No they weren't. The Japanese military was disarmed under allied supervision. Japanese war criminals were tried by allied courts. Japan had to give up Manchuria, Korea, Vietnam , Loas, Cambodia and China. None of which were in the Japanese government's terms. The Emperior was emasculated, and only left with ceremonial power as an aid to MacAurther governing Japan. Read the surrender documents signed on the fantail of the USS Missouri, they don't give the Japanese anything. It's was a unconditional surrender.Yet in the end the terms we finally agreed to were exactly the ones being sought.
And yet after Truman did his war crime, he agreed to a conditional surrender. The only condition the Japanese asked for before the war crime. Weird?We understand the words, you don’t. Unconditional surrender was the official policy agreed to by the three major allied powers. Even if FDR had wanted to, he lacked the power to over ride that agreement. Even if the US and UK had wanted to accept a conditional surrender, Stalin wouldn’t have. He wanted the territory he could conquer in a war with Japan.
Comments like these suggest an ignorance of the role of emperor at various points in Japanese history, and a misunderstanding of the term "unconditional surrender."..... The Emperior was emasculated, and only left with ceremonial power.... It's was a unconditional surrender.
Our demands never changed? Japan accepted unconditional surrender and put it in writing.And yet after Truman did his war crime, he agreed to a conditional surrender. The only condition the Japanese asked for before the war crime. Weird?
You’re not informed.Our demands never changed? Japan accepted unconditional surrender and put it in writing.
We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated.OurDocuments.gov. Featuring 100 milestone documents of American history from the National Archives. Includes images of original primary source documents, lesson plans, teacher and student competitions, and educational resources.www.ourdocuments.gov
Exactly, I am educated. I know the history of the pacific war. When I see you post something I know right of way if it is correct or not. I have provided you with the acceptance of unconditional surrender, the literal reply japan wrote and gave to our government.You’re not informed.
Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.
Great column on the subject.
The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
January 2, 2019
Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.
Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.
As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.
The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
< Previous Thread