Your asking questions to which i have already provided the answer. Ill ignore here and where you do this again. The only new thing, is your reference of the big six haveing not been able tom reach a desc ion on the Potsdam declaration, so suzuki cannot have been rejecting it as no decision had been made as they were split.Hence no comment is the only interpretation that fits the evidence.R Leonard wrote: ↑14 Feb 2019, 03:33Since you seem to present yourself as having a better grasp of the subject matter than anyone else, and since enlightenment is a good thing, some questions for you, my friend, Hanny –
Did you miss the part where Togo, a member of the “Big Six” though certainly not with the clout of the Army and Navy members, responding to Sato’s suggestion of 18 July 1945 that the government – and that means the Big Six – agree to unconditional surrender on the basis of the preservation of the Imperial House, replies with “With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever.”?
Does not that sound definitive to you?
Is there some misunderstanding of the words: “ . . . we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever”?
Especially as applied to Sato’s recommendation?
Especially as pertains to Sato’s discussions with the Soviets?
Did Togo mean something else in this sentence?
And with those words, just what was Truman supposed to think?
Was he supposed to think that Togo and the other five were indulging in some grand jest?
Then you should already know what Suzuki said he meant. You "very clearly pointed out" they ignored Potsdam, ignored and no comment are two very different things. Something know before the internet was invented as you point out, but now much more widely known.R Leonard wrote: ↑14 Feb 2019, 03:33With regard to the word 'mokusatsu', please do not play pedantic. I am well aware of the various meanings which could be applied to this word. I read your offering “Mokusatsu: One Word, Two Lessons” long years ago, before it ever hit the internet. (Yes, some of us are old enough to have done quite a bit of our research on paper, from paper sources, pre-internet. You’d be surprised what you can find in a reasonably well stocked library or two on the grounds of a reputable military college and four years, plus later visits for targeted subjects, to nose around.) I very clearly pointed out that I was using its politest form in English.
"At four o'clock Suzuki told reporters, 'The Potsdam Proclamation, in my opinion, is just a rehash of the Cairo Declaration, and the government therefore does not consider it of great importance. We must =mokasatsu= it.' The word means literally 'kill with silence' but as Suzuki later told his son, he intended it to stand for the English phrase 'No comment,' for which there is no Japanese equivalent. Americans, however, understandably applied the dictionary meanings: 'ignore' and 'treat with silent contempt.'"
John Toland, "The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the
Japanese Empire, 1936-1945." New York: Random House, 1970, pp 773-74
I more than happy with Suzuki telling his son he ment no comment. Just as happy that the mistranslated is used in the US education system to teach how such things have consequences.https://sites.psu.edu/swabrcl/2013/10/1 ... mokusatsu/R Leonard wrote: ↑14 Feb 2019, 03:33Rather than examine the various nuances, how about you provide the exact meaning that Suzuki meant as it is clear from my reading on the subject that the Japanese press at the time drew the same conclusion with a laugh as the evil American press did with outrage. What exactly did Suzuki mean, and, please, not the ruminations of people removed from the statement, including yourself? What did he say he meant? I suspect that even if you could find the answer, you would not be happy with it.
Your not able to comprehend what i wrote very clearly at all, you should work on that.R Leonard wrote: ↑14 Feb 2019, 03:33
When you use you lowest figure are you saying these troops and auxiliaries were incompetent? Unable to inflict the casualties the Tokyo planners hoped to cause to the Americans to weary them so quickly that they would accept any terms the Japanese offered?
For your argument, you can’t have it both ways. Either the Japanese forces could accomplish their goal of inflicting so many casualties that the Americans would give up the attempt to invade or even force a defeat on the Japanese nation or they were so incompetent that they could not even come close.
Which is it?
First i used the JCS casualty estimates on which Truman asked for to make his choice, he looked and made his choice on those numbers and gave the Go order for employment unless cancelled by me. I did this to counter the numbers used by the uniformed who were using numbers from after he made the decision.
Second its not a lower figure, i gave both JCS numbers as we know he saw both, its the numbers given to Truman and on what he made his choice.
Now, the day the Japs surrendered Truman was to meet JCS and to make a another descion, if to go for Olympic, based on the newer casualty estimates, there is broad consensus he would not invade because of the casualty estimates of 250,000 ( numbers POTUS never saw!) but instead go with Kings blockade proposal which was also to be presented at the meeting as an alternative to invasion. Instead Truman went the diplomatic route ( State finaly joined everyone else, we need the Emp to run the place for us post war) and pretended it was an unconditional surrender, just as he had been advised by practically all to do. When people use these numbers it ignores the fact the bombs have already been used and the decision to employ them already taken, so these numbers are ex post facto and have nothing to to with the numbers he based his decision on.
Not after having it both ways, after the facts, the fact are what numbers he saw and made his choice, but instead of sticking with saving those numbers, he when under attack post war, trots out incredulous numbers ( which he never saw till after giving the go order on his way back from Potsdam and before it was issued to japan) as counter argument, instead of sticking to what he had based his decision on.
August 945 he makes several speeches all using 000s
"A grateful nation, hopeful that this new weapon will result in the saving of thousands of American lives, feels a deep sense of appreciation for your accomplishment"
April 6, 1949
"made that decision because I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved by making that decision, and some 3[00,000] or 400,000 of the enemy would be saved by making that decision."
April 28, 1959
""the dropping of the bombs stopped the war, saved millions of lives."
Already answered all of that.
Which is why military necessity as a reason for the use of the bomb fails that test. No leading US military officer asked for it, nearly all are on record as saying it was necessary, as i have already listed some but can add others. Just like the UK Monty “It was unnecessary to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan. . . I cannot think it was right to do so. . . The dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining moral standards of the conduct of modern war.” "and 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… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. JCS Admiral Leahy
War ends with japan being giving assurance on the Emp, as it says without that assurance it will continue. That SU entry and use 2 nukes caused the wars end, fails that text.
As for the political failure to make clear at Potsdam
Grew wrote:
"Evey evidence, without exception, that we are able to obtain of the views of the Japanese with regard to the institution of the throne, indicates that the non-molestation of the person of the present emperor and the preservation of the institution of the throne comprise irreducible Japanese terms…They are prepared for prolonged resistance if it be the intention of the United Nations to try the present emperor as a war criminal or to abolish the imperial institution…Failure on our part to clarify our intentions in this regard..will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives".
Using Occam’s Razor for the following.
As its a crime against humanity to bring the people to the ovens, is it a crime against humanity to bring the ovens to the people?.
Im not being payed to educate you, so wont be doing so, try your local university, in 45 85% of US citizens were for using nukes on Japan, this has fallen every decade, by 2016 its 43%, as more boards of education replace traditionalist text book with a more balanced, revisionist, required reading list.