A good article on Truman wrongly using nuclear weapons

[Toggle Almendro]

Prove it.

"That there was no wartime opposition to using the A-bombs from our military leaders" is proved by the fact that no one can produce evidence of such wartime opposition. Except of course for Ike's feeble efforts.

Proof that the Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms can be had by simply reading the Potsdam Proclamation.

For proof that Japan demanded unlimited dictatorial power for Hirohito, note the book "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Chapter 5: "The Atomic Bombs and Soviet Entry into the War", the section titled "Hirohito Makes the first Sacred Decision".

All these claims are completely untrue

Wrong again. Everything that I said is entirely correct.

And unlike you I've provided actual cites to back my claims.

Admiral Leahy
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

Leahy had plenty of opportunities to oppose the use of the A-bombs had he wanted to do so.

He didn't voice any opposition until long after the A-bombs had already been dropped.

It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

I can tell that quote came from Gar Alperovitz.

The reason I can tell is because half the quote is missing, leading to an erroneous appearance that the quote says the opposite of what it really says.

Never trust any quote that comes from Gar Alperovitz.

"nevertheless, the abrupt surrender of Japan came more or less as a surprise, for we had figured we would probably have to drop about four atomic bombs or increase the destructiveness of our B-29 missions by adding heavy bombers from Europe."

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part from a purely military point of view in the defeat of Japan. The use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” - - Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Someone should have helped the poor guy out with a calendar.

Japan didn't sue for peace until August 10.

The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.

Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This comment from Walker is particularly goofy.

It's true that we could have fought the war without using A-bombs.

It's also true that we could have fought the war without using tanks, or guns, or bullets.

Who would be dumb enough to fight a war without using bullets?

Your claims are currently dismissed without evidence.

He didn't make a claim. He merely pointed out that you have provided no evidence to back your claims.

So that would be your claims that are dismissed, not his.

Here are the facts:
The greatest military minds this country has ever known have been quoted as saying japan was on the verge of surrender and the bomb was not needed.
That is a fact
Deny it. I dare you

Aside from Ike's feeble efforts you have no evidence of any military leaders opposing the use of the A-bombs during the war.

Yes. In a war you should follow the almost universal consensus of the greatest military minds that have ever lived that got you to a point where the war is essentially over.
Duh. Lol

You cannot provide any evidence of any military leader other than Ike saying such a thing before the A-bombs were dropped.

And Ike's opposition was so feeble that it was virtually unnoticeable.

 

[vegas giants]

"That there was no wartime opposition to using the A-bombs from our military leaders" is proved by the fact that no one can produce evidence of such wartime opposition. Except of course for Ike's feeble efforts.

Proof that the Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender terms can be had by simply reading the Potsdam Proclamation.

For proof that Japan demanded unlimited dictatorial power for Hirohito, note the book "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Chapter 5: "The Atomic Bombs and Soviet Entry into the War", the section titled "Hirohito Makes the first Sacred Decision".




Wrong again. Everything that I said is entirely correct.

And unlike you I've provided actual cites to back my claims.




Leahy had plenty of opportunities to oppose the use of the A-bombs had he wanted to do so.

He didn't voice any opposition until long after they had already been dropped.




I can tell that quote came from Gar Alperovitz.

The reason I can tell is because half the quote is missing, leading to an erroneous appearance that the quote says the opposite of what it really says.

Never trust any quote that comes from Gar Alperovitz.

"nevertheless, the abrupt surrender of Japan came more or less as a surprise, for we had figured we would probably have to drop about four atomic bombs or increase the destructiveness of our B-29 missions by adding heavy bombers from Europe."




Someone should have helped the poor guy out with a calendar.

Japan didn't sue for peace until August 10.

The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.




This comment from Walker is particularly goofy.

It's true that we could have fought the war without using A-bombs.

It's also true that we could have fought the war without using tanks, or guns, or bullets.

Who would be dumb enough to fight a war without using bullets?




He didn't make a claim. He merely pointed out that you have provided no evidence to back your claims.

So that would be your claims that are dismissed, not his.




Aside from Ike's feeble efforts you have no evidence of any military leaders opposing the use of the A-bombs during the war.




You cannot provide any evidence of any military leader other than Ike saying such a thing before the A-bombs were dropped.

And Ike's opposition was so feeble that it was virtually unnoticeable.

Again all this is dismissed for lack of evidence.


