The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II.

What are you talking about? WWII was not a basketball game. It was not determined before the war started what “winning” would entail. There was no time clock to determine the time of the game and when it would begin. There were no predetermined rules of victory.

You want a real world analogy......it’s not a sports game it’s a fist fight..

The Empire Of Japan attacks the US and allies with a sucker punch. Then lands a series of blows after that knocking them to the ground.

The US and it’s allies picks themselves up, gathers their senses and then proceeds to beat the ever loving crap of Japan. Japan continues to put up a valiant fight but gets an epic beat down...epic...entire divisions wiped out...naval forces destroyed...air force knocked from the skies...

Allies then ask Japan if they were ready to give up, they say no. The beat down continues until a couple of massive punches makes them realize they are done at which point they surrender before they are literally destroyed.

They surrender the fight they started with a sucker punch, beat down and utterly defeated. Defeated by the allies with one hand as the other was taking care of the other loudmouth trouble maker in the bar Germany.

There was no surrender on the Allied side of any kind. If fact since Germany was down Japan was about to feel what the fight was going to be like when the Allies turned their full attention to it.

My father was stationed in Japan in the 50s, I was in the 80s, my son is today. The US has Been in Japan since 1945, on bases we established after they fully, utterly and unconditionally surrendered their armed forces and nation.

The fact that the surrender was aboard a US naval vessel in Tokyo bay after they had attacked the same US Navy 4 years earlier made their surrender even more satisfying for the US.

Back to the fist fight analogy, the Allies beat the Japanese out of the bar, and down the street back to their house and made them surrender in their own front yard. Then we moved in and took over one of the bedrooms....we are still there...

Sounds like a unconditional surrender to me
:0

 

True.

True.

True.

Wrong.

Not true.

Not true.

 

Then show us the conditions of surrender in writing

 

Well now...

That was informative......glad you “cleared” up why I was wrong instead of just saying “wrong” or “not true” ...That never made sense to me why people do that...

 

Have to wonder what concessions he believes we gave Japan so they would surrender?

75 years of U.S. military boots on Japanese soil...sounds fairly unconditional to me :0

Japan is a proud and strong nation. I’ve a ton of respect for them myself...but to imply they were not utterly and completely defeated and forced to surrender on the terms the Allies gave is a great insult to the men and women who fought and defeated them..

 

He thinks they wanted us not to try the emperor for war crimes which we did not but that was not a condition we accepted . We did that because it made it easier to work with the population

 

How many times do you want me to provide you with it? I must have done it at least 5 or 6 times already. Can you scroll up and take a look-see or would that be too much of a strain?

 

You can not show any conditions we accepted in writing.

Was it a handshake deal? Lol

 

Your interpretation of what occurred is not proof. Your trying to play word games when you have no place to do so as it dishonors the sacrifice of so many who secured that surrender.

Your a typical internet keyboard blowhard, the kind who would come into a thread supporting the ideal that the United States did not defeat the Japanese Empire. I don’t need to scroll thru the dribble in your post to know history.

 

Exactly. That was to our benefit, not theirs.

Honestly he seems to be a troll looking to provoke using the U.S. as bait. I’m new here and can see that so he’s not even very good at it.

He treads on very thin ice when he ignores and dishonors the blood sacrifice paid for that victory IMO. I would guess he has contributed exactly zero to the cause of freedom in the world so his opinion is noted and filed for exactly what it is worth when he speaks about those who did...

Although I would pay to see him tell a Veteran from that era that they did not really defeate the Japanese. My money is on the 90 year vet in that meeting :0

 

Knowledge needs to be voluntary. I have no intention of holding a gun to your head so you'll have to be willing to gain knowledge by way free will.

 

No, they did not. The forces of Northern Georgia knew of the surrender within days, yet continued to fight until 12 May. There were even forces in Texas that continued to refuse surrender until 13 May when they were defeated.

Most commanders essentially gave orders to remain in place, and awaited further instructions. Instructions which never came since the President of the Confederate States dissolved the government and abandoned the capitol and tried to flee. At that time the Government pretty much ceased to exist, and the command of the various units essentially fell to the States they were from (which also largely fell silent).

Generally each unit and leader surrendered when it became obvious to them that they could no longer win. General Taylor, General Maury, General Jones, General Thompson, General Wofford, those and more surrendered not when the word reached them of Lee's surrender, but when it was obvious that further fighting was futile.

But the fact is, General Lee did not surrender for the Confederate Forces, only for those he himself was in command of. Not unlike when General Wainwright surrendered all US forces in the Philippines. He did not surrender for the US, just the forces he was in command of.

