History Series by jwoodie: Unconditional Surrender to End WW2

[jwoodie]

As an historian, my only regret is not being around after the 100 year anniversaries of recent events, when all of the misinformation about these events finally begins to wane. For example, it has only been in the last decade that the responsibility for WW1 has become an objective topic of research and discussion. (Hint: Look across the Channel.)

However, WW2 is still wrapped in the protective bubble of being the last "good" war. Interestingly, while the Nazi death camps are used as an ex post facto justification for that war, the Japanese death camps have not. Why is this?

One answer may be in the "unconditional surrender" proclamation at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill (and endorsed in absentia by Stalin). While the ageing President just wanted to end the war and cement US primacy in the world, the other leaders had their own ideas. Churchill wanted to save the British Empire by ensuring that Germany would not again be able to challenge it, and Stalin saw it as a way to eliminate future opposition to his takeover of Eastern Europe. The resulting dismemberment of Germany worked out well for Great Britain in the short term and the USSR for a longer period, but it did nothing for the US other than to create an unending obligation to maintain a huge military presence in Europe after the War.

In contrast, the US treated Japan's "unconditional surrender" in a completely different manner. In the first place, this surrender was not unconditional; it was based on the Japanese Emperor retaining his titular position. Secondly, Japan was allowed to retain its territorial sovereignty. Lastly, the prosecution of Japan's "war criminals" paled in comparison with their German counterparts. This deviation from the Casablanca declaration benefited the US (and the surrendering country) much more than the utter destruction of Germany.

The US suffered many more military casualties in Europe than in fighting Japan. And despite the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, Germany suffered many more civilian casualties. So which was the better approach to ending WW2?

 

[1srelluc]

I remember the Civil War Centennial in my AO, they went all out, there was even a full company of mounted Cavalry depicting Mosby's Men stopping a train.

One of the old plantation houses in town (Bel-Air) was opened to the public and all the ladies there were all dressed in CW era clothing.....A Robert E. Lee look-a-like (who stayed at the plantation several times) was there.

There were parades, drills, and cannon demonstrations.

There was even a reenactment of the Battle of Front Royal with a cast of hundreds that went through the town and down to the river with onlookers following on foot.

At the end of it, on the banks of the Shenandoah, was a huge BBQ that was open to everyone.....Even the Yankees.

It was great fun for me, being a kid at the time.

 

[jwoodie]

I remember the Civil War Centennial

It seems that centennial celebrations mark the change from current history to historical events, due in part to the passing of personal connections with actual participants. This allows for a more objective analysis of these events.

 

[Mushroom]

However, WW2 is still wrapped in the protective bubble of being the last "good" war. Interestingly, while the Nazi death camps are used as an ex post facto justification for that war, the Japanese death camps have not. Why is this?

One answer may be in the "unconditional surrender" proclamation at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill (and endorsed in absentia by Stalin). While the ageing President just wanted to end the war and cement US primacy in the world, the other leaders had their own ideas. Churchill wanted to save the British Empire by ensuring that Germany would not again be able to challenge it, and Stalin saw it as a way to eliminate future opposition to his takeover of Eastern Europe. The resulting dismemberment of Germany worked out well for Great Britain in the short term and the USSR for a longer period, but it did nothing for the US other than to create an unending obligation to maintain a huge military presence in Europe after the War.

In contrast, the US treated Japan's "unconditional surrender" in a completely different manner. In the first place, this surrender was not unconditional; it was based on the Japanese Emperor retaining his titular position. Secondly, Japan was allowed to retain its territorial sovereignty. Lastly, the prosecution of Japan's "war criminals" paled in comparison with their German counterparts. This deviation from the Casablanca declaration benefited the US (and the surrendering country) much more than the utter destruction of Germany.

First of all, you are very wrong about the demand for "unconditional surrender". That was never actually a demand, which is obvious if one even takes a moment to read the actual documents themselves.

