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

Perhaps the author was using some modern medication for -- er -- pain relief. You know, the type wherein you stuff the bowl of a bong and suck through cooling liquid via a stem? It would explain the resulting brain fart regarding both actual history and military realities. But that MUST have been some potent stuff!

 

At least nine. I don't thank that just seven would do THAT to the mind of anyone having had a real education.

 

Wow! Soooooooooooooo all those upper level Japanese military and politicians only THINK that they surrendered to the United States when in reality they actually won the war? Hmmmmm . . . I bet that Hillary Clinton is actually the sitting president of the United States of America as well and that Barack Obama's presidential legacy was not methodically erased, yes??

 

At least you learned something.

 

Name one.

 

How about the Emperor?

 

I kind of agree. The US should stayed away from the table and should have killed half the Japanese population as vehement, hate-filled retaliation and vengeance for the Pearl Harbor sneak attack.

 

oh good God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/2/newsid_3582000/3582545.stm

They agreed to unconditional surrender. It was Truman's decision to allow the emperor to remain. It was more to pacify the people and prevent further bloodshed.

 

Do you understand what the expression "absurd" means? You have just bored me with 4 long paragraphs of absurd gobblygook. Why are you wasting my time? If you do not understand the premise upon which I introduced this thread then why not find some other subject where you might have something interesting (AND RELEVANT) to contribute? But thank you for playing!

 

Ahhh, the Japanese had the US on the ropes. I guess I missed where they were regularly firebombing Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles as their battle fleets were concentrating to bring hundreds of thousands of troops to land in California.

No, the Japanese were doomed, and they knew it. But remember, this is a culture that does not (even today) have a prohibition against suicide. Where killing oneself even in defeat is preferable to surrender. Better to die under the tidal wave of destruction than to surrender, which looses your soul.

What all of your arguments have been completely missing is any kind of comprehension of Japanese culture and beliefs. And frankly, I find it rather insulting and racist in the most part.

Oh, and the fact that you seem to have some kind of belief that it was the US that demanded their surrender. Wrong, it was the Allied Powers in the Potsdam Declaration that demanded that. And no conditions were offered prior to after the atomic bombs dropped was even considered.

Prime Minister Suzuki outright dismissed Potsdam, with a term "mokusatsu", which means "killing it with silence". In other words, no negotiation, no response. Completely ignore it. They did attempt to go to the Soviets to see if a peace could be negotiated, but the Soviets rejected them.

The only attempt to offer a surrender came from Emperor Showa himself, when he gave the speech urging his people they would be "enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable".

Please, learn some of the Showa era culture, please. Without understanding their culture you will never understand how and why the war ended.

No, not true at all. Essentially, what they agreed upon was that neither the Emperor nor his family would not be tried for war crimes, and would remain the Emperor.

There is hardly any way to describe how the Japanese look to the Imperial Family. Are you aware that the Imperial Family is descended from a single Dynasty? In fact, the very idea of "dynasties" is foreign to them, every Emperor is a member of the same family. Stretching all the way back to Emperor Jimmu in 660 BCE.

Think on this, the movie "300" was set around a battle 220 years after the Imperial Dynasty was founded.

And Emperor Showa also made his Ningen-sengen (or "Humanity Declaration"), renouncing his Godhood. And the Emperor became subservient to the people, to put it like the British he "Reigned but did not rule". Which was not unusual in their culture, as that was the norm for hundreds of years under the Shogunate until Shogun Tokugawa abdicated his power to Emperor Meiji in 1867.

And it is not "indoctrination", it is their culture. In Shinto, dying for the emperor is no different then being a martyr is to a Catholic. It is a part of a faith that stretches back before 300 BCE.

 

Actually, I have placed it all the way back to 1901.

When the Multinational Force was formed to relieve the Siege of the International Legation in Peking, the Japanese were a major part of those forces. Yet in the aftermath when China was divided up into differing occupation zones. And in this partition, Japan was given a zone that was much smaller and inferior to the zones taken by the other powers.

This is what started Japan moving away from an internal looking nation, into an outward looking nation. They started to realize in their own minds that they had to become a true empire to survive. And that nobody would give them such an empire, they would have to take it by force. 30 years later this was the idea behind the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

I have long believed that if Japan (which was a new player on the International Circuit at the time) had been treated more fairly after the Boxer Rebellion, the animosity might not have existed a generation later that caused them to start WWII.

