DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Biblical... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
ToadBrother Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) The allies never GOT an unconditional surrender. Imperial Reign was allowed to stay in place. And imperial reign was the key Japanese demand. This is patently false. The Americans allowed the Emperor to remain, but the Emperor very clearly surrendered, and the Foreign Minister signed the Instrument of Surrender: We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently 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 Japanese control wherever situated. We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property, and to comply with all requirements which may 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 General 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, 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 action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers 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 09.04 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945 Mamoru Shigemitsu By Command and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan and the Japanese Government Yoshijirō Umezu By Command and in behalf of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters Accepted at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 0908 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945, for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan. Douglas MacArthur Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers C.W. Nimitz United States Representative Hsu Yung-Ch'ang Republic of China Representative Bruce Fraser United Kingdom Representative Kuzma Derevyanko Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Representative Thomas Blamey Commonwealth of Australia Representative L. Moore Cosgrave Dominion of Canada Representative Jacques Leclerc Provisional Government of the French Republic Representative C.E.L. Helfrich Kingdom of the Netherlands Representative Leonard M. Isitt Dominion of New Zealand Representative You're just making crap up. I have no idea where you get this idea that Japan didn't unconditionally surrender, when those granted the power by the Emperor to sign an unconditional surrender did indeed sign it, with reference to the Potsdam declaration. Where the hell did you learn your history of WWII? I think even the back of a cereal box would be more informative than your source. Edited August 11, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote
ToadBrother Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 This aspect of the war often gets ignored, but my first "mild" exposure to it was as a child in the dramatization Bridge Over the River Kwai. Some uncles who had served in the Pacific still had a deep hatred for anything Japanese, much more so than anything associated with Germany or Nazis. It was beyond "racial"...it was deep "biblical" hate. There were terms still being used in the US Navy when I got there in the early 1970's that reflected this animosity. Marines would get glossy eyed. Well, there were plenty enough Nazi atrocities involving POWs. As I recall, some of the war crimes trials were over precisely that. But the Japanese were pretty damned horrendous, but the worst was how many Asians, but in particular the Chinese and Koreans were treated. Why do you think talk of altering Japan's constitution to remove the prohibitions against war will still cause incredible anger among those peoples. How many Koreans, Manchus and Chinese does Dre suppose cried tears for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Quote
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 This is patently false. The Americans allowed the Emperor to remain, but the Emperor very clearly surrendered, and the Foreign Minister signed the Instrument of Surrender: You're just making crap up. I have no idea where you get this idea that Japan didn't unconditionally surrender, when those granted the power by the Emperor to sign an unconditional surrender did indeed sign it, with reference to the Potsdam declaration. Where the hell did you learn your history of WWII? I think even the back of a cereal box would be more informative than your source. Allowing Imperial Reign to continue was a concession made to Japan. That concession should have been a part of the surrender ultimatum. Read the quotes I posted from Macarthur, Eizenhower and others. Theyre saying the exact same thing that I am. The whole thing was botched. But I know... revisionist internet messageboard armchair chickenhawks like you, Cory, and Trevor would simply say those people dont know their history. Why was the Imperial Reign not conceeded in the surrender ultimatum? It would have made surrender without the mass murder of women and children much more likely, and they ended up making that concession anyways. Where the hell did you learn your history of WWII? Blah blah blah. You intentionally misrepresenting or misreading what I post has nothing to do with my knowledge of history. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Blah blah blah. You intentionally misrepresenting or misreading what I post has nothing to do with my knowledge of history. Bah...you couldn't name the carriers at Midway without Google. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
