Why do some people consider the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unjustified?

[Holmes]

The instrument of surrender explicitly calls the surrender unconditional and refers back to the Potsdam declaration.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1752336

"The authority of the Emperor and the japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander..."

EDIT: Heck, from the response to the japanese demands:
"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and
the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to
the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such
steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.

"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the
signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry
out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue
his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air
authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever
located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms,
and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may
require to give effect to the surrender terms.

...

"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance
with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely
expressed will of the Japanese people."

This explicitly says they have the right to depose the emperor, should the Supreme Commander and/or the japanese people desire to.

The documents you pointed out explicitly do not say what you think they do. Nowhere does the US government commit to retaining the Emperor.

They explicitly do, that why i posted them. Its how the subject is taught. Here are more*. The surrender demabd at Potsdam only give the the people of japan the authority to remove the God Emperor**, given they were dying like flies for him, lined up at war crimes trials and said it was them and no, one else, that was never going to happen for a very very long time. It still has not. Potsdam calls for the Armed forces unconditional surrender, japs had no problem dying for their God Emp in war or peace, as long as he remained, its this condition they demanded and obtained.
* https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...e1/issue2/Berlin1U.Pa.J.Const.L.383(1998).pdf
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/heroesvillains/timeline/g5_timeline.htm
https://quizlet.com/133604374/exam-3-history-1302-study-guide-flash-cards/


**
Cunter-proposal of the United States Secretary James F. Byrnes on the Japanese conditional offer of surrender, transmitted to the Japanese Government, August 11, 1945
August 11, 1945
Tags: Commonwealth of the Philippines

Counter-proposal
of
Honorable James F. Byrnes
United States Secretary of State
On the Japanese conditional offer of surrender, transmitted to the Japanese Government

[Released on August 11, 1945]

On behalf of the United States, Great Britain, Russia and China, United States Secretary of State James F. Byrnes on August 11, 1945, transmitted to the Japanese Government, through Charge D’Affaires Max Graesslie, of the Swiss legation in Washington, the following counter-proposal to the Japanese conditional offer of surrender:

With regard to the Japanese Government’s message accepting the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation, but containing the statement—”with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,”—our position is as follows:

From the moment of surrender, the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.

The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities, and to all of the forces under their control wherever located, to cease active operations and to surrender their arms and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms.

Immediately upon the surrender, the Japanese Government shall transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of safety as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard Allied transports.

The form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are achieved.
http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1...ed-to-the-japanese-government-august-11-1945/



Your arguments are wasting my time as you lack any education or comprehension skills. Given you fondness for making claims your unable to support, im going to have ignore you unless you post anythying close to be acurate.

 

[Arilou]

They explicitly do, that why i posted them.

No they don't. They do the reverse. They specifically say that whether or not to retain the Emperor is up to the Supreme Commander. (the US might at this point already have decided to keep the Emperor as you point out, but that's not what the surrender documents say, they specifically say the opposite)

The japanese government asks if they get to keep the Emperor, the US response is that this is up to the Supreme Commander (and that the final disposition will be made by the will of the japanese people) that is *not* a commital to keep the emperor, it is the exact opposite.

"From the moment of surrender, the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms."

That is a *rejection* of the japanese proposal, not an acceptance. It retains the right for the Supreme Commanderto take "such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms".

Now, there might be all sorts of implicit understandings going back and forth about what steps the Supreme Commander will take, but explicitly and in the document? The US response is "No, we get to decide. We are not promising to keep the Emperor."

The *only* point where they commit to anything about the Emperor, is when they demand that he be part of the actual surrender process: "The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities, and to all of the forces under their control wherever located, to cease active operations and to surrender their arms and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms." (presumably to avoid the WWI "abdicate to avoid responsibility" thing)

Now, I agree with you that the US intended to keep the Emperor: But they retain the *right* to make whatever changes they want to, should they for some reason change their minds.

 

[Holmes]

Sadly you think your arguing with my opinion, your not your arguing with Truman’s, which in large part is why it’s taught as I have posted it from. The links provided demonstrate that if your view is correct, Japan would not, could not, accept it.

Critical thinking time.

Japans offers to surrender under the conditions of Potsdam, (that call for the unconditional surrender of the armed forces, clause 10 makes clear war criminals they are to be punished, but only the criminals,) on the condition of retaining the Emp, ie he will remain as soveriegn and unpunished. It is absolutly clear that this is a non negoitable posistion from Japan.