You are entitled to your opinions but not your facts

 

[vegas giants]

Seventy years ago this week, the United States ushered in the age of nuclear terror by dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 200,000 and injuring another 100,000 who would eventually succumb to their wounds or radiation poisoning. At the time, the American public was led to believe that the bomb helped end the war and “saved lives.” This was never true.

 

[maxparrish]

Dismiss one. Dismiss 2. You cant dismiss all of them. Its desperation that you even try

“The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” --Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.

Haven't read that book yet, have you?

Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism | Robert J. Maddox, Robert J. Maddox | download

Finally, there is Curtis LeMay, the cigar-chewing air general whose revolutionary use of B-29s flying at low altitudes helped make the
torching of Japanese cities more effective. At a press conference held on September 20, 1945, LeMay stated without equivocation that “the
atomic bombs had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” One would never guess from Alperovitz’s text that LeMay earlier had declared that because of the
bombs “an invasion will not be necessary” or that he had advocated dropping a third (on Tokyo).

The reason for the quick turnabout ... seems fairly clear. Initially they were enthused about the weapon because it was their branch of service that had delivered it, hence Arnold’s boast about the “three deck banner headlines.” But they soon thought better of it. If a small number of planes armed with atomic bombs could devastate an enemy’s industrial and population centers, what need would there be for the seventy-group independent service the airmen dreamed of creating in the postwar period? This
frightening prospect led them for a brief period immediately after the war to downplay the impact of the atomic bombs by claiming that conventional air attacks already had brought Japan to the verge of surrender.

Of course, we already know that army air force bomber advocates have always claimed the other services are unneeded, and have repeatedly blundered in making claims that conventional bombers alone could win a war - it was as true later in Vietnam as it was in WWII.

Now why would the guy who urged more use of A-bombs on Tokyo but then later hand-waves should be taken seriously on the primacy of strategic bombers in war?

His motives were obvious.

 

[swing_voter]

There is a bit more to it than that.

I have read studies that without the entry of the Soviets, 3 or 4 (or more) bombs might have been needed. And this was because they could simply take the time to sit around and wait. They were safe and secure inside their island nation. They had no direct threats at that time, and could see what happened.

But then the Soviets entered the picture. And it was not as big of a threat as many make it out to be. Yea, Russians got big tanks. No, Russians not driving tanks to Japan. Japan big, Russian amphibious capability small.

But it did drive home that the longer they delayed the decision, the more of their Soldiers would be captured and killed. This is important because those tens of thousands of soldiers were to be part of the defense of the home island. But largely they were disposable, because they were there. But it did mean that the nation that they had thought of as their "last ally" was gone.

Remove the Soviet invasion, and 4 or 5 days later Yokohama would have gone up in a mushroom cloud. Now by this time the Council might well be 4-2 in favor of the war, after al they had lost huge cities and more people killed due to conventional bombing raids and firebomb raids.

Then another 5 days or so, more than likely Kyoto would be gone. The home of the old Imperial Capitol, it was hoped that by then they could reach a decision. And 4 bombs wiping out 4 cities in a few weeks would be destroying the morale of the nation. However, they would not have long left to decide. The decision had already been made that by bomb 5, it would be dropped in Tokyo, over the Imperial Palace. Then followed by an invasion into the chaos, probably trying to find a figurehead to replace the Emperor who could surrender to them.

The entry of the Soviets shortened the war, but did not end it. This is simply that Japan was an Island Nation, and they knew the Soviets were no threat to them. The Soviets taking out their bases on the mainland would ultimately have made them surrender about as much as loosing Gibraltar would have made the UK surrender. Or the US to surrender if somehow Japan had managed to take all of Alaska. They knew that the Soviets had absolutely no capability to directly threaten them.

Yes, in Truman's letter, he mentions the attack by the Soviets was crucial to getting the Japanese to surrender.

 

[vegas giants]

Of course, we already know that army air force bomber advocates have always claimed the other services are unneeded, and blundered in making claims that conventional bombers alone could win a war - it was as true later in Vietnam as it was in WWII.

Now why would the guy who urged more use of A-bombs and that later hand-waves be taken seriously on the primacy of strategic bombers in war?

His motives are obvious.

Its ok dismiss one. Dismiss two.


Why not take each one and dismiss them all in a row in one post.


I mean these are only the greatest military minds this country has ever known.



And you have an opinion!!!!!



HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Oozlefinch]

++ Terrorism is defined as the use of violence, often against civilians, to attain a political objective. In other posts I made clear that I am not equating the horrors of, say, Nanking, with US support of oppression, only saying that in the universe of international actors in the world, US hands are not unclean. When we praised the rulers of Argentina, we were praising neo-Nazi type rule, complete with anti-Semitism. (At the time, after the US, Israel and Russia, Argentina had perhaps the largest Jewish population in the world. Argentina's anti-Jewish flavored persecution decimated parts of their scientific community.)

Yet another derail.

You are aware that the leader that was praised there was Juan Peron, right? The nation he led was a classic example of a Socialist government.

Oh, and the word you want is not neo-NAZI, it is neo-fascist. They are not even close to the same thing, and do not mean what you think they mean.

But the love for them? Well, talk to Hollywood and the "Liberal Elites", they are the ones that praise old Juan. Make movies and musicals about his dead wife, and talk about how at least he made the trains run on time (sorry, wrong fascist leader).

Yes, Argentina did take in Nazis who fled Germany. But they also took in Fascists who fled Italy. The government there had been proto-fascist for decades, not really a surprise. And yes, during the last Junta they were targeted, but there does not appear to be any targeting because they were Jews, simply because they opposed the government. And in fact if anything it is higher now than ever before, because of immigration in the last few decades have shifted some of the demographics.

Now can we please get back to the topic?

 

[maxparrish]

Its ok dismiss one. Dismiss two.


Why not take each one and dismiss them all in a row in one post.


I mean these are only the greatest military minds this country has ever known.

And you have an opinion!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Please don't act like a demented idiot - it tiresome enough to play "whack a mole" with each of the four debunked quotes you have offered. All are post bombing quotes, all but one years afterward, all have been taken out of context and selectively cherry picked by a-bomb haters, and each has been debunked by the various sources I have provided.

"You are dismissed" is your favorite and very telling phrase and, ironically, most appropriate now.

 

[Cordelier]

Seventy years ago this week, the United States ushered in the age of nuclear terror by dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 200,000 and injuring another 100,000 who would eventually succumb to their wounds or radiation poisoning. At the time, the American public was led to believe that the bomb helped end the war and “saved lives.” This was never true.

Alright, let's say we didn't drop the bomb.... how many weeks of sustained carpet bombing of Japanese cities do you figure it would have taken before they surrendered?

 

[vegas giants]

Please don't act like a demented idiot - it tiresome enough to play "whack a mole" with each of the four debunked quotes you have offered. All are post bombing quotes, all but one years afterward, all have been taken out of context and selectively cherry picked by a-bomb haters, and each has been debunked by the various sources I have provided.

"You are dismissed" is your favorite and very telling phrase.

Four? I have offered far more than that.


Read


the



thread



Many years later President Richard Nixon recalled that

“[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off.”

 

[swing_voter]

Eisenhower claimed that he had “expressed the hope [to Stimson] that we would never have to use such a thing against an enemy because I disliked seeing the United States take the lead in introducing into war something as horrible and destructive as this new weapon was described to be.”

That language may reflect the underlying thinking behind Eisenhower’s statement during the dinner party, but whether Eisenhower used such language when speaking with Stimson has been a matter of controversy. In later years, those who knew both thought it unlikely that the general would have expressed misgivings about using the bomb to a civilian superior. Eisenhower’s son John cast doubts about the memoir statements, although he attested that when the general first learned about the bomb he was downcast.


The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II | National Security Archive




Really great resource on the subject at the link.



.

 

[vegas giants]

Alright, let's say we didn't drop the bomb.... how many weeks of sustained carpet bombing of Japanese cities do you figure it would have taken before they surrendered?

Zero. I want to be clear on that number.



Zero

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yes, in Truman's letter, he mentions the attack by the Soviets was crucial to getting the Japanese to surrender.

It helped drive home to them that their feet were in the fire. Also, they had lost their last hope to negotiate a peace treaty on their own terms.

The Foreign Ministry had believed the stalling when asked about the progress of Stalin presenting their request to the Allies, and believed that eventually they would present them. And if rejected they could try again, as the Soviets were still neutral. But no longer being neutral, they really had nobody they could approach to make such requests of.

It was much less the actual military force of the Soviets, as it was the loss of their last major neutral party. All they really lost were the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin. And those were all lightly defended. And taking them literally exhausted the Soviet amphibious capability in the region (they commandeered a great deal of commercial and even fishing ships to get there). Their entire Army could have rampaged through all of East Asia, they were not going to take Japan without an amphibious capability they simply did not possess.

It was not like they could conduct an assault doing a reverse Dunkirk.

 

[vegas giants]

As the President’s diary entry and letter to his wife indicate, there is little doubt that he understood the advice given by the intelligence experts as to the likely impact of the upcoming Russian attack. Further evidence is also available on this central point: The American and British Joint Chiefs of Staff—the very top military leaders of the two nations—also met at Potsdam to consolidate planning for the final stages of the war in the Pacific. General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, summarized the latest (early July) combined US-UK intelligence evidence for Prime Minister Churchill this way: “[W]hen Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

 

[swing_voter]

As the President’s diary entry and letter to his wife indicate, there is little doubt that he understood the advice given by the intelligence experts as to the likely impact of the upcoming Russian attack. Further evidence is also available on this central point: The American and British Joint Chiefs of Staff—the very top military leaders of the two nations—also met at Potsdam to consolidate planning for the final stages of the war in the Pacific. General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, summarized the latest (early July) combined US-UK intelligence evidence for Prime Minister Churchill this way: “[W]hen Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

People say things and second guess all the time. It doesn't mean they were right.

 

[vegas giants]

People say things and second guess all the time. It doesn't mean they were right.

When all of them say the same thing and they happen to be the greatest military minds the world has ever known............listen. lol

 

[swing_voter]

When all of them say the same thing and they happen to be the greatest military minds the world has ever known............listen. lol

We nuked them once. Hiroshima. And they didn't surrender.

If it's like you're imagining it, they would've surrendered after Hiroshima.

 

[Cordelier]

Zero. I want to be clear on that number.



Zero

*LOL* Hokay... but that doesn't square with the situation on the ground. In July of 1945, the bomber forces were consolidating for a big push - they were in the midst of upgrading the 8th Air Force to B-29's and moving it from Europe to Okinawa.

 

[vegas giants]

*LOL* Hokay... but that doesn't square with the situation on the ground. In July of 1945, the bomber forces were consolidating for a big push - they were in the midst of upgrading the 8th Air Force to B-29's and moving it from Europe to Okinawa.

I tried to be as clear as I can in my answer. The number of weeks NEEDED is zero

 

[vegas giants]

We nuked them once. Hiroshima. And they didn't surrender.

If it's like you're imagining it, they would've surrendered after Hiroshima.

Why Did the Japanese Delay Surrendering? | History News
Network

 

[Cordelier]

I tried to be as clear as I can in my answer. The number of weeks NEEDED is zero

Well, that obviously doesn't square with the massive build-up in forces that was going on. It obviously wasn't the consensus of USAAF planners. They were getting ready to double down on strategic bombing at the time.

 

[vegas giants]

Well, that obviously doesn't square with the massive build-up in forces that was going on. It obviously wasn't the consensus of USAAF planners. They were getting ready to double down on strategic bombing at the time.

Give the Japanese what we ended up giving them anyway and that and russia entering the war would have ended it immediately

 

[Toggle Almendro]

And this is justification for the US to nuke women and children????
Wow....just wow

Both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

These are my two favorite quotes that show that most people who are informed on this topic agree we did not need to drop the bomb

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

The Strategic Bombing Survey has been discredited as fraudulent.

Note Chapter Two of the book "Truman and the Hiroshima Cult" by Robert P Newman.

The guy who went to Japan to conduct the survey was a zealot who was already claiming that the war would have ended without using the A-bombs.

He deliberately presented leading questions to try to get Japanese leaders to agree with that conclusion.

When he failed to get the answers he wanted, he ignored the responses and fabricated his conclusions without supporting evidence.

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This comment from Walker is particularly goofy.

It's true that we could have fought the war without using A-bombs.

It's also true that we could have fought the war without using tanks, or guns, or bullets.

Who would be dumb enough to fight a war without using bullets?

It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

I can tell that quote came from Gar Alperovitz.

The reason I can tell is because half the quote is missing, leading to an erroneous appearance that the quote says the opposite of what it really says.

Never trust any quote that comes from Gar Alperovitz.

"nevertheless, the abrupt surrender of Japan came more or less as a surprise, for we had figured we would probably have to drop about four atomic bombs or increase the destructiveness of our B-29 missions by adding heavy bombers from Europe."

He is joined by every other military leader that expressed an opinion except one. Every single one.

All these military leaders joined each other in not opposing the use of the A-bombs during the war when such opposition might have counted for something.