Now the Casablanca Declaration was a bit more open, but even in that it could be seen that they were not demanding the "Unconditional Surrender" as in the nation would completely capitulate and be divided up among the conquerors as was often done in war prior to that.

The elimination of German, Japanese and Italian war power means the unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy, and Japan. That means a reasonable assurance of future world peace. It does not mean the destruction of the population of Germany, Italy, or Japan, but it does mean the destruction of the philosophies in those countries which are based on conquest and the subjugation of other people.

Even when there is some delay there is design and purposes, and as the President has said, the unconquerable will to pursue this quality, until we have procured the unconditional surrender of the criminal forces who plunged the world into storm and ruin.

And this is actually stated even better when it came to the Potsdam Declaration. By that time they had two additional years to work to use a much more clear and concise statement in the closing paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration.

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Notice, not one single mention of the surrender of the Nation itself, or the Government of Japan. Just the Armed Forces. This was a major difference when it came to warfare in the 20th century. Where the Allied Powers took a stance that the end of a war would not result in significant gains and losses of the territory of the nation they had been at war with, but if required the replacement of their government with one more inclined to peace.

And not only were the Japanese Death Camps well documented, such atrocities happened even before WWII was even recognized in Europe with atrocities like the Rape of Nanking. And it is hardly a secret they had such, or the Comfort Women. Or Unit 731. The fact they are not as well known is simply due to the fact that most historians, movies, and classes largely ignore the Pacific War and concentrate almost exclusively on the European Front.

There are tons of movies and TV shows about the Africa Campaign. D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, invading Italy and the liberation of Paris and other such events. And sure, most know of Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway and Iwo Jima. But how many who are not "into history" have heard of Tarawa? Truk Lagoon? The Battle of Saipan? The Second Battle of Guadalcanal? Tinian? Paleliu?

No, nothing was different really in Japan. There was never a demand for the dismantling of the German Government, just for the removal and trial of those who had led the nation into war. The exact same thing was done in Japan as well. One again, almost everybody was taught about the Nuremberg Trials, but few seem to know of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. The exact same thing but with Japan having their top leadership put on trial and executed.

Funny that you state you are a historian, but your post mentions almost none of what I just did. Such as actually quoting from original source documents, the kind of thing actual historians tend to do.

 

[jwoodie]

First of all, you are very wrong about the demand for "unconditional surrender". That was never actually a demand, which is obvious if one even takes a moment to read the actual documents themselves.

I never used the word "demand." You did.

Now the Casablanca Declaration was a bit more open, but even in that it could be seen that they were not demanding the "Unconditional Surrender" as in the nation would completely capitulate and be divided up among the conquerors as was often done in war prior to that.

The Casablanca Declaration called for unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers.

And this is actually stated even better when it came to the Potsdam Declaration. By that time they had two additional years to work to use a much more clear and concise statement in the closing paragraph of the Potsdam Declaration.

The Potsdam Declaration called for the unconditional surrender of Japan. Try to keep them straight.

Notice, not one single mention of the surrender of the Nation itself, or the Government of Japan. Just the Armed Forces. This was a major difference when it came to warfare in the 20th century. Where the Allied Powers took a stance that the end of a war would not result in significant gains and losses of the territory of the nation they had been at war with, but if required the replacement of their government with one more inclined to peace.

Irrelevant word salad.

And not only were the Japanese Death Camps well documented, such atrocities happened even before WWII was even recognized in Europe with atrocities like the Rape of Nanking. And it is hardly a secret they had such, or the Comfort Women. Or Unit 731. The fact they are not as well known is simply due to the fact that most historians, movies, and classes largely ignore the Pacific War and concentrate almost exclusively on the European Front.

More of the same

There are tons of movies and TV shows about the Africa Campaign. D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, invading Italy and the liberation of Paris and other such events. And sure, most know of Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway and Iwo Jima. But how many who are not "into history" have heard of Tarawa? Truk Lagoon? The Battle of Saipan? The Second Battle of Guadalcanal? Tinian? Paleliu?