If the US reply is a rejection of this posistion, they they cannot acept it and the war continues.

If its the aceptence of a condition then they can, and the war will cease.

It is acepted.


Conclusion it cannot be a rejection, not least because rejections dont afirm the condition in their rejection. It is an aceptence, with further condition that the Emp will rermain and rule, ie removed from the Armed Forces who surrender unconditionaly and will be punished for war crimes, but in doing so will be subject to the authority of the Supreme allied commander in performing that role. This is made clear here in US post surrender policy. file:///C:/Users/User1/Downloads/United_States_Initial_Post-Surrender_Policy_for_Japan_SWNCC15.pdf

Supreme Commanders role is defined, it was not as you suggest.


Truman on the condition for surrender.
‘They wanted to make a condition precedent to the surrender . . . They wanted to keep the Emperor. We told ’em we’d tell ’em how to keep him, but we’d make the terms.’

Moreover, the August 11, 1945 Allied response referred to the Emperor's continuing role in Japanese government: "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers" (Butow, pg. 245). Sec. of War Stimson later explained, "the Allied reply... implicitly recognized the Emperor's position by prescribing that his power must be subject to the orders of the Allied supreme commander" (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 627).http://educ.jmu.edu/~vannorwc/assets/ghist 102-150/pages/readings/long.html

http://www.thehistoryreader.com/contemporary-history/james-byrnes-japans-conditional-surrender/
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.


leaflets/radio transmissions dropped over japan with both conditional offer to surrender and the US response gaurenteeing the Emp is to remain, if its a regection, both US and Japan would know the japs sought to surrender but were rejected, instead the oposite was known by all, that the condition was acepted.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...s/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html

Two paragraphs then gave the Japanese surrender offer verbatim and the Byrnes response indicating the Allies’ willingness to accept that offer. OWI repeated the same message continuously over station KSAI.

Emp knew he was to remain, and acepted the unconditional surrender of the armed forces, who in peace did as they did in war, lined up to die for him, absolving their god Emp from any war crime involvment.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender

Video at foot of page

40 mins in the chief Historian gives his acount.

 

[Arilou]

Sadly you think your arguing with my opinion, your not your arguing with Truman’s, which in large part is why it’s taught as I have posted it from. The links provided demonstrate that if your view is correct, Japan would not, could not, accept it.

No, they did accept it. The Surrender documents clearly state it, the US (or rather, the Allied Supreme Commander) retained the ability to arrange matters as he saw fit. If you have some other binding document that says differently, provide them: The Surrender documents do not say what you think they do. Nor do the counter proposal state what you say it does (indeed, it says more or less the opposite, that no guarantee of keeping the Emperor is going to be given)

Again, there might be implicit understandings of the nature of "The US has the right to remove the emperor but won't do so", but the explicit documents? They clearly demand unconditional surrender and explicitly states that the Allied Supreme Commander can take "such steps as he deems neccessary".

EDIT: For clarificiation, you need to show not only that Truman believed the emperor should be retained, but that he guaranteed the Japanese this. This is not apparent from the documents you have provided.

 

[Henry IX]

The Japanese emperor's position in the surrender documents is that of the accepted head of government at the time of surrender. The treaty EXPLICITY gives the occupying power the right to remove the emperor if they consider that to by the 'freely expressed will' of the Japanese people. The fact that the Japanese people wished to keep the emperor does NOT mean that his survival as head of state was guaranteed by the treaty, only that they would not remove him in the face of direct opposition from the Japanese people. Given the mess that Japan had been left in by the war it was certainly possible for the blame for the war to laid at his feet and have him removed.

The Americans decided that retaining him, and having him actively cooperate with and endorse the occupation authority, was the easiest way to govern the country but this does NOT mean that the instrument of surrender guaranteed his authority.

The treaty only met the Japanese demand for the retention of the Emperor to the extent that they did not demand his removal and that the Japanese people would have a role in deciding his survival.

Japan made no reply to the Potsdam ultimatum. So please dont invent history.

Silence cannot be infered to mean aceptence or rejection. Hence your claim is invention, popular, but invention.

Silence in reply to an ultimatum IS a refusal. That is what makes it an ultimatum. An ultimatum is a demand for action combined with a threat if that action is not undertaken within a time limit. By not taking that action within the nominated time frame you are refusing the ultimatum. Whether you answer it or not has NO impact on wether the ultimatum is accepted or not. This argument is both disingenuous and false.

