmeat]

No we didn't, they unconditionally surrendered, do some basic research before you post.
Conditional surrenders do not lead to your nation and capital being occupied and your government officials and military officers being put on trial.

I writ TECHNICALLY

But it wasn't. Even "TECHNICALLY." Unconditional surrenders don't obligate the victor to pursue every avenue of punishment, they simply mean that there are no avenues which are off limits.

The United States also never demanded monetary reparations, the death of every firstborn child, or Flower War sacrifices to the great god Tezcatlipoca. By your logic, every peace deal that does not include these conditions is "TECHNICALLY" conditional.

[Shofercia]

I writ TECHNICALLY

But it wasn't. Even "TECHNICALLY." Unconditional surrenders don't obligate the victor to pursue every avenue of punishment, they simply mean that there are no avenues which are off limits.

The United States also never demanded monetary reparations, the death of every firstborn child, or Flower War sacrifices to the great god Tezcatlipoca. By your logic, every peace deal that does not include these conditions is "TECHNICALLY" conditional.

I think what he's saying, is that the Japanese were ready to surrender, and their only condition was keeping their Emperor. The US demanded that said condition be dropped, the Japanese refused, and the US dropped the atomic bombs. Japan surrendered, and the US decided to keep the Emperor, meaning that, technically, the Atomic Bombs were dropped for no reason. You can agree with it or not, but that's what he's saying, (at least as I'm reading it,) and you seem to be pretending that he's saying something rather different.

[Agarntrop]

But it wasn't. Even "TECHNICALLY." Unconditional surrenders don't obligate the victor to pursue every avenue of punishment, they simply mean that there are no avenues which are off limits.

The United States also never demanded monetary reparations, the death of every firstborn child, or Flower War sacrifices to the great god Tezcatlipoca. By your logic, every peace deal that does not include these conditions is "TECHNICALLY" conditional.

I think what he's saying, is that the Japanese were ready to surrender, and their only condition was keeping their Emperor. The US demanded that said condition be dropped, the Japanese refused, and the US dropped the atomic bombs. Japan surrendered, and the US decided to keep the Emperor, meaning that, technically, the Atomic Bombs were dropped for no reason. You can agree with it or not, but that's what he's saying, (at least as I'm reading it,) and you seem to be pretending that he's saying something rather different.

*nods*

[Hurdergaryp]

I think what he's saying, is that the Japanese were ready to surrender, and their only condition was keeping their Emperor. The US demanded that said condition be dropped, the Japanese refused, and the US dropped the atomic bombs. Japan surrendered, and the US decided to keep the Emperor, meaning that, technically, the Atomic Bombs were dropped for no reason. You can agree with it or not, but that's what he's saying, (at least as I'm reading it,) and you seem to be pretending that he's saying something rather different.

*nods*

Utter and complete lies, of course. There's a Wikipedia article about the surrender of Japan, actually. Let's see what is written about the defense preparations:

Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Home Islands, starting with Kyūshū, and the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria—Japan's last source of natural resources—the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.

As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamed Operation Ketsugō.[10] This was to be a radical departure from the defense in depth plans used in the invasions of Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000 kamikazes would be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000 Shin'yō suicide motorboats and the remaining destroyers and submarines—"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"—to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyūshū, 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyūshū would be "defended to the last" regardless. The strategy of making a last stand at Kyūshū was based on the assumption of continued Soviet neutrality.

A set of caves were excavated near Nagano on Honshu, the largest of the Japanese islands. In the event of invasion, these caves, the Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters, were to be used by the Army to direct the war and to house the Emperor and his family.

Emphasis mine.