Why the atomic bomb didn't really end the Second World War
Hirohito had already given his view, four days before, that the Allied ultimatum sent from the Potsdam Conference the previous month – that Japan must either surrender or face 'prompt and utter destruction' – should, as long as he could retain his throne, be accepted. Now, in the bunker, Suzuki Kantarō, the prime minister, invited the three opponents of peace on American terms to talk first: the war minister, followed by the chiefs of the navy and army staffs, voiced their objections. Then Suzuki, defying constitutional practice, turned to the emperor and asked him to give his opinion. Silence fell. The emperor reiterated his position to the assembly, and added, with finality: 'I would like you all to agree with me.' As he spoke, he had tears in his eyes. Soon, according to eyewitnesses, the whole group was sobbing aloud.
Note, however, that Hirohito made no mention of 'surrender', a word that was anathema to the Japanese military; he spoke only of the 'termination of the war'. That euphemism was designed to show the Japanese people that the emperor was ending the war for their good, not because they had been defeated. 'Termination' became the standard term in Japan, even though the Allies treated the declaration then, and the West has since, as surrender in all but name.
The emperor's decision was relayed to the American government, while Hirohito recorded a speech for his people to be broadcast the following day, August 15. Yet in Japan, this was by no means the end of the crisis. On the morning of the broadcast, a unit of soldiers broke into the imperial palace and hunted vainly for the recording, hoping to destroy it. They were eventually overcome, and order restored. Another group tried to storm the broadcasting station, without success. The broadcast was successfully made – but many listeners found it hard to hear, partly because the emperor spoke indistinctly and in traditional courtly Japanese, partly because of poor reception. Those who understood what was being said, many of them bowing before the radio, cried at the news, or were angered by it, or merely sagged in relief that the ordeal of total war was over.
For the army and navy leaders who had dissented, however, there seemed only one way out. The war minister, Korechika Anami, committed ritual suicide (seppuku) in his office that morning; eight other leading generals and admirals followed suit. Some army and air-force units even refused to accept their emperor's decision. A naval kamikaze squadron dropped leaflets over Tokyo telling those below that the broadcast was fake. Another unit of soldiers seized hills in the centre of the city; most gave up when told that it was what the emperor wanted, but one group took their own lives using hand grenades. One air corps refused to disarm, and briefly threatened to shoot down American aircraft as they landed to begin the occupation of Japan. (The formal surrender would not occur until September 2, allowing time for sufficient Allied troops and materiel, principally American, to be stationed on Japanese soil. Those men only began to arrive on August 28.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
40 minutes ago
- STV News
What would UK recognition of Palestine mean for crisis in Gaza?
However things unfold over the next month, what we witnessed yesterday was a moment of history. Keir Starmer's announcement that the UK is prepared to recognise an independent state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly meeting in September has been awaited, at least by some in the region, for decades. That's how long the idea of a two-state solution to the conflict at the heart of the Middle East has been in circulation. Lately, though, the term has felt hollow and lopsided. There aren't two states at the negotiating table. When the Middle East peace process felt vibrant and hopeful, there were at least the makings of a Palestinian state. But peace is now a distant memory, and Gaza is in ruins, and starving. So the Prime Minister's statement may have been symbolic, but it was still significant. There are now two members of the UN Security Council prepared to recognise Palestine – with the UK joining France in stating its intentions. As the former colonial power in the region, and the closest ally of the United States to do so, the UK's statement carries the greatest weight. It's striking that Starmer chose to call his emergency cabinet meeting and make that statement, a day after meeting US President Donald Trump in Scotland. The US does not want its allies recognising Palestine – indeed, Trump pulled his negotiators out of ceasefire talks just days ago, saying Hamas doesn't want a deal. But there has been a diplomatic and political shift taking place, as distressing images of starving children have emerged from Gaza, and warnings from aid agencies have grown about a looming, deadly famine. The fact that Trump was willing to publicly disagree with America's ally, Israel, on the steps of his Turnberry golf resort, in front of the world's TV cameras, and say that children were going hungry in Gaza, showed just how far global opinion has shifted. The UK Government now sees an opening to use recognition of Palestinian statehood as leverage, with Israel, but primarily with the US. Even before the threat of recognition was confirmed, the Israeli Government had begun loosening its grip on the flow of aid into Gaza. Under American pressure, the hope is that more aid will be allowed through – but according to aid agencies, it will have to be much more, to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. At the same time, it's also true that yesterday's announcement was about domestic politics. A third of MPs have signed a letter demanding recognition of Palestinian statehood, most of them Labour MPs. Privately, a number of cabinet ministers are reported to agree. The Prime Minister couldn't ignore that pressure forever. The SNP and Liberal Democrats argue that Palestinian statehood shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip; on the other side of the debate, the Conservatives and Reform agree with the Israeli Government that the announcement is a reward for Hamas and an incentive to hang on to the remaining Israeli hostages. For Starmer's announcement to not just be symbolic – for it to be a return to a peace process in the Middle East, and the start of a two-state solution – a great deal else will have to happen. The Prime Minister set conditions for both sides for British recognition of a Palestinian state to happen, that neither will be happy to agree to: abandoning claims on West Bank land for the Israelis; for Hamas, disarmament and its effective disbanding. From where things stand now, those demands don't seem realistic. Ultimately, the decision over how this conflict unfolds, and whether it ends, rests with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Increasingly, world powers are coming to the conclusion that recognition of Palestine is the only way to get his attention. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Trump announces 25% tariff on India plus penalties for buying Russian energy
The US president said on Wednesday that India 'is our friend' but its tariffs 'are far too high' on US goods. He added that India buys military equipment and oil from Russia, which Mr Trump said has enabled the war in Ukraine. As a result, he intends to charge an additional 'penalty' starting on Friday as part of revised tariffs on multiple countries. The announcement came after a series of negotiated trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia — all of which Mr Trump said would open markets for American goods while enabling the US to raise tax rates on imports. The president views tariff revenues as a way to help offset the budget deficit increases tied to his recent income tax cuts and generate more domestic factory jobs. While he has effectively wielded tariffs as a cudgel to reset the terms of trade, the economic impact is uncertain as most economists expect a slowdown in US growth and greater inflationary pressures as the costs of the taxes are passed along to domestic businesses and consumers. At a population exceeding 1.4 billion people, India is the world's largest country and a possible geopolitical counterbalance to China. India and Russia have close relations, and New Delhi has not supported western sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine. When Mr Trump met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February, the US president said India would start buying American oil and natural gas. He discussed his policies on trade and tariffs with reporters accompanying him on Tuesday on the flight home after a five-day visit to Scotland. He declined to comment then about reports that India was bracing for a US tariff rate of at least 25%, saying: 'We're going to see.' Mr Trump also said the outlines of a trade agreement with India had not yet been finalised.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The Online Safety Act is plumbing new depths of stupidity
As anyone who has endured a pointless argument on the internet probably knows, there's a decidedly useful rule for such situations. It's called Godwin's Law. Coined in 1990 by American lawyer Mike Godwin, in its most well-known version it states that in any sufficiently lengthy online row, the first person to invoke the Nazis – whether as comparison, example, or evidence – instantly loses by virtue of their luridly stupid exaggeration. Now it seems we have a shiny new British equivalent. Let's call it Jimmy's Law. The principle is similar: anyone who drags infamous paedophile Jimmy Savile into a political argument has already lost. Why? Because they've reached up for the most grotesque, emotive analogy in the rhetorical pantry: an act of political flailing that signals not moral clarity, but a lack of real argument. Put it another way: if you're mentioning Savile, you sound daft, you sound objectionable, and, above all, you sound desperate. Plenty have broken Jimmy's Law before – not least Boris Johnson, who, as Prime Minister, pitiably tried to smear then–opposition leader Keir Starmer by invoking Savile. But this week saw a new and even more egregious case. Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, claimed that Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was – brace yourself – on Team Jimmy Savile in opposing the contentious Online Safety Act. Kyle's exact words, on Sky News, were: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he would be perpetrating his crimes online – and Nigel Farage is saying that he is on their side.' Yes, it's cringeworthy. Yes, it's hyperbolic and foolish. And yes, it's a naked attempt to distract from the fact that Peter Kyle – a man so well suited to his role as Technology Minister that he appears to have no background in technology, no experience in the technology sector, no career with technology companies, no obvious technological training, and a degree in 'International Development' – has no argument. Because the Online Safety Act, birthed by Conservative MPs supposedly worried about hurty words on social media, is a total disaster: for online discourse, for the UK tech sector, and possibly for the future of free speech itself. Why? Let us count the ways. The OSA, already pejoratively rebranded by its millions of worldwide critics as the Online Surveillance Act, has begun to smother the internet under a morass of bureaucratic fear and ill-defined obligations, far beyond its limited and worthy aim of 'protecting kids from porn by asking them to prove their age.' Since the Act came into force (originally in 2023, but with greater effect in recent days), the absurdities have piled up fast. Entire Reddit communities – from harmless subreddits about cider to basic vape advice chatrooms – have gone half-dark, unable to easily implement the age verification systems. Niche forums for LGBT teens, survivors of abuse, and mental health support groups have shrunk away rather than risk falling foul of vague 'harmful content' clauses. A forum about 'fixed gear cycling in London' (yes, really) shut down because it feared it couldn't afford the compliance overhead. Bloggers now face the threat of the newly empowered Ofcom commissars jackbooting into their homes simply because they allow unmoderated comments. Indie developers are meanwhile withdrawing apps rather than navigate opaque new obligations. Tiny academic discussion boards are self-censoring, worried that robust historical debate might be misread as hate speech, or something 'harmful' – a truly terrifying concept, if you think about it for more than ten seconds (a cognitive task apparently beyond the average MP). Even porn filters, supposedly the law's core goal, have ensnared art, education, and health sites in overzealous net sweeps. All the while, actual abusers and scammers, who rarely host content on UK servers, will likely carry on largely undisturbed. The result? Not a safer internet, but a smaller, duller, more paranoid one. A place where freedom shrinks, innovation flees, and everything begins to sound eerily and deadeningly pre-approved, like Russian poetry under Stalin. It is already noticeable that the OSA is not being used to shut down Pornhub or xHamster for adolescents, but to silence discussion – or even basic news – about those topics most awkward for the world's worst government: Pakistani rape gangs, illegal immigration, protests about asylum hotels, and all that dreadful jazz that soundtracks Britain's decline. What's more, the OSA threatens to destroy Britain's AI industry – one of the few areas where we might actually be exploiting our post-Brexit freedoms. Just as the EU ties itself in knots with dim, restrictive AI regulations, we are busily ushering in something arguably worse. Looking through the Act's 200 densely bureaucratic pages for anti-tech landmines is like looking through Proust for long sentences. But already tech insiders have expressed alarm at particular gems. For example, next year the OSA will allow Ofcom to require companies to hand over any information about their algorithms as well as internal documents, data and software source code as part of its 'regulatory functions'. The result is a legal ambiguity so vast it could engulf an entire industry. Startups will die under the compliance burden. Larger tech and AI firms will shift labs and headquarters abroad. And Britain's AI industry, briefly a potential world leader, will find itself reduced to the digital equivalent of a wine bar shut down for not having a government-approved corkscrew made of chocolate. How has it come to this? How has Britain ended up with perhaps the worst piece of legislation since King Cnut brought in his Stop the Tides Act of 1023? I can hazard a guess, and it is evidenced by one of the progenitors of the Act: Nadine Dorries. Apparently, when she was Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Dorries once walked into a meeting with Microsoft and bluntly asked when they were 'going to get rid of algorithms'. This is an Act devised by silly people, passed by silly people, enforced by silly people. And now it is being sold to us by silly and desperate people who know they've screwed up, but nonetheless think they can win a crucial argument about technology by invoking dead, disgraced disc jockeys. Britain, we are ill-served.