Please do not accuse the wide range of different posters who are, as a collective, very well read with a diverse range of views, of not understanding history simply because they disagree with your views.

 

[Holmes]

The Japanese emperor's position in the surrender documents is that of the accepted head of government at the time of surrender. The treaty EXPLICITY gives the occupying power the right to remove the emperor if they consider that to by the 'freely expressed will' of the Japanese people. The fact that the Japanese people wished to keep the emperor does NOT mean that his survival as head of state was guaranteed by the treaty, only that they would not remove him in the face of direct opposition from the Japanese people. Given the mess that Japan had been left in by the war it was certainly possible for the blame for the war to laid at his feet and have him removed.

The Americans decided that retaining him, and having him actively cooperate with and endorse the occupation authority, was the easiest way to govern the country but this does NOT mean that the instrument of surrender guaranteed his authority.

The treaty only met the Japanese demand for the retention of the Emperor to the extent that they did not demand his removal and that the Japanese people would have a role in deciding his survival..

So you acept its a conditional offer of surrender, met by a counter proposal with a further condition and is acepted.

First point, i dont believe i posted anything contra to your post, you should be argueing with another, who denies this, but will expand.

The only authority the supreme commander has to remove the Emp was if the people of japan desire that to occur, just because the US thought this was a likly eventuality, and the Emp and cabinet, thought/knew it was not, Hirohito acepted this counter proposal. When the US counter proposal was translated into Japanese, "control of the supreme commander " came out, out not "subject to", and was not aceptable to Hirohito, it was only when subject to was correctly translated did Hirohito accede.

You are correct its not a guarante, but acording to treaty law the US has signed up to, only the people of Japan can remove the Emp from his throne post surrender.

Silence in reply to an ultimatum IS a refusal. That is what makes it an ultimatum. An ultimatum is a demand for action combined with a threat if that action is not undertaken within a time limit. By not taking that action within the nominated time frame you are refusing the ultimatum. Whether you answer it or not has NO impact on wether the ultimatum is accepted or not. This argument is both disingenuous and false..

Now we do disagree. Its how the law works.*
If i phone you up and demand you stop your dog barking at night or i will come the next day, and shoot it. You make no comment and hang up. Does not mean you acept that i can shoot your dog.

*The rule of the civil law is that silence is not an acknowledgment or denial in every case, qui tacet, non utique fatetur: sed tamen verum est, eum non negaro.

Next you refer to a time limit that does not exist in the Potsdam declaration.

My arguement is historicly acurate, already posted this in a link but you clearly have not read it.
https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/tech-journals/assets/files/mokusatsu.pdf
Reporters in Tokyo questioned Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki about his government's reaction to the Potsdam Declaration. Since no formal decision had been reached at the time, Suzuki, falling back on the politician's old standby answer to reporters, replied that he was withholding comment. He used the Japanese word mokusatsu, derived from the word for "silence."Alas, international news agencies saw fit to tell the world that in the eyes of the Japanese government the ultimatum was "not worthy of comment." U. S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit, decided on stern measures.

I posted another link that has the then US military translation, which does not even include no comment as being one of the possible meanings of mokusatsu, and its this advice that policy was made on.

By your logic, US was rejecting Japaese peace initatives.
On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter."

Japans reply to Potsdam came on Aug 10, offering a conditional surrender.


Your last claim

Whether you answer it or not has NO impact on wether the ultimatum is accepted or not. This argument is both disingenuous and false..

Cleary the content of any reply determines if its, aceptence, counter proposal or rejection of the ultimatum. Japan had yet to reply to Potsdam, meerly making no comment, as the government had yet to meet to consider its reply.

As to your self contradicting sentence, i have no idea if you believe that or not. It appears you wanted to sound clever, and failled utterly.

Please do not accuse the wide range of different posters who are, as a collective, very well read with a diverse range of views, of not understanding history simply because they disagree with your views.

He did show a misunderstanding of history. Its not a dispute over what the facts mean, but what the facts are in the first place .Its a popular opinion, formed from reading post war acounts that today read like propoganda, not actual history. This is changeing over time as more pass through the education system. Just like you not knowing when japan replied to Potsdam.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-opinions-have-shifted-on-use-of-atomic-bomb/

 

[Henry IX]

Cleary the content of any reply determines if its, aceptence, counter proposal or rejection of the ultimatum. Japan had yet to reply to Potsdam, meerly making no comment, as the government had yet to meet to consider its reply.

As to your self contradicting sentence, i have no idea if you believe that or not. It appears you wanted to sound clever, and failled utterly.