You can dismiss one or two. But you can not dismiss that many opinions of the finest military minds this country has ever known

I can when they don't actually express any such opposition during the war when it counts.

The war was over according to the military experts and no bomb was necessary

Aside from Ike's feeble and unnoticeable protests, you have no evidence of any military expert saying any such thing during the war.

That is a flat out lie.
It was a unconditional surrender

Wrong again. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.

You are lying. It says what it says. Unconditional surrender.
Deny that

Consider it denied. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.

These may be the stupidest posts you have ever made.
Unconditional surrender means no conditions. Japan did not even know we had atomic weapons.
Even your pro nuke buddies will not bail you out of this one.
It is freaking hilarious

There is nothing for him to be bailed out of. He is right and you are wrong.

The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.

You are simply lying.

You cannot point out a single untrue statement in my posts.

You can lie if you like.....I will just keep pointing it out.

You cannot point out a single untrue statement in my posts.

You have zero credibility

When you refuse to accept reality, reality continues unabated.

 

[vegas giants]

Both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.




The Strategic Bombing Survey has been discredited as fraudulent.

Note Chapter Two of the book "Truman and the Hiroshima Cult" by Robert P Newman.

The guy who went to Japan to conduct the survey was a zealot who was already claiming that the war would have ended without using the A-bombs.

He deliberately presented leading questions to try to get Japanese leaders to agree with that conclusion.

When he failed to get the answers he wanted, he ignored the responses and fabricated his conclusions without supporting evidence.




This comment from Walker is particularly goofy.

It's true that we could have fought the war without using A-bombs.

It's also true that we could have fought the war without using tanks, or guns, or bullets.

Who would be dumb enough to fight a war without using bullets?




I can tell that quote came from Gar Alperovitz.

The reason I can tell is because half the quote is missing, leading to an erroneous appearance that the quote says the opposite of what it really says.

Never trust any quote that comes from Gar Alperovitz.

"nevertheless, the abrupt surrender of Japan came more or less as a surprise, for we had figured we would probably have to drop about four atomic bombs or increase the destructiveness of our B-29 missions by adding heavy bombers from Europe."




All these military leaders joined each other in not opposing the use of the A-bombs during the war when such opposition might have counted for something.




I can when they don't actually express any such opposition during the war when it counts.




Aside from Ike's feeble and unnoticeable protests. you have no evidence of any military expert saying any such thing during the war.




Wrong again. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.




Consider it denied. The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.




There is nothing for him to be bailed out of. He is right and you are wrong.

The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of generous surrender conditions.




You cannot point out a single untrue statement in my posts.




You cannot point out a single untrue statement in my posts.




When you refuse to accept reality, reality continues unabated.

All of your claims are dismissed for lack of evidence. You provide not a single verifiable piece of evidence. You lack any credibility. Sorry

 

[swing_voter]

In fact, the ‘Byrnes Note’ was a little masterpiece of amenable diktat: it demanded an end to the Japanese military regime while promising the people self-government; it stripped Hirohito of his powers as warlord while re-crowning him ‘peacemaker’:

‘From the moment of the surrender,’ the Byrnes Note stated, ‘the authority of the Emperor shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers . . .’ Hirohito ‘shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, navy and air authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms . . . The ultimate form of government of Japan shall . . . be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.’

The Byrnes Note clarified for the first time Hirohito’s post-war role. The Emperor and his dynasty would be allowed to live. It was unthinkable that the people’s ‘freely expressed will’ would deny their legitimacy. Washington had met Japan’s sole condition.

The Byrnes Note flashed to Tokyo, via Switzerland, and Washington awaited Tokyo’s response: ‘We are all on edge waiting for the Japs to surrender,’ Truman wrote. ‘This has been a hell of a day.’

At first, America’s compromise had the perverse effect of deepening the factional divide between the three hardliners, who refused to believe it and pledged to fight on; and the three moderates, who pressed to accept it.

Tokyo argued for three days. The Big Six vacillated over the meaning of Byrnes’ wording. Helpless to decide what to do, they appealed to Hirohito to make a second Divine Intervention. With his own life and dynasty now clearly intact, the Emperor recommended surrender.


A ‘Most Honest Horse Thief’: James Byrnes’ Role In Japan’s Conditional Surrender - The History Reader : The History Reader



This is the "Brynes note", a secret document sent to the Japanese via the Swiss embassy before the bombs were dropped.

It says the emperor can keep his job only he won't have any power.