Hiroshima, Nagasaki and linguistic miscommunications

[Bonobo]

http://thisjapaneselife.org/2013/03/06/mokusatsu-hiroshima-japan/


But there’s a single sentence that seems a bit dodgy. The museum asserts that when the Allies presented terms of surrender, the Japanese government was contemplating surrender and had yet to reply when Hiroshima was bombed.

This was never in my history books, but then not much is. The typical story among Americans is that Japan had refused to surrender and was bombed out of necessity; only the bomb could have halted a frenzy of suicidal nationalism. Japan asserts that it was planning to surrender but was bombed anyway.

Turns out, there was a miscommunication.

Mokusatsu

With this all occurring behind the scenes, Suzuki gave a boilerplate answer: “No comment.”
Tokyo reporters could have gone either way. They decided that the Premier said the Potsdam Declaration was “not worthy of discussion.” Coming from the Premier of the Japanese Government, the Allies saw this as an official refusal of terms. It seemed insane given the state of Japan, but so, too, were kamikaze pilots and an army of teenage girls armed with leather crafting tools. One could easily assume that the entire nation would destroy itself rather than surrender – that was, after all, what it had said for the entire duration of the war.

In Japan, the view is that Suzuki said they were thinking about it.

Hiroshima was bombed within 10 days.

[elleng]

1. AWFUL, TRAGIC,

and not a surprise. Just think of all the instances in your/our lives when miscommunication occurs: How often every month/week/day/hour?

[defacto7]

2. A really fine article

I have an interest in linguistic nuance and it's effect on social situations. In this grand context it takes on a new meaning, a grave meaning. As hard as it is to know the details of a time 68 years ago under such powerful human angst, I would expect the miscommunication to have been in a simple form as portrayed. Today's detailed communications would more likely be subtle and manipulative. I think it has not become more simple because of technological ease, it's become more complicated due to the manipulative nature of politics.

[davidpdx]

3. Any communications between Tokyo and Washington would have taken at least a couple of days

The boilerplate "No comment" was a mistake by Japan. If I came up and ask you a question you have no obligation to answer it. This begs the question: Did he have to give an answer? Was it a pride issue that forced him to give an answer?

I wonder when they say press if they mean Japanese press, foreign press or both? There really is no clarification on that point. That would make a difference.

As to the communication problem, Japan has a very high level of uncertainty avoidance, in fact one of the highest in the world at 92. The US comes at half that at 46 (this from the work of Dr. Geert Hofstede). One could certainly argue that Japan was highly committed to the war and they were reluctant to change course and surrender.

http://geert-hofstede.com/japan.html (note you can compare Japan's cultural traits to that of the US on the site)

The US had been fighting a war on several fronts for about 3 1/2 years and Japan was the only country that had not been defeated or surrendered. Whether Japan would have surrendered is an unanswered question. I personally don't think they would have and I think an invasion would have been very bad for both sides. It was clear that Japan was ready and willing to put women and children on the lines to defend the country. People are disgusted by the fact that some nations use children as soldiers, what really would have been the difference if Japan had done this? Yes, that was 68 years ago, but still Japan should have been held to the same standard had they done that.

Even given the time lapse in communication, 10 days in the mist of a war was plenty of time. Korea was still under control by Japan so in essence they were still a threat given they controlled a country that didn't belong to them (I'm not sure if any others were under their control at the time, but it Korea was still "annexed&quot . The dropping of leaflets is another factor. If an enemy drops leaflets stating surrender or face ultimate destruction you ask yourself "are they bluffing?" By answering yes, you are taking a gamble on being wrong leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. By answering no, you are taking a huge hit in pride for the country in defeat but being allowed to exist. Which one would you not want to be wrong about?

By the way, as you probably have guessed I don't buy this line of argument. I think they believed the Allies were bluffing and that the next step was going to be an invasion. That's what they were preparing for. Maybe logically an invasion seemed like the reasonable guess to them given the way the US took all of the islands in the pacific. They expected the continuation of what the US had been doing during the entire war.