3 ms·

The Japanese surrender terms were flatly unacceptable: retention of the Imperial gov't, no foreign occupation of Japan, Japan surrenders occupied territories an

The Japanese surrender terms were flatly unacceptable: retention of the Imperial gov't, no foreign occupation of Japan, Japan surrenders occupied territories and returns to pre-war borders, Japan handles their own disarmament and prosecution of Japanese war criminals. The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. As early as mid-1944, the cabinet accepted that the war was unwinnable for them, and their strategy shifted to intransigent defence in the hope that by the time the U.S. cleared all the islands and showed up at the Home Islands, they'd be too exhausted to invade and would accept the above terms. At no time did they offer any terms of surrender less than the above, including after the dropping of the atomic bombs (according to the diary of the foreign minister Tojo). Indeed, after dropping both atomic bombs, half the cabinet still refused to surrender.

vmception 5y ago
> The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. Can you tell me more about the status quo of 1935 and why that was a problem for the US or allies? I know it is a different Japan that did brutal things in the region, but they didn't attack US then and they weren't doing.. anything relevant to the allies. The stuff in Europe was the issue. am I missing something?
- InTheArena 5y ago
  The status quo of 1935 would leave Korea and parts of China in Japanese hands, and the military Junta in place. It's like saying Hitler would have made peace, as long as we let him have the Ukraine, and didn't mind all the jews he murdered.
  - vmception 5y ago
    okay, interesting similarity, another similarity is that we (the US) didn't go to war against Hitler over occupied lands or the murdered Jews. Some of the allies happened to feel obligated to go to war over the occupied lands of their own partners, with the latter reality about the killings being neglected for an entire decade. The US stayed out of all, until eventually it was directly attacked by Japan and went to war against the whole Axis. There isn't a history to support that either outcome would have been an absurdity.
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      More specifically, the United States didn't go to war at all against Germany until Hitler declared war on the United States. But it's worth noting that he did so, because Roosevelt, in his eyes, was the chief Agent of the jews. So in other way, the United States did go to war because of murdered jews. But that is because he saw the United States as agents of the Jews.
      - vmception 5y ago
        Ridiculous miscalculation. yes, I'm reading about the order of events now. Germany declared war on US after US declared war on Japan. Germany's agreement with Japan did not provide for this kind of assurance if Japan attacked another country first. Hitler dismissed this reminder and had low regard for US military largely due to his blind hatred and belief that the country was weakened by Jewish and African Americans. whoops. what dumb ideas. I get what you are saying, the reason I think it is a stretch to focus on the Jewish people murdered in Europe, is because the US mistreated them too, before, then and for decades after. It relies on retroactively applying sympathy towards Jewish people, to make it seem like the US and allies were actually involved for moral reasons, and morals reasons that included oppressed Jewish people. Liberating the camps was a stretch goal that occurred once soldiers busted into them and saw how dire it was first hand. People suspected, of course.
        InTheArena 5y ago
        Interestingly enough, that view is being challenged right now. (I have a book on my bookshelf waiting for my intention). Taking Hitler's second book more at it's words - its more that Hitler desperately wanted to get Japan into the War to keep America out of the war long enough to knock Soviet Russia out. He committed to declaring war on America if Japan did (prior to 12/1) to try and get Japan to take the brunt of the damage up front front. Hitler bet that like in 1918, it would simply take a long time for the USA to build up it's armament. But it's also clear that Hitler viewed the United States - as agents of World Jewry - and it's continent of resources as the ultimate opponent for a unified germanic Europe. (The best source off the top of my head for this PoV is Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction).
trasz 5y ago
So essentially the flatly unacceptable terms were the exact same terms that got accepted, except for the US military bases?
- kipchak 5y ago
  Didn't Japan have pretty substantial territory gains by 1935?
- fatbird 5y ago
  No, not at all. no foreign occupation of Japan The U.S. occupied Japan and had absolute rule over it Japan surrenders occupied territories and returns to pre-war borders Japan was occupied by the U.S. and had zero territorial integrity or control over the Home Islands. Japan handles their own disarmament The U.S. disarmed Japan and actually did so, rather than hide a bunch of war materials prosecution of Japanese war criminals. The U.S. prosecuted many Japanese war criminals, rather than hold a few show trials. retention of the Imperial gov't The Imperial gov't was disbanded and replaced with direct rule by McArthur until the new democratic structure was set up. A figurehead emperor was retained because it was useful to do so. In short, the Japanese surrender terms had to do with Japan as a nation pulling back from its conquests and making some notional gestures at disarmament and prosecution of war criminals. What they got in the end was complete surrender to their enemy who rebuilt their nation the way the enemy decided to. They were lucky insofar as the U.S. desire was to rebuild Japan as a prosperous democratic nation to serve as an eastern bulwark against communist expansion. The German plan for western Russia was to depopulate it and repopulate it with Germans. [edit: fixed formatting]
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  No. The difference was, the actual terms didn't leave the existing government in power, didn't leave Japan in control of its own territory, and didn't leave Japan in charge of prosecuting their own war criminals. Those are some fairly big differences. If you compare the Japanese government after the end of the US occupation to the Japanese government in 1935, the difference is stark.

