Lionel212008: It has been established that the mistranslation did act as a catalyst for the bomb being dropped....there is no question about that.
Since you lack knowledge of it does not necessarily delineate that the incident is false.
Well, there is a possibility that this is an urban legend considering that you cannot believe everything that you read in print but I haven't come across any information that debunks it as yet.
There
is question about that. Just because you find a few other places that list the
same information doesn't increase the validity.
And just because it's written does not necessarily delineate the incident is true. The burden of proof falls on the
claimant, not the person rebuking it.
Quite a possibility that this is urban legend. Again, I point to exhibit A which is historian's take on the subject. Media is not obligated to report truth.
~
To take one portion of one source you listed : "Furthermore, Sakomizu suspects that the misinterpretation on the part of the United States was
intentional. "
Which basically implies that,
at best, this was used as an excuse. A fabricated excuse at that. Which further implies that they had already decided based on
other factors, and allowed this to be a scapegoat.
But the weasel word there is "suspects" which means, even as these accounts go and their attribution to this any mistranslation, the connection isn't absolutely proven, only speculative.
Another source backs this line of thought with "Truman was unable to alter the terms of unconditional surrender because the cry for unconditional surrender was too strong and had gained too much momentum" also implying that they had made their decision to carry through regardless of something as trivially impacting as a mistranslation. In other words, they already had adequate motive, which fits with the historical accounts.
Additional evidence to support this comes in the form of the following :
"The allied newspapers interpreted the word mokusatsu to mean “reject" (Brooks, 164). Truman concurred with this definition and said, “[Japan's] leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum” (Brooks, 164). Since the American newspapers reported the interpretation of the controversial word to mean "reject" Japan was able to see America's interpretation of their response. However, “there is no record of an effort by the Japanese government to overtly or covertly transmit to the Allies any hint that mokusatsu did not precisely reflect its attitude” (Frank, 234). Additionally if Hirohito, who read the newspapers daily, had been concerned about the ambiguity of Japan's response and possible misinterpretation of its meaning, to this very day "we have no record of it" (Bix, 91).
Japan's secret cables intercepted and decoded by the United States failed to suggest Japan had any desire to surrender."
They basically state that although Japan had the means and information necessary to correct any miscommunication, they
chose not to do so. Again, implying that his was merely an excuse to act.
Again, none of these sources are necessarily credible which calls into question anything written by them.