 

But Wainright's forces were an 'outlier' or if you want of the US Armed Forces deployed at the time. Their loss represented a local strategic defeat for the US, not a death blow to any chance the US had of continuing the fight in the Pacific. Lee's surrender irrefutably ended any chance the South might have thought it had of victory - or at least an armistice on terms had any part in dictating. The two events are simply not of the same importance in the overall conduct of their respective wars.

As for the the delay in surrender on the part of the various Confederate forces you mentioned as I stated the it in part represented the limitations of communication at the time plus the refusal of Washington to negotiate terms directly with the illegitimate government of the South (the Hampton Road talks went nowhere fast). Instead they simply went straight to the armies in the field and ended the war - because they could. This is totally unlike the situation the US Government faced in situation 1945 where Japanese Commanders across the Pacific were in constant daily contact with Tokyo and had no autonomy.

 

I'm arguing that the issue at hand - retention of the Emperor is at best a technicality that had no significant effect on the outcome. Its like claiming you 'won' a school yard fight because you manage to bruise the other guys knuckles while breaks your nose and knocks you unconscious. Some victory.

At best the argument that Japan 'won the war' because it kept it's Emperor (something that was to the Allies own advantage) is legalese. And if you are going to get into legal arguments like that you have to argue whether the the agreement entered into by the great powers at Potsdam - actually nothing more than a 'statement of intent' regarding the surrender terms to be offered to Japan had more legal authority than the terms and conditions laid out in the formal surrender document signed in Tokyo Bay, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

 

“No significant effect on the outcome”? This cannot be true as Japan had fought on (“to the death” they claimed) and Japan proper would have become a battlefield like no other - by all accounts. Oh, I am sure the outcome would have been treacherously significant.

"claiming you won"? “Some victory”? Have you read through this thread or bothered (at least) to read my posts? Please then, do not be absurd.

“Nothing more than a ‘statement of intent"? Potsdam schmatzdam, are you unaware that the U.S. stated on innumerable occasions that it would accept nothing less than an unconditional surrender? Do you not know that the U.S. first refused to accept Japan's offer of surrender on the condition of retaining the Emperor? I really do not think one could call it a mere ‘statement of intent’.

 

Japan's condition was that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power.

The US continues to refuse that condition to this day.

 

Words are just words. Its whats written on the paper at the end that counts. Politicians can and do say things all the time that are never eventually acted upon when the opportunity arises, especially in war. Threat, counter-threat, bluster, rousing moral building speeches for the home front. In the end history pays far more attention to what they actually do rather than what they say. And 'Potsdam schmatzdam' ?? it either means something or it doesn't, you cant have it both ways. I adopted, based on my (albeit limited research)the view that the declaration signed there was a statement of intent rather than a legally binding treaty of any kind. Certainly none of the other signatories of the Potsdam 'declaration' lodged formal complaints about the terms as laid out in Japan's declaration of surrender so I can't see why this whole thread even exists.

 

No, and it does not matter. The government they were fighting for was dissolved, that eliminated any reason to fight.

Yes, they largely dissolved because General Lee surrendered, but you keep missing the point. Like at Yorktown, General Lee did not surrender for the Confederacy, he only surrendered his own troops. They were also the last ones standing between the Union and Richmond. You keep concentrating on entirely the wrong thing.

 

Not quite.

Prior to the Jewel Voice Speech, the Japanese terms were very different. For one, they refused to surrender, they were only proposing and stating that they would accept an armistice. And they had many conditions. Among them:

No occupation of Japan.
Return to quo pro ante bellum (return to all national boundaries before the war began).
Japan would try it's own war crimes.
The Japanese Government would continue as before.

Now the latter was much more complex than simply that Emperor Showa remain Supreme. That meant that the Imperial Diet would remain subservient to the will of the Emperor. That meant that the Zaibatsu (Sumitomo, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Yasuda) would remain in control of most aspects of Japanese commerce. That means that there would be no form of "surrender", any remaining Japanese military in areas occupied after the war would be allowed to return to Japan unmolested. That the Taisei Tokusankai (Imperial Rule Assistance Association - essentially the Japanese Fascist Party) remain in power.

As I said previously, an Armistice. This is what Potsdam refused to accept, and what they told the Japanese leadership. The Taisei Wokusankai would be dissolved. The Zaibatsu would be dissolved (which indeed it was - while most of the names continue to exist the Yasuda [essentially the Zaibatsu bank] was dissolved), there was an occupation, there were war crime trials, and the Emperor in most ways was made subservient to the Diet (although he still maintains great influence to this day).

And after the surrender, on 1 January 1946 Emperor Showa gave the Ningen-sengen (Humanity Declaration) refuting that he was divine and a living god, but just another man. However, like Queen Elizabeth II, he still hold great influence over his people, and could start or avoid a war or other major action simply by stating what his will was. His word is no longer law, but his beliefs still sway the nation, even if indirectly.

 

In reality, the Emperor never had that kind of power. In the Japanese system, he ruled, but largely silently from the background.

It must be remembered, the Japanese Empire really did not have a history of the Emperor ruling as say Napoleon. For almost 700 years until 1868, the Emperor really did not rule at all. They were largely puppets, and the Shogunate actually ruled the land.

Now while it is true they did it in the "name of the Emperor", in reality the Emperor largely remained in his palace, and the Shogun did and decided everything. That was until Emperor Meiji (Emperor Showa's grandfather) wrested control from the Shogunate and became a more active ruler.

And even during his reign, you had the Zaibatsu, the Taisei Yokusankai, and the Military Command who actually largely ruled the Empire. Much like in the Senate with the President Pro Tempore (US Vice President), he only actually spoke up or made decisions when his Imperial Council was deadlocked. Which actually happened only one time. And that was when they were considering the surrender after Nagasaki and the Invasion by the USSR.

But it was critically important for them that Emperor Showa, 124th Emperor of Japan and leader of the longest dynasty in the history of the Earth since Emperor Jimmu took the throne in 585 BCE remain as Emperor. That was absolutely non-negotiable. And since the only actual demand of the Allied Powers was that the Japanese military surrender unconditionally, both sides were able to reach a compromise.

 

All true.

I cannot completely agree with that. Washington called Japan’s surrender “unconditional” but a simple application of fact proves this is not true. Yet, just look at the population who believe it. The same goes for the illegal invasion of Irak and the reason it was committed. Just look at the sheeple who still nibble on the “red herring”.

My point is that you have mixed “pre-war” statements with “mid-war” statements. Predetermined goals you might have called it? Anyway, The U.S. did (very much so did) claim it would not accept anything other than an unconditional surrender. Whether or not they said so at Potsdam is irrelevant. They first refused to accept Japan's condition (repeating their 'unconditional surrender' rhetoric) but later were forced by good sense to relent.

As I sit here I cannot think of any circumstance where “all or nothing at all” is a prudent statement to make publicly and will leave you with some stark consequences and choices to make … all of your own fault.

1. Your adversary agrees. This would be a calculated risk to take if the enemy were weak, but by the time the war was under way, the Japanese proved themselves to be willing and capable warriors with a “to the death” mentality. There was no way they would lay down their arms unconditionally and Washington was very stupid not to understand that. It would be very interesting to know who said what behind the scenes. There must have been some very strong criticism at the brass level who were against the wording of that offer.

2. Eat crow and accept your enemy’s conditions. Crow is difficult to digest for the average person but for the egotistical Americans it is almost worst than all-out defeat.

3. Fight on with devastating results.

The U.S. chose to eat crow and accept Japan's condition, which was the best decision the U.S. could have made. It is really a matter of national damage control to bluff the “unconditional surrender” narrative in exactly the way the lie of WMD’s in Irak has been spun to be falsely called “regime change”.

 

There are people who dispute that Hirohito was a figurehead. But even if he was a figurehead, those military leaders who ruled the Empire, justified their power by saying they were wielding the Emperor's power in the Emperor's name.

So giving Hirohito unlimited dictatorial power would really be giving Japan's military leaders unlimited dictatorial power.

That is why our reply to Japan was very clear on the fact that the Emperor was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.

 

We did not relent. Hirohito was not allowed to retain unlimited dictatorial power.

That is incorrect. The US did not accept Japan's condition. Hirohito did not retain unlimited dictatorial power.

 

As did the Shogunate before.

A condition the Japanese people (and Emperor) were used to, for over 700 years.

Remember, prior to 1945 the Emperor never made a speech. His voice was never broadcast over the radio. He never had a speech filmed so his people could hear him.

In fact, it was illegal to record or broadcast his voice. The Jewel Voice Broadcast of 15 August 1945 was the first time his people ever heard the voice of their Emperor. Ever, unless they had been present to hear him speak live.

In reality, those groups did lead the nation. Which is why after the war they were eliminated.

 

We would not have been able to eliminate them however had we agreed to give Hirohito, and therefore them by extension, unlimited dictatorial power.

That is why we insisted that Hirohito had to be subordinate to MacArthur.