ToadBrother Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) Allowing Imperial Reign to continue was a concession made to Japan. Which says nothing about the unconditional surrender. The unconditional surrender meant the Allies decided what happened, without any say from the Japanese. The Allies wanted the freedom to dictate terms absolutely, just as had been done with the German surrender. What the Emperor's representatives signed was an unconditional surrender. End of story. You're just looking for some way to twist the narrative your way, but the history doesn't lie. The Potsdam declaration demanded unconditional surrender. The Allies did not feel (rightfully so), that Japan have any say in how it's post-war government was formulated. That MacArthur and the State Department decided to keep the Emperor on in a purely ceremonial role was their decision to make, period. The only revisionist here is you. Edited August 11, 2010 by ToadBrother Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 As MacArthur said: These proceedings are closed. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 As well, it should be pointed out that the Occcupation of Japan was one of the most benevolent if not the most benevolent in history. MacArthur became almost beloved by the Japanese people for his compassion towards his former foe. Blackmarks of a kind do exist like the continued use of comfort women for the Allied troops plus other things like the censorship of the Japanese press for a period. All minor seeing how well things turned out for Japan starting in the 1960s. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) The reality here is that Cory, Trevor, Randy and other advocates of attacking civilians during war time are trying to put forth the proposition that the only way someone could take the position that surrender could have been achieved without nuking urban areas is if they dont know their history. They seem to claim that this is a settled issue, and that theres a consensus that there was no other way. But thats just simply not true. There IS no consensus... not among historians, not among politicians, not among the military including Generals that actually participated in the war. When they are shown quotes proving that indeed many of the players directly involved in the conflict made the exact same argument that I have made here... They completely ignore them. When they are asked why it wasnt made clear in Potsdam that surrender would not mean that the japenese would lose their emperor they completely refuse to answer. When you suggest that since there was more bombs available than just the two that got dropped, why it wouldnt have been worth trying to achieve surrender by dropping on them on areas less densely populated with civilians, they make some non-sesical comment about selling used cars. When I take the same position against targetting civilians in war as the Chief Of Staff to both Roosevelt and Truman... ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHYI was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. ...These geniuses post a one line reply comparing me to a moralistic southpark character. When I point out that people like Hoover made statements like this... "...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." ... and even point out where negotiationing tactics should have been used but werent. No reply at all. When I point out GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR's statement... Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary They indirectly suggest that one most prominent generals in the war got his history from a cerial box Their assertion? Armchair message board chickhawks like Cory, Trevor, and Randy know more 60 years later from the comfort of their computer chairs than Eisenhower, General Macarthur, Admiral Leahy, and Herbert Hoover. And back to William Leahy's statement... I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. If you polled Generals in the US military today, you would get unanimous agreement. But again! Cory, and Trevor, and Randy know different! And the rest of the world are idiots that dont know their history. Edited August 11, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Actually defending Imperial Japan's conquered gains. Amazing. Are you, in fact, a supporter of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? What parts of Japan's gains should it have been allowed to keep had it negotiated the conditions as it desired from the very first day of the war? Phillipines ok with you?? Taiwan? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Which says nothing about the unconditional surrender. The unconditional surrender meant the Allies decided what happened, without any say from the Japanese. The Allies wanted the freedom to dictate terms absolutely, just as had been done with the German surrender. What the Emperor's representatives signed was an unconditional surrender. End of story. You're just looking for some way to twist the narrative your way, but the history doesn't lie. The Potsdam declaration demanded unconditional surrender. The Allies did not feel (rightfully so), that Japan have any say in how it's post-war government was formulated. That MacArthur and the State Department decided to keep the Emperor on in a purely ceremonial role was their decision to make, period. The only revisionist here is you. No... the Potsdam Declaration called for the end of Emperial Rule and the "elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence" of those that directed the war. That never happened. The Potsdam agreement was never fully implemented, it was implemented with conditions. Thus the position by General Macarthur... Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. The Potsdam DeclarationIt was decided to issue a statement, the Potsdam Declaration, defining "Unconditional Surrender" and clarifying what it meant for the position of the Emperor and for Hirohito personally. The American and British governments strongly disagreed on this point—Americans wanted to abolish the position and possibly try him as a war criminal, while the British wanted to retain the position, perhaps with Hirohito still reigning. The Potsdam Declaration draft statement went through many revisions until a mutually acceptable version was found.[69] On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified: the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies" "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests. "The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed" "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners" So for the FIFTIETH TIME.... If the allies were going to allow the Empire to remain in place and escape prosecution for war crimes. Why on earth wasnt that reflected in the Potsdam Declaration, which would have made a Japenese surrender much much much more likely without the use of the massive slaughter of civilians? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Actually defending Imperial Japan's conquered gains. Amazing. Are you, in fact, a supporter of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? What parts of Japan's gains should it have been allowed to keep had it negotiated the conditions as it desired from the very first day of the war? Phillipines ok with you?? Taiwan? I answered this question 50 times. It should have been made clear to Japan that signing the Potsdam Declaration would NOT have meant the Japenese had to give up their Emperor. Actually defending Imperial Japan's conquered gains. Oh boy... You may very well have broken some kind of world record for dishonesty and strawman fallacy in a single post with that one. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bloodyminded Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) Thus the position by General Macarthur... Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. So for the FIFTIETH TIME.... If the allies were going to allow the Empire to remain in place and escape prosecution for war crimes. Why on earth wasnt that reflected in the Potsdam Declaration, which would have made a Japenese surrender much much much more likely without the use of the massive slaughter of civilians? You haven't noticed yet that these particular remarks are invisible? For a corrollary, discuss with someone the fact of Western material and intentional support for massive state terrorism in Indonesia. Even bold these words, as I have done. The response will be "well, sometimes we look away when terrible atrocities occur......" Because the words themselves, evidently, while written in English, are read as indecipherable code, and cannot be perceived. Edited August 11, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 You haven't noticed yet that these particular remarks are invisible? For a corrollary, discuss with someone the fact of Western material and intentional support for massive state terrorism in Indonesia. Even bold these words, as I have done. The response will be "well, sometimes we look away when terrible atrocities occur......" Because the words themselves, evidently, while written in English, are read as indecipherable code, and cannot be perceived. The hilarious thing is the abject GIBERISH that comes back. Check this out... Actually defending Imperial Japan's conquered gains. Amazing. Are you, in fact, a supporter of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? What parts of Japan's gains should it have been allowed to keep had it negotiated the conditions as it desired from the very first day of the war? Phillipines ok with you?? Taiwan? This is the response when I suggest that it should have been made clear in Potsdam that surrender would not mean the japenese lose their emperor, and point out that people like Macarthur, Leahy, and Eisenhower said the same thing. It almost boggles the mind. Phillipines ok with you?? Taiwan? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 I answered this question 50 times. It should have been made clear to Japan that signing the Potsdam Declaration would NOT have meant the Japenese had to give up their Emperor. Oh boy... You may very well have broken some kind of world record for dishonesty and strawman fallacy in a single post with that one. OK smartie-pants. Why did Japan go to war with America? To invade California? No. The whole idea of Pearl Harbor was to neutralize the US fleet...in particular, the carriers. From a position of strength, Japan had hoped to negotiate a favorable settlement where it got to keep its gains. The East Indies for the oil...SEA to keep the Brits away...Pacific island groups to act as a buffer vs future American plans. There was no way anyone on the Allied side was going to let them keep squat of what didn`t belong to them. As for the Emperor, there were plenty in the US that wanted him dealt with like Tojo. But MacArthur insisted otherwise and his opinion carried much weight...not to mention being the top guy on the scene. His generosity kept Hirohito from the hangmans noose. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
naomiglover Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 No... the Potsdam Declaration called for the end of Emperial Rule and the "elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence" of those that directed the war. That never happened. The Potsdam agreement was never fully implemented, it was implemented with conditions. Thus the position by General Macarthur... Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. Thanks for the information. Quote Jewish Voice for Peace Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
ToadBrother Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 I answered this question 50 times. It should have been made clear to Japan that signing the Potsdam Declaration would NOT have meant the Japenese had to give up their Emperor. Are you illiterate? Do you know what the term "unconditional surrender" means? It doesn't mean "Oh yeah, and we'll let you keep your emperor", it means "you put down your arms right now and we'll decide what happens next, with or without consideration to your wants or desires." Quote