Your sources are movies and TV shows?

No, nothing was different really in Japan. There was never a demand for the dismantling of the German Government, just for the removal and trial of those who had led the nation into war. The exact same thing was done in Japan as well. One again, almost everybody was taught about the Nuremberg Trials, but few seem to know of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. The exact same thing but with Japan having their top leadership put on trial and executed.

Your ignorance of the differences between these trials is profound.

Funny that you state you are a historian, but your post mentions almost none of what I just did. Such as actually quoting from original source documents, the kind of thing actual historians tend to do.

Thank you for reminding me of your limited intellectual capacity.

 

[Mushroom]

The Potsdam Declaration called for the unconditional surrender of Japan.

"Irrelevant word salad"? I was quoting directly from the freaking document itself!

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender
Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945

1. We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.
2. The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.
3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
4. The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.
5. Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
6. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
7. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
9. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.
10. We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
11. Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.
12. The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
13. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

How in the hell are the original declaration made to Japan "Irrelevant"? I see you are like Poophead, and simply attack anybody that says something you do not like. Even more dunny when you are only making statements based on your beliefs, and somebody else is actually quoting source documents.

And you call yourself a "historian"?

 

[AZrailwhale]

As an historian, my only regret is not being around after the 100 year anniversaries of recent events, when all of the misinformation about these events finally begins to wane. For example, it has only been in the last decade that the responsibility for WW1 has become an objective topic of research and discussion. (Hint: Look across the Channel.)

However, WW2 is still wrapped in the protective bubble of being the last "good" war. Interestingly, while the Nazi death camps are used as an ex post facto justification for that war, the Japanese death camps have not. Why is this?

One answer may be in the "unconditional surrender" proclamation at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill (and endorsed in absentia by Stalin). While the ageing President just wanted to end the war and cement US primacy in the world, the other leaders had their own ideas. Churchill wanted to save the British Empire by ensuring that Germany would not again be able to challenge it, and Stalin saw it as a way to eliminate future opposition to his takeover of Eastern Europe. The resulting dismemberment of Germany worked out well for Great Britain in the short term and the USSR for a longer period, but it did nothing for the US other than to create an unending obligation to maintain a huge military presence in Europe after the War.

In contrast, the US treated Japan's "unconditional surrender" in a completely different manner. In the first place, this surrender was not unconditional; it was based on the Japanese Emperor retaining his titular position. Secondly, Japan was allowed to retain its territorial sovereignty. Lastly, the prosecution of Japan's "war criminals" paled in comparison with their German counterparts. This deviation from the Casablanca declaration benefited the US (and the surrendering country) much more than the utter destruction of Germany.

The US suffered many more military casualties in Europe than in fighting Japan. And despite the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, Germany suffered many more civilian casualties. So which was the better approach to ending WW2?

The USA never committed to keeping the Emperor. The surrender document said “unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces”

 

[martybegan]

As an historian, my only regret is not being around after the 100 year anniversaries of recent events, when all of the misinformation about these events finally begins to wane. For example, it has only been in the last decade that the responsibility for WW1 has become an objective topic of research and discussion. (Hint: Look across the Channel.)

However, WW2 is still wrapped in the protective bubble of being the last "good" war. Interestingly, while the Nazi death camps are used as an ex post facto justification for that war, the Japanese death camps have not. Why is this?

One answer may be in the "unconditional surrender" proclamation at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill (and endorsed in absentia by Stalin). While the ageing President just wanted to end the war and cement US primacy in the world, the other leaders had their own ideas. Churchill wanted to save the British Empire by ensuring that Germany would not again be able to challenge it, and Stalin saw it as a way to eliminate future opposition to his takeover of Eastern Europe. The resulting dismemberment of Germany worked out well for Great Britain in the short term and the USSR for a longer period, but it did nothing for the US other than to create an unending obligation to maintain a huge military presence in Europe after the War.

