Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators
Yh, I'm on about the Fat Man, the one that was dropped on Nagasaki, its said that the Japs have already surrendered(unconditionally) before it was dropped, but that Truman or rather America put that on hold, is this true? Anyways why didn't they accept their conditional surrender, what did the Americans have to prove by getting unconditional surrender?Japan offered a truce to the US but the US wanted Japan to unconditionally surrender, they told the Japanese government that they had a superweapon that could destroy whole cities in an instant and they had better surrender, but Japan figured it couldn't be worse than the fire raids. After Hiroshima was destroyed, the US again demanded they unconditionally surrender, but they instead offered a conditional surrender, so they destroyed Nagasaki. At this point the US said the next bomb would be dropped on Tokyo, and that's when they unconditionally surrendered.
This was the Japanese response: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"
that the "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.
that "[t]he Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives."
that "[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."
On the other hand, the declaration stated that:
"The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
The only use of the term "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Contrary to what had been intended at its conception, the Declaration made no mention of the Emperor at all. Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively, whether the Emperor might become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.
The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb (which had been tested successfully on the first day of the conference).
This was the Soviet response to the Japanese response:On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Tōgō persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points."[72] The next day, Japanese newspapers reported that the Declaration, the text of which had been broadcast and dropped by leaflet into Japan, had been rejected. In an attempt to manage public perception, Prime Minister Suzuki met with the press, and stated:
I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
The meaning of mokusatsu, literally "kill with silence," can range from "ignore" to "treat with contempt"—which rather accurately described the range of reactions within the government. On July 30, Ambassador Satō wrote that Stalin was probably talking to Roosevelt and Churchill about his dealings with Japan, and he wrote: "There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia's participation in the war." On August 2, Tōgō wrote to Satō: "it should not be difficult for you to realize that ... our time to proceed with arrangements of ending the war before the enemy lands on the Japanese mainland is limited, on the other hand it is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once."
India and/or Pakistan is more likely than any of the others on the listJames, which of the following is the most likely to use the next bomb in the coming few decades; USA, Israel, Russia, France, UK, Canada, China or N. Korea?
But India/Pakistan do not have a track record. I think USA/Israel have the highest probability, as both would be threatened by the global Islamic insurgency. USA has a track record, and Israelis have shown they would use any arms/weapons in addition to carrying out genocide.India and/or Pakistan is more likely than any of the others on the list
Nukes are effectively useless in responding to terrorism, as is anything more indiscriminate than a drone attack, since the whole point of terrorism is that it is a small number of people operating outside of the international system. Israel cannot nuke Palestine without nuking themselves, nukes are that indiscriminate.But India/Pakistan do not have a track record. I think USA/Israel have the highest probability, as both would be threatened by the global Islamic insurgency. USA has a track record, and Israelis have shown they would use any arms/weapons in addition to carrying out genocide.India and/or Pakistan is more likely than any of the others on the list
According to the following:Nukes are effectively useless in responding to terrorism, as is anything more indiscriminate than a drone attack, since the whole point of terrorism is that it is a small number of people operating outside of the international system.
US only had 2 atomic bombs stupid japanese they surrender thinking more bombs would comeThey Japanese didn't surrender. They are forced to surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Return to “General - General Discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests