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) Are you illiterate? Do you know what the term "unconditional surrender" means? It doesn't mean "Oh yeah, and we'll let you keep your emperor", it means "you put down your arms right now and we'll decide what happens next, with or without consideration to your wants or desires." Its YOU thats illiterate. Your statements are blatantly contradictory. You claim that unconditional surrender doesnt mean "we'll let you keep your emperor". And you claim that surrender WAS unconditional when it came. Yet the emperor was not only left in place but let of the hook for all his crimes! Youre twisting yourself into confused logical paradox. At this point youre actually arguing with yourself. Furthermore Potsdam had OTHER concession by the west in it... like this one The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished It should have also had... The institution of the Emperor will be allowed to remain Since it was going to be allowed to remain anyways... And there would have been a much greater chance of surrender, and avoiding mass murder of women and children. So for the FIFTY FIRST TIME.... If the allies were going to allow the Empire to remain in place and escape prosecution for war crimes. Why on earth wasnt that reflected in the Potsdam Declaration, which would have made a Japenese surrender much much much more likely without the use of the massive slaughter of civilians, and asserted by General MacArthur, Eizenhower, and Leahy? Edited August 11, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) Why do you think talk of altering Japan's constitution to remove the prohibitions against war will still cause incredible anger among those peoples.Because they are money grubbing hypocrites. Whatever abuses the Japanese committed in China they pale in comparison to what Mao and the Communists successors have done to their own people. As long as the Chinese communist government whitewashes its own history it has no business criticizing Japan's record during the war. As for Korea, Japanese investment helped modernize the Korean economy and introduced a system of universal education - something which was long opposed by the Korean nobility before the Japanese annexation. The Japanese-Korea relationship can be reasonably compared to the English-Irish relationship (i.e. the imbalance of power meant Koreans/Irish often got the short end of the stick but it was not all bad). The issue of the women forced into prostitution is perhaps the area where the most misinformation has been spread. In most cases, these woman were sold by their families to Korean pimps. The Japanese army was obviously complicit but the issue is not as black and white as many claim. More importantly, the Japanese government provided compensation to the Korean government with expectation that these women would be taken care of by the Korean government. The demands for direct compensation to the woman are largely opportunitist propoganda encouraged by the Korean government which failed live up to its part of the deal. Edited August 11, 2010 by TimG Quote
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary. "Might" being the key word. It's quite amazing to watch Imperial Japan get turned into a victim while the Allies end up as the aggressors. History turned on its head. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 Because they are money grubbing hypocrites. Whatever abuses the Japanese committed in China they pale in comparison to what Mao and the Communists successors have done to their own people. As long as the Chinese communist government whitewashes its own history it has no business criticizing Japan's record during the war. As for Korea, Japanese investment helped modernize the Korean economy and introduced a system of universal education - something which was long opposed by the Korean nobility before the Japanese annexation. The Japanese-Korea relationship can be reasonably compared to the English-Irish relationship (i.e. the imbalance of power meant Koreans/Irish often got the short end of the stick but it was not all bad). The issue of the women forced into prostitution is perhaps the area where the most misinformation has been spread. In most cases, these woman were sold by their families to Korean pimps. The Japanese army was obviously complicit but the issue is not as black and white as many claim. More importantly, the Japanese government provided compensation to the Korean government with expectation that these women would be taken care of by the Korean government. The demands for direct compensation to the woman are largely opportunitist propoganda by the Korean government which failed live up to its part of the deal. During WW2, Mao's men were content to sit on their asses for the most part...or attack the Nationalists if bored. They were eventually pushed into doing something by the Americans who were supplying everybody. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
TimG Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) During WW2, Mao's men were content to sit on their asses for the most part...or attack the Nationalists if bored. They were eventually pushed into doing something by the Americans who were supplying everybody.I was thinking of post WW2 actions by Mao during the Cultural Revolution. The more recently, the Tiananmen Square Massacre never occurred according to the Chinese government. There is no better example of a shameless hypocrite than a Chinese government official complaining about Japanese textbooks. Edited August 11, 2010 by TimG Quote
dre Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 "Might" being the key word. It's quite amazing to watch Imperial Japan get turned into a victim while the Allies end up as the aggressors. History turned on its head. "Might" being the key word. Exactly! Its speculation, just like all your post hoc predictions that more people would have died had atomic bombs not been dropped on dense civilian centers. The point is... they didnt bother to try. Even though they were urged to by Great Britain, other allies, and many prominent Americans involved in the conflict. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 11, 2010 Report Posted August 11, 2010 (edited) "Might" being the key word. It's quite amazing to watch Imperial Japan get turned into a victim while the Allies end up as the aggressors. History turned on its head. It's standard procedure for such revisionists...they have to extend their political agenda far into the past. So we get Germany and Japan as victims because the contemporary Great Satan(s) must be punished for their contemporary "war crimes" and violations of "international law". You can see the same approach with "Cold War" equivocations and rationalizations being depicted as far more evil than anything seen during WW2. Edited August 11, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.