vmception 5y ago

> The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. Can you tell me more about the status quo of 1935 and why that was a problem for the US or allies? I know it is a different Japan that did brutal things in the region, but they didn't attack US then and they weren't doing.. anything relevant to the allies. The stuff in Europe was the issue. am I missing something?

InTheArena 5y ago
The status quo of 1935 would leave Korea and parts of China in Japanese hands, and the military Junta in place. It's like saying Hitler would have made peace, as long as we let him have the Ukraine, and didn't mind all the jews he murdered.
- vmception 5y ago
  okay, interesting similarity, another similarity is that we (the US) didn't go to war against Hitler over occupied lands or the murdered Jews. Some of the allies happened to feel obligated to go to war over the occupied lands of their own partners, with the latter reality about the killings being neglected for an entire decade. The US stayed out of all, until eventually it was directly attacked by Japan and went to war against the whole Axis. There isn't a history to support that either outcome would have been an absurdity.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    More specifically, the United States didn't go to war at all against Germany until Hitler declared war on the United States. But it's worth noting that he did so, because Roosevelt, in his eyes, was the chief Agent of the jews. So in other way, the United States did go to war because of murdered jews. But that is because he saw the United States as agents of the Jews.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Ridiculous miscalculation. yes, I'm reading about the order of events now. Germany declared war on US after US declared war on Japan. Germany's agreement with Japan did not provide for this kind of assurance if Japan attacked another country first. Hitler dismissed this reminder and had low regard for US military largely due to his blind hatred and belief that the country was weakened by Jewish and African Americans. whoops. what dumb ideas. I get what you are saying, the reason I think it is a stretch to focus on the Jewish people murdered in Europe, is because the US mistreated them too, before, then and for decades after. It relies on retroactively applying sympathy towards Jewish people, to make it seem like the US and allies were actually involved for moral reasons, and morals reasons that included oppressed Jewish people. Liberating the camps was a stretch goal that occurred once soldiers busted into them and saw how dire it was first hand. People suspected, of course.
      - InTheArena 5y ago
        Interestingly enough, that view is being challenged right now. (I have a book on my bookshelf waiting for my intention). Taking Hitler's second book more at it's words - its more that Hitler desperately wanted to get Japan into the War to keep America out of the war long enough to knock Soviet Russia out. He committed to declaring war on America if Japan did (prior to 12/1) to try and get Japan to take the brunt of the damage up front front. Hitler bet that like in 1918, it would simply take a long time for the USA to build up it's armament. But it's also clear that Hitler viewed the United States - as agents of World Jewry - and it's continent of resources as the ultimate opponent for a unified germanic Europe. (The best source off the top of my head for this PoV is Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction).

trasz 5y ago

So essentially the flatly unacceptable terms were the exact same terms that got accepted, except for the US military bases?

kipchak 5y ago
Didn't Japan have pretty substantial territory gains by 1935?
fatbird 5y ago
No, not at all. no foreign occupation of Japan The U.S. occupied Japan and had absolute rule over it Japan surrenders occupied territories and returns to pre-war borders Japan was occupied by the U.S. and had zero territorial integrity or control over the Home Islands. Japan handles their own disarmament The U.S. disarmed Japan and actually did so, rather than hide a bunch of war materials prosecution of Japanese war criminals. The U.S. prosecuted many Japanese war criminals, rather than hold a few show trials. retention of the Imperial gov't The Imperial gov't was disbanded and replaced with direct rule by McArthur until the new democratic structure was set up. A figurehead emperor was retained because it was useful to do so. In short, the Japanese surrender terms had to do with Japan as a nation pulling back from its conquests and making some notional gestures at disarmament and prosecution of war criminals. What they got in the end was complete surrender to their enemy who rebuilt their nation the way the enemy decided to. They were lucky insofar as the U.S. desire was to rebuild Japan as a prosperous democratic nation to serve as an eastern bulwark against communist expansion. The German plan for western Russia was to depopulate it and repopulate it with Germans. [edit: fixed formatting]
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
No. The difference was, the actual terms didn't leave the existing government in power, didn't leave Japan in control of its own territory, and didn't leave Japan in charge of prosecuting their own war criminals. Those are some fairly big differences. If you compare the Japanese government after the end of the US occupation to the Japanese government in 1935, the difference is stark.