 

I am inclined to believe so, because of the use of large bold words.

However, I also find it a very ignorant and even insulting thread. The OP and others are almost completely ignoring anything about Japanese culture and identity, and simply trying to blast their own around like it was turds in a stable. Most have been highly inaccurate, and even insulting in my belief.

Especially when somebody takes the time to make a response, and they simply dismiss it in 4 sentences and do not respond to anything. That to me shows a closed mind, and I expect my responses will be treated the same way.

But in these cases, I really do not respond for just the poster I am responding to, but for those that might think they are right. So they can try and grasp some actual knowledge - and hopefully even take the time to research it for themselves and make up their own minds.

Which BTW, this posts ignores Australia in it's omission. It was not up to the US to accept a surrender. The US could not have accepted a surrender. The demand was issued by the United Kingdom (of which Australia was a member of at the time), China, and the United States. And it also tied into the 1943 Cairo Declaration.

In these declarations, all agreed that they would not accept an individual negotiated peace alone, but only accept a surrender as a combined force. It is highly arrogant of the OP to even imply that the war ended only because the US said so, and insulting to the other nations involved.

 

If someone's threat forces you to abandon your firm, demonstratively repeated, irreversible, declared goal .... then you are "on the ropes". Make no mistake about it. If you do not understand the depth of this statement just let me know and I can spell it our more clearly. Fair enough?

 

Ignoring everything stated, and simply throwing out 2 lines restating your personal opinion without anything to back it up. Yet again.

 

"without anything to back it up"? Are you trying to be funny?

Did the US demand the Japanese surrender "unconditionally"? The answer you are searching for is YES. Did Japan make a condition regarding the Emporer? Again, YES. Did the U.S. refuse, demonstratively ... reiterating they would accept nothing less than an "unconditional surrender"? Once again, YES. Did Japan reply that there would be no surrender if the US would not accept their condition? Even here the answer is YES. Did the U.S. back down and accept Japan's condition? Holy Lord in Heaven! YES!

So, what is exactly your problem with historical facts? Facts, by the way, that you do not think of as "backing it up"?

 

I think the problem here is with English comprehension. It appears there are those who do not have a very good command of the English language. If you understand the definition of a couple of words then it will be clear to you:

 

That is a cute and useless point to make. Other than concerning the Emporer, were there any other Japanese conditions the US accepted?

 

How many conditions do you think the Japanese demanded?

 

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_...title=Transcript+of+Surrender+of+Japan+(1945)

Transcript of Surrender of Japan (1945)
INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER

We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

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.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilites forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property and to comply with all requirements which my be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Headquarters to issue at once orders to the Commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, and orders and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever actions may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Poers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that Declaration.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all allied prisoners of war and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance and immediate transportation to places as directed.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0904 I on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hirohito

He broke the precedent of imperial silence on August 15, when he made a national radio broadcast to announce Japan’s acceptance of the Allies’ terms of surrender. In a second historic broadcast, made on January 1, 1946, Hirohito repudiated the traditional quasi-divine status of Japan’s emperors.

 

This is the most important part of the quote because it is the precise point that is being debated. Knowing very well (yourself) that Japan did not commit itself to an "unconditional surrender" you none-the-less find nothing wrong with this part of the "transcript"?

This is one of the biggest jokes in history. Black is white? Up is down?

 

No actually I think your OP is one of the biggest jokes. Not so much in history, though.

Hillary for President would be in that category.

But your OP is awesome.

Certainly bodacious for it's audacity and originality.

 

The U.S. demanded that Japan surrender “unconditionally” and Washington declared that it was the only goal for ending the war with Japan.

But on August 10, 1945, Japan notified the U.S. that it was willing to lay down its arms but only on the condition that the Emperor remain in power. The U.S. refused, stating that only an unconditional surrender would be accepted. Japan was adamant ... so the fighting continued.

On August 14, however, the U.S. did an about-face and told Japan that their condition would be accepted. And so it was. But it was PR’d as an unconditional surrender for the purpose of propaganda. This is all fact, noted and documented.

It was no unconditional surrender. I know it and anyone reading this knows it.

 

I have no idea, hence my question.

 

They demanded they give up their own military and allow the US to build bases on their land, after they were nuked.

It was a tough demand, but the United States decided to oblige.