Fair enough. I've read a ton of material on it too, being a bit of a nut on the War in the Pacific, and I think the Japanese would have surrended regardless. And when they did, a lot of fanatical army officers would have killed themselves (which many did) or tried to stage a revolt (which also happened). Still, I think that a blockade, coupled with the Russian attacks in Manchuria would have brought a Japanese surrender in 1945...and I do not agree with the concept of demanding unconditional surrender of an opponent. Conditional surrender is always possible, and leaves the door open for some negotiations, which is wise.

I really don't think we are ever going to agree on this. :-) But you're right that it's an interesting subject, that's for sure.

The thing about the Japanese...they follow orders and sublimate their identity to the group more than westerners. This made them very unwilling to surrender, as long as they were ordered to fight and die if necessary. On the other hand, as soon as they were instructed not to fight, the public in general were extremely cooperative with occupying Allied forces. They were following orders and doing their duty, as usual. It must rank as one of the most peaceful and successful postwar occupations of all time.