Article 5 of the Postam decleration: Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. (emphasis is my own). There is a clear statement that delay will be classified as a failure to comply. No reply = negative. A lack of answer is an answer (in the negative).

If my English is a little unclear to you I apologise, but the statement I made was not contradictory in the context in which it was made. Please stop insulting posters by accusing me of trying to sound clever. I was making a point. I do this because I find discussions about history interesting and I like engaging with people who hold views different from my own or who have information I do not have. Since joining this forum I have changed many of my opinions due to the arguments and evidence of other posters. However, I do not appreciate people who substitute insults and insinuations for evidence and arguments. I am not the first poster you have insulted in this thread. Please treat others with respect even if you disagree with them, as I have treated your responses with respect.

Now we do disagree. Its how the law works.*

It is how ultimatums work. If the police tell you to drop the gun or they will shoot you and you continue to hold the weapon even if you are not shooting with it they have legal grounds to shoot you. Illegitimate threats (I will shoot your dog) have no legal merit but an ultimatum issued by a legitimate authority does have legal force. In addition, in negotiations during a war, particularly a war started illegally by a power, as Japan's invasion of China clearly and explicitly was, there is no recourse to law by the power in breach of international law - at least in the negotiations to end the war.

Thank you for the article you linked to, which does show a change of public opinion. I, however, reject the conclusion that this has any relevance to the truth. Just because people, who largely fail to have a good appreciation of the historical situation, a point you have belaboured repeatedly, have changed their opinion does not support either of our cases. The article was interesting and it does show the way attitudes change over time and reasons for this would also make a fascinating discussion.

 

[Arilou]

So you acept its a conditional offer of surrender, met by a counter proposal with a further condition and is acepted.

No, it's an unconditional offer of surrender, the japanese reply with an offer of conditional surrender, and the US restates it's position as the surrender being unconditional (referring back to earlier discussions)

The discussion essentially goes "Surrender." "We will if we get to keep the emperor." "We decide what happens with the emperor." "Okay, we surrender anyway."

The only authority the supreme commander has to remove the Emp was if the people of japan desire that to occur,

No, his Authority to rule the Japanese People was subject to the Supreme Commander (as was the japanese government in general) this very clearly gives the Supreme Commander the right to reshape the japanese governing structure as he sees fit in the interim between the surrender and the point, somewhere in the future, where the japanese people may exert their will.

You are correct its not a guarante, but acording to treaty law the US has signed up to, only the people of Japan can remove the Emp from his throne post surrender.

No, this is not what it says. It merely says that the final disposition will be up to the japanese people, and that until that point (and note that no specific timeframe is noted) whether or not the Emperor, the Government of Japan, or a small akita dog gets to rule Japan is up to the Supreme Commander.

 

[Holmes]

Article 5 of the Postam decleration: Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. (emphasis is my own). There is a clear statement that delay will be classified as a failure to comply. No reply = negative. A lack of answer is an answer (in the negative)..

You claimed a non existent time limit exists in potsdam, brook no delay is not a time limit. If there was a time limit, the offer ceases to be in force, but we know it was in force and when japan replied to it.

Note, They deviate and acept an alternative from them conditions, by acepting the Emp to remain. They do this when Japan replies to the demand with a conditional offer to surrender unconditionaly the armed forces of Japan.

Italy offers to surrender on the 15th August, its condition for unconditional surrender is the landing of an airborne div around Rome, to prevent Germans from taking over the capital and the government, 7th September this planned air drop is cancelled and the condition not being met, Italians try and pull out of a surrender, warned of the serious consequences if they do, by Ike, they surrender on the terms they offerd on the 15th, on Sept 8th.

Was 24 days brooking no delay or just how long it took.

If my English is a little unclear to you I apologise, but the statement I made was not contradictory in the context in which it was made. Please stop insulting posters by accusing me of trying to sound clever. I was making a point. I do this because I find discussions about history interesting and I like engaging with people who hold views different from my own or who have information I do not have. Since joining this forum I have changed many of my opinions due to the arguments and evidence of other posters. However, I do not appreciate people who substitute insults and insinuations for evidence and arguments. I am not the first poster you have insulted in this thread. Please treat others with respect even if you disagree with them, as I have treated your responses with respect..

Your point was the following.

Whether you answer it or not has NO impact on wether the ultimatum is accepted or not. .

This is self contradition.

