Reply #288: I disagree, Sir... [View All]

"To mitigate American casualties in Japan, the civilian leaders of the War Department recommended removing demands for unconditional surrender. The United States could accomplish "everything we want to accomplish in regard to Japan without the use of the term," which would only inflict a humiliating "stigma" and "loss of face" on Japan's ruling bodies. They advised Truman to settle for "the equivalent of unconditional surrender," by which America could still fulfill its "vital war objective of preventing Japan front again becoming a menace to world peace." This was reminiscent of Roosevelt in 1943. lt also meant the transformation and retention of the emperor as "a constitutional monarch," in the words of Henry Stimson, "a kindly minded Christian gentleman" who was the secretary of war. Like most other people in the government who did not want a fight to the finish, Stimson believed that Emperor Hirohito was a silent partner and a passive witness in a political system "under the complete dominance of the Japanese Army," which allegedly ruled in the name of the "Emperor-God."19

Despite well-intentioned attempts to whitewash Hirohito, the emperor was an active participant in Japan's military-political complex. Stimson and company, not knowing much about his complicity, petitioned Truman not to attempt governing the island "in any such matter as we are committed in Germany." The War Department's wish to govern Japan through the Japanese government now apparently got a renewed lease on life. When Truman made his first public demands on the enemy, he asked for "unconditional surrender" solely from the military, As for the American military, it already felt itself too involved in European government, reform, and relief; the United States did not appear to have the endurance to take on more political missions. Indeed, the War Department wondered if it had the perseverance to carry on the war."

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp