BUFDRVR wrote:

Wrong. The U.S. chose to allow the Emporer to stay because they felt
it would
allow for a more secure occupation.

Of course they did, that why the US changed its policy of unconditional
surrender. They knew that if the Emperor is not allowed to stay, no
amount of nukes will solve the problem. In the end the Japanese got what
they wanted in a surrender deal.

Wrong. No reputable historian would agree with that statement.

Since you are not one of them, your opinion, while appreciated, makes
little impression on me.

What history books are you reading? Truman never briefed Stalin on the results.
He briefed Churchill, but never told Stalin a thing.

Apparently not the same books you were reading in school :-) Would
Truman's own memoirs satisfy you?

"On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of
unusual destructive force. The Russian Premier showed no special
interest. All he said was he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make
"good use of it against the Japanese." Harry S. Truman, Year of
Decisions , 1955, p. 416

How about Churchill's memoirs?

""I was perhaps five yards away, and I watched with the closest
attention the momentous talk. I knew what the President was going to do.
What was vital to measure was its effect on Stalin. I can see it all as
if it were yesterday. He seemed to be delighted. A new bomb! Of
extraordinary power! Probably decisive on the whole Japanese war! What a
bit of luck! This was my impression at the moment, and I was sure that
he had no idea of the significance of what he was being told. " Winston
Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy , 1953, p. 669

I can give you several dozen other references or you can visit your
local library and lookup interviews and memoirs of James Byrnes, Charles
Bohlen, Anthony Eden, or Georgii Zhukov.

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject=Newsgr0ups_resp0 nse