Why Did Japan Refuse Unconditional Surrender

By dismissing Hirohito in favor of an abstract loyalty to the Kokutai, the conspirators would have set a precedent that any group of diehards could have exploited afterwards. According to the logic behind the initial coup, anyone in the government who breathed a word about capitulation could be arrested or murdered by those who wanted to keep fighting. Without the political ability to end the war, the conflict would have continued until Japan`s military resilience was completely destroyed, killing millions more. Gallicchio skillfully recounts how the debate over Truman`s decision continued long after the capitulation. In Japan, aggressive reforms at the beginning of the occupation were rejected by the same Western-educated Japanese who had influenced Japanese hands in America. These elites were eager to disempower the Japanese army, but tried to block land, labor, and electoral change. “Unconditional” documents how conservatives at home targeted new dealers as communist sympathizers within the occupation and hatched revisionist stories about Truman`s motives by exaggerating the emperor`s antimilitarism. Their revisionism was replaced in the 1960s by a brand of the New Left. Truman, some have now argued, sparked the Cold War by trying to intimidate the Soviet Union with American nuclear power. The public`s reaction to the emperor`s speech varied – many Japanese simply listened to him and continued their lives as best they could, while some army and navy officers preferred to commit suicide to surrender.

A small crowd gathered outside the Tokyo Imperial Palace and cried, but as author John Dower notes, the tears they shed reflected “a variety of feelings.” Fear, regret, sadness and anger at being deceived, sudden emptiness and loss of purpose.” [154] At about 9:30 p.m. on August 14.m. the Hatanaaka rebels set their plan in motion. The Second Regiment of the First Imperial Guard had invaded the palace compound and doubled the strength of the battalion already stationed there, presumably to provide additional protection against the Hatanaka Rebellion. But Hatanaka, along with Lieutenant Colonel Jirō Shiizaki, convinced the commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guard, Colonel Toyojirō Haga, of their cause by telling him (wrongly) that Generals Anami and Umezu, as well as commanders of the Eastern District Army and Imperial Guard divisions, were all involved in the plan. Hatanaka also went to the office of Shizuichi Tanaka, the commander of the army`s eastern region, to try to persuade him to join the coup. Tanaka refused and ordered Hatanaka to return home. Hatanaka ignored the order.

[129] Around 3:00 a.m.m. Hatanaka was informed by Lt. Col. Masataka Ida that the Eastern District Army was on its way to the palace to arrest him and that he had to give up. [143] [144] When Hatanaka finally saw his plan collapse around him, he asked Tatsuhiko Takashima, the Chief of Staff of the Eastern District Army, to be broadcast on NHK Radio for at least ten minutes to explain to the Japanese people what they were trying to accomplish and why. It was rejected. [145] Colonel Haga, commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guard, discovered that the army did not support this rebellion and ordered Hatanaka to leave the palace compound. The rebels, led by Hatanaka, spent the next few hours unsuccessfully searching for imperial household minister Sōtarō Ishiwatari, private seal lord Kōichi Kido, and recordings of the surrender speech. The two men hid in the “bank safe,” a large room under the imperial palace. [138] [139] The search was complicated by a power outage in response to Allied bombing and by the archaic organization and construction of the Imperial Ministry of the House. Many of the names of the coins were unrecognizable to the rebels.

The rebels found the Tokugawa chamberlain. Although Hatanaka threatened to eviscerate him with a samurai sword, Tokugawa lied and told them that he did not know where the recordings or men were. [140] [141] M. Clarke- It is just as absurd for a historian to completely reject a source because of a perceived bias as it is to fully accept a source without considering bias. Since Mr. Frank no longer works for the Weekly Standard than Mr. . .