Talk:Surrender of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

1 old comments
2 Merge with Japanese Instrument of Surrender ?
3 I read...
4 suggest removal of POV language
5 surrender of japan
6 Japanese name order
7 Soviet entering into the war
8 Significance of the Surrender of Japan
9 WOW. Just wow. Togo's communique.
10 When
11 Tennozan?
12 Undefined reference to "controversy"
13 Planned work, barring objection
14 Outstanding

[edit] old comments

What does "shusen-kinenbi" (first paragraph) mean in Japanese, word for word? I know it's another name for VJ day, but what does it mean literally? Thanks! - Tronno ( t | c ) 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Never mind. - Tronno ( t | c ) 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Break down by word: 終戦 [しゅうせん] /(n) end of war/ 記念 [きねん] /(n) commemoration/memory/ 日 [ひ] /day/

Break down by character: 終 [おわり] /(n) the end/ 戦 [いくさ] /(n) war/ 記 [き] /(n,n-suf) chronicle/ 念 [ねん] /(n) /attention/

Mlewan 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Japanese Instrument of Surrender ?

I am opposed to such a merge, as the Japanese Instrument of Surrender article now contains the full text of the treaty, which is a proper level of detail for an article on the treaty, but would be an excessive level of detail in this article. StuRat 23:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur - what is the method of getting rid of the proposed merger tag? Its been there one and a half months. I'd say delete it (if nobody else has substantial opposing reasons) after two months. MadMaxDog 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. StuRat 06:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Its been there one and a half months ? I'm removing the {merge} tag. --PFHLai 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I read...

I read that one soldier surrendered not earlier than 2000. It was a few years ago, when I read it in a newspaper. He gave up only when he received the order from his commander, who was shipped there especially for this act.--Nixer 16:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggest removal of POV language

In the sentence ending, seeking to maintain its neutrality, or more fantastically, to form an alliance. I'm strongly inclined to delete "or more fantastically," as, at best, there's no clear context in that paragraph supporting it, and at worst it's a statement of bias, which is not encyclopedic style. Can anyone rewrite to show specifically who (in the context of the article) thought Shigenori's alliance-idea was "fantastic"? (and of course I'm talking about the "fantasy-like" definition of "fantastic," not the one where something's super awesome.) If not, I'll delete -- but very delicately, so as not to damage surrounding tissue. :)

Sugarbat 00:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What's an nicely NPOV way of saying the Japanese were out of their minds if they seriously thought there was any chance that Stalin, having just defeated Germany and seized the spoils of victory in Europe, would switch alliances to support Japan, which was clearly facing defeat, and with which the Russians had several disputes of their own? :-)

I think "fantastically" was my choice of wording, but here's a quote from Richard B. Frank's Downfall:

"The Army sought primarily to keep the Soviets out of the war, ... The Navy's vision did not pause there but roamed on to hallucinate an exchange of some cruisers and resources for oil and aircraft, with a distant goal of forming an alliance with the Soviets. Foreign Minister Togo stomped on thse fantasies by noting acidly that diplomacy depended on the military situation and warning that the Soviets might well have already reached an agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom." [emphasis added.]

I need to go through this article and footnote the quotations. Not this week, however.

—wwoods 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] surrender of japan

I've read that actually Japan was willing to make a peace treaty weeks BEFORE the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.255.80 (talk • contribs).

Yes, here is one place [[1]] where some attempts are described. I have read about several other attempts. Some of this seems to be described in the article in a different perspective, but it is the same story, really. As I read it, the conditions that the Japanese were looking early on were what they got in the end anyway, so some have questioned why the bombs dropped. DanielDemaret 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more examples: http://www.greenwych.ca/dulles.htm http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/jap_midway.html . Also, one of the attempts at surrendering before the bomb was a telegram of surrender from the emperor, at one time famous among translators, where it is suggested that had this telegram been correctly translated, it would have stopped the war there and then. I have read the telegram, and although a possible surrender, it did not seem to me like an unconditional surrender, but I may have misinterpreted it, since my Japanese is too awful. Oh, and, no, I can not claim that any of my sources are very good. On the other hand, some sources tell the same story as this article, just with a slightly different angle to it. DanielDemaret 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese name order

If I understand the Wikipedia style manual correctly, the Japanese names in this article ought to be given in Western order (e.g., Hideki Tojo, not Tojo Hideki). Comments? Richwales 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote this, I tried to make it about 'what the Japanese did', rather than the usual 'what the Americans did'. As part of that, I put the names in the Japanese order, but for clarity I used just the surname on the next references. (Disclaimer: I think Japanese order ought to be the norm for Japanese names.)

—wwoods 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet entering into the war

No mention of Soviet entering into the war which in fact caused the surrender.--Planemo 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In the section titled "Hiroshima, Manchuria, and Nagasaki":

"At 04:00 on August 9, word reached Tokyo that the Soviet Union had broken the neutrality pact, declared war on Japan and launched an invasion of Manchuria. The senior ..."