In contrast, the US treated Japan's "unconditional surrender" in a completely different manner. In the first place, this surrender was not unconditional; it was based on the Japanese Emperor retaining his titular position. Secondly, Japan was allowed to retain its territorial sovereignty. Lastly, the prosecution of Japan's "war criminals" paled in comparison with their German counterparts. This deviation from the Casablanca declaration benefited the US (and the surrendering country) much more than the utter destruction of Germany.

The US suffered many more military casualties in Europe than in fighting Japan. And despite the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, Germany suffered many more civilian casualties. So which was the better approach to ending WW2?

The end result was the same for both situations. The termination of German and Japanese expansionism and militarism.

Japan got off "easier" because they finished 2nd. The US people were tired of the war, and everyone pretty much knew all Japan could hope for was a lopsided draw where they keep the home Islands and maybe parts of China (a long shot but that was their best hope post 1944).

Also the shock of "one bomb, city gone" lessened the American blood lust for the Japanese, which most people don't know paled in comparison to the mutual hatred between Germans and Russians.

The Germans massacred millions of Russian POW's, The Russians kept millions or at least hundreds of thousands of German POWs as virtual slave labor for a decade after WWII was over.

 

[Mushroom]

Japan got off "easier" because they finished 2nd. The US people were tired of the war

They also in the end did not continue to fight on until the bitter end. If Germany had decided to "throw in the towel" once the Allies crossed into Germany and not commit atrocities like the Final Solution, they actually might have ended up with a deal not unlike Japan.

One has to remember, the three major nations of the Axis Powers all ended very differently. In Germany they had to be crushed completely, only surrendering when it no longer mattered as their nation had already been destroyed and overrun militarily.

For Italy, their government already fell in 1943. Der Lamp Ornament's government turned against him and a significant part of the Italian military changed sides and started to fight with the Allies. However, Germany then propped him back up after helping him escape and the war continued. But most Italians (even their military) staying out of the fighting, it was almost entirely the Allies against the Germans.

And for Japan, the bombs allowed the war to end before any actual invasion actually happened. And as the Emperor had largely been simply a figure head for over 500 years, all that was needed was removing the Taisei Yokusankai and other leadership that led the nation into war.

 

[whitehall]

Honest history unfiltered by the politically biased media tells us that Japan was so desperate to surrender that the Bushido holdouts went to Stalin when Truman refused to negotiate terms. Apparently the holdup was that the Japanese wanted assurances that the emperor would not be executed. Truman authorized two nuclear weapons to be dropped on Japanese civilians and Japan surrendered unconditionally. The emperor was spared anyway.

 

[Mushroom]

Apparently the holdup was that the Japanese wanted assurances that the emperor would not be executed.

Try reading the Sato-Togo telegrams. That is very much not the case. The leadership of Japan wanted an armistice, they absolutely refused to even consider a surrender.

What Japan wanted was an armistice. No occupation, no war crime trials, all land taken from Japan to be returned to Japan, and all land they still occupied themselves would become demilitarized with Japan retaining control.

"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.

www.nationalww2museum.org

What Japan wanted was a status quo ante bellum, which was completely unacceptable to the Allied powers. Especially as we know for a fact from the Sato-Togo Telegrams that what they wanted was an interpretation completely in their favor. Something even Ambassador Sato tried to tell his superiors was absolutely impossible and they needed to get serious about surrendering before it was too late.

 

[mikegriffith1]

One, we let too many Japanese war criminals escape justice, especially those who mistreated our POWs. On the other hand, we prosecuted some Japanese officers and officials who were not war criminals. Some of the Japanese officials we prosecuted were actually moderates who had tried to avoid war and tried to resist the militarists.

Two, FDR and Churchill badly bungled their handling of the war in Europe. Leaving aside FDR's appalling decision to save the Soviet Union, he and Churchill refused to work with the German resistance, and the issuance of the unconditional surrender policy made it harder for the resistance to recruit more people. This was inexcusable. It needlessly prolonged the war and enabled the Soviet Union to enslave Eastern Europe.