It is how ultimatums work. If the police tell you to drop the gun or they will shoot you and you continue to hold the weapon even if you are not shooting with it they have legal grounds to shoot you. Illegitimate threats (I will shoot your dog) have no legal merit but an ultimatum issued by a legitimate authority does have legal force. In addition, in negotiations during a war, particularly a war started illegally by a power, as Japan's invasion of China clearly and explicitly was, there is no recourse to law by the power in breach of international law - at least in the negotiations to end the war.

Not in law. Its how the law works. Your confused over how the law works. Your confused over the soveriegn powers, in each individual there is individual sovreignty equal to anothers, then there supremacy in domestic law giving the police certain legal rights to use force against the individual. In nation States who are equal soverign powers there is no supremacy to appeal too. Individuals silince to another individuals ultimatium confers neither aceptence or denial. Nation state making no comment to anothers ultimatum confers neither aceptence or rejection. When they counter propose, its then they make a reply. US was at war with japan over its attack on Pearl harbour, not for anything else, its a war between two soveriegn powers.

Your last sentence is another studb in self contradiction, if japan is in an ilegal war you claim it cannot lawfully end the war. Bizare.

Thank you for the article you linked to, which does show a change of public opinion. I, however, reject the conclusion that this has any relevance to the truth. Just because people, who largely fail to have a good appreciation of the historical situation, a point you have belaboured repeatedly, have changed their opinion does not support either of our cases. The article was interesting and it does show the way attitudes change over time and reasons for this would also make a fascinating discussion.

Truth is a subjective viewpoint. Education teaches facts, for over 2 decades education has been changing viewpoints by presenting facts. Facts not given to the wartime population, facts not given post war generation either. Opinion polls reflect a change of viewpoint, the only new element is exposure to new facts.

In 1945 polls, 10-13% were in favour of the extinction of the Japanese race.

Done with this topic, unless you can post anything of real intrest.

 

[Director]

This is pages of raging argument over nothing.

Here are the facts:

1) The US demands unconditional surrender of the axis powers. This is not enforced on Italy.
2) Japan offers to surrender but on very favorable terms. The US declines.
3) The US counter-offer states the US, as the occupying power, will decide whether or not to keep the Emperor and if so, on what terms
4) Japan accepts, not knowing what the fate of the Emperor will be.

I don't have any information as to any possible back-channel assurances so I doubt that there were any.

5) MacArthur (and the US government) decode to keep the Emperor as a powerless figurehead. They could have tried him for war crimes, exiled him, made him a legal civilian and and left him alone, reinstated him as God-Emperor, made him a bath-tub toy or shot him out of a cannon at the circus.

That means the Japanese accepted the surrender terms without condition, trusting the US would do the right thing by the emperor.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

This is pages of raging argument over nothing

Good luck explaining that to the participants.

 

[Holmes]

This is pages of raging argument over nothing.

Here are the facts:

1) The US demands unconditional surrender of the axis powers. This is not enforced on Italy.
2) Japan offers to surrender but on very favorable terms. The US declines.
3) The US counter-offer states the US, as the occupying power, will decide whether or not to keep the Emperor and if so, on what terms
4) Japan accepts, not knowing what the fate of the Emperor will be.

I don't have any information as to any possible back-channel assurances so I doubt that there were any.

5) MacArthur (and the US government) decode to keep the Emperor as a powerless figurehead. They could have tried him for war crimes, exiled him, made him a legal civilian and and left him alone, reinstated him as God-Emperor, made him a bath-tub toy or shot him out of a cannon at the circus.

That means the Japanese accepted the surrender terms without condition, trusting the US would do the right thing by the emperor.

Fact free post.

 

[Director]

@Holmes - Trolling.

 

[Holmes]

Fact free post.

 

[Arilou]

This is pages of raging argument over nothing.

Here are the facts:

1) The US demands unconditional surrender of the axis powers. This is not enforced on Italy.
2) Japan offers to surrender but on very favorable terms. The US declines.
3) The US counter-offer states the US, as the occupying power, will decide whether or not to keep the Emperor and if so, on what terms
4) Japan accepts, not knowing what the fate of the Emperor will be.

I don't have any information as to any possible back-channel assurances so I doubt that there were any.

5) MacArthur (and the US government) decode to keep the Emperor as a powerless figurehead. They could have tried him for war crimes, exiled him, made him a legal civilian and and left him alone, reinstated him as God-Emperor, made him a bath-tub toy or shot him out of a cannon at the circus.

That means the Japanese accepted the surrender terms without condition, trusting the US would do the right thing by the emperor.

For the record, that is pretty much exactly what I said.