—wwoods 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this section is going to have to be significantly revised. I've just finished writing an article about the Japanese surrender which will be published in International Security this Spring. I argue that the Soviet intervention was decisive. Ascribing most of the cause to the Soviet intervention is not an unusual position among historians. It is not, however, yet the consensus position. Having just read all the sources for my article, I'm in a position to comment. Most historians believe that the Soviet Invasion was primarily responsible for the Japanese decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration. Almost all of them (Hagesawa is the exception), however, ascribe some influence to the Bomb as well. (I believe they're wrong, but Wikipedia is not about what I believe, or even what I publish, but the best consensus of experts at the current moment.) In order for this Wikipedia article to accurately reflect the consensus, it will have to be rewritten to emphasize the importance of the Soviet intervention.WardHayesWilson 00:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significance of the Surrender of Japan

Much of our thinking about nuclear weapons is based on our interpretation of the Surrender of Japan. Much of the reputation that nuclear weapons have for power and influence and military effectiveness stems from this historical event. The Surrender of Japan is one of the more important historical events, because it fundamentally shapes out view of nuclear weapons. Which are rather important. WardHayesWilson 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WOW. Just wow. Togo's communique.

Togo's communique of around 19-22 june here reads, with it's many "..."s, as peaceful and pro-surrender, while most historians have pointed at this as an example of Japan explicitly REJECTING surrdender before the a-bombs. I'd like to see the source document on this, becuase it looks as if wikipedias has been victim of some very un-neutral snippet making here.

86.6.11.56 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote in question is,

"With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms."

A longer quote, with the ellided text in italics is,

"With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear that it will take much more than bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender. It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, which is not so-called unconditional surrender, through the good offices of Russia. It is necessary that we exert ourselves so that this idea will be finally driven home to the Americans and the British.

Therefore, it is not only impossible for us to request the Russians to lend their good offices in obtaining a peace without conditions, it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms."

The quote hasn't been messed with — since it starts by saying "we are unable to consent to [unconditional surrender]", I didn't think the repetition was worth the space. My source was Richard Frank's Downfall, p.230; he was quoting Magic Diplomatic Summary No. 1214, 22 July 1945, which is available from the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162, in (Document 40 [pdf]).

I need to go through this and add all the cites. —wwoods 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When

In the spring and summer of 1945

it took until the spring of 1946

...when they attempted to invade Kyūshū in the fall

These time periods are ambiguous and not suitable for a global audience. They should be replaced by more precise time units that don't implicitly assume that seasons and dates are interchangeable (they are not because the corresponding southern hemisphere seasons do not occur at the same time of year as northern hemisphere seasons, and the tropics do not have temperate zone seasons). --B.d.mills 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tennozan?

The Emperor, looking for a tennozan, replied that it was premature to seek peace, "unless we make one more military gain".

It would probably be worthwhile to (i) explain what a tennozan is (I've found http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718%28199401%2958%3A1%3C167%3ATTBFOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage , which is admirable) and (ii) explain how we know so precisely what the Emperor was thinking. jiHymas@himivest.com 216.191.217.90 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined reference to "controversy"

"Controversy still exists..." is in the introduction without a context. I don't know what controversy is being referenced here and it doesn't seem to be developed later in the article text. Text should be added to define the specific controversy if that's the editor's intent. patsw (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy exists in the sense that opponents of the use of the atomic bomb cling to the premises that Japan either (a) tried to surrender to the allies prior to the atom bombs, or (b) would have surrendered within a few months of August 1945 to the allies without the use of atomic bombs. In either case, the argument goes, the bombings were unnecessary.

Both of these claims ignore the simple fact that in order to surrender, Japan would have to do so on terms acceptable to the Allies, and the terms the majority of the cabinet were advocating would never have been acceptable to the allies. Thus, the former of these claims is demonstrably false, and its proponents must go to great lengths to ignore essentially all historical evidence of the Japanese cabinet's internal deliberations.

We cannot "rerun" history without the atomic bombs, so we can never conclusively show that B is false, but those same records from Japanese deliberations also show that the latter is wrong as well. They were clearly positioned to fight at least one more big battle (the invasion of Kyushu) in the hopes of securing better terms. Thus, premise B must also be false. (Note: the deaths resulting from this battle would have dwarfed the atom bombs to insignificance. The destruction of the Japanese rail system - a prerequisite to the invasion - would have caused a famine that - conservatively - would have killed several million people.) Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planned work, barring objection

If no one objects, I plan to redo the Notes and References sections of this article similarly to History of the Philippines (1898–1946). Comments? Objections? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I object. That article does not have standard Notes and References sections. I applaud your desire to work on the Wikipedia but

(1) Harvard style referencing is in text and you have put them all into the middle of ref tags. See: WP:CITE (Inline citation styles: Harvard referencing) and WP:HARV

(2) The References section repeats several full citations. A full citation should appear only once in any citation style.

patsw (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

(1) This Surrender of Japan article currently does not use in-text Harvard referencing. It, like the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) uses Harvard-style references placed along with footnotes into an endmatter section named "Notes". The big difference between the referencing styles of two articles is that the Harvard-style references here are not wikilinked to the corresponding items in the References section as they are in that other article.

(2) The References section in Surrender of Japan does not repeat any full