Three, FDR's and then Truman's handling of the Pacific War was equally appalling and misguided. Shamefully, FDR arranged for Stalin to rape Manchuria and to invade Korea. Truman felt obliged to go along with this terrible arrangement, and he made matters worse by refusing to aid the Japanese moderates who were trying to bring about a surrender, culminating in his shameful and unnecessary nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[0311]

As an historian, my only regret is not being around after the 100 year anniversaries of recent events, when all of the misinformation about these events finally begins to wane. For example, it has only been in the last decade that the responsibility for WW1 has become an objective topic of research and discussion. (Hint: Look across the Channel.)

However, WW2 is still wrapped in the protective bubble of being the last "good" war. Interestingly, while the Nazi death camps are used as an ex post facto justification for that war, the Japanese death camps have not. Why is this?

One answer may be in the "unconditional surrender" proclamation at the 1943 Casablanca Conference between Roosevelt and Churchill (and endorsed in absentia by Stalin). While the ageing President just wanted to end the war and cement US primacy in the world, the other leaders had their own ideas. Churchill wanted to save the British Empire by ensuring that Germany would not again be able to challenge it, and Stalin saw it as a way to eliminate future opposition to his takeover of Eastern Europe. The resulting dismemberment of Germany worked out well for Great Britain in the short term and the USSR for a longer period, but it did nothing for the US other than to create an unending obligation to maintain a huge military presence in Europe after the War.

In contrast, the US treated Japan's "unconditional surrender" in a completely different manner. In the first place, this surrender was not unconditional; it was based on the Japanese Emperor retaining his titular position. Secondly, Japan was allowed to retain its territorial sovereignty. Lastly, the prosecution of Japan's "war criminals" paled in comparison with their German counterparts. This deviation from the Casablanca declaration benefited the US (and the surrendering country) much more than the utter destruction of Germany.

The US suffered many more military casualties in Europe than in fighting Japan. And despite the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, Germany suffered many more civilian casualties. So which was the better approach to ending WW2?

An interesting side note. On Decembe12,1937 Japanese Aircraft attacked and sank the U.S.S. Panay, the vessel was part the U.S. Navy's Yangtze River Patrol. Also sunk were three Standard Oil Company Tankers. The Government of Japan paid a fine for the attack. Almost Four years later Japan attacked the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor Hawaii.

 

[Unkotare]

The USA never committed to keeping the Emperor. The surrender document said “unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces”

And Yet, there he was. There he is.

 

[0311]

And Yet, there he was. There he is.

MacA decided to allow Emperor Hirohito to remain on the throne, but NOT as head of state. It was also MacA who refused to allow zones of influence in Japan, effectively shutting down Soviet aims to share power as an allied occupying army.

 

[AZrailwhale]

And Yet, there he was. There he is.

Because he was a convenient tool for Emperor MacArthur.

 

[Unkotare]

Because he was a convenient tool for Emperor MacArthur.

For whatever reason, the condition was kept.

 

[0311]

Because he was a convenient tool for Emperor MacArthur.

MacA wanted a tool. Hirohito became a figure head. By keep Hirohito in place, he also placated the Japanese People.

On the downside, MacA pretty much thought himself as an American Caesar (there a book by that name). He became a power unto himself. One the primary reasons he failed at getting the North Korean Invasion of South Korea right is the fact his Chief of Intelligence was Major Charles Willoughby who only told MacA thing he knew he wanted to know or believe. Willoughby quietly retired fact that fiasco.

 

[AZrailwhale]

For whatever reason, the condition was kept.

Get it through your skull, IT WAS NEVER A CONDITION. It is not written down anywhere in any document.

 

[Unkotare]

Get it through your skull, IT WAS NEVER A CONDITION. It is not written down anywhere in any document.

And yet there he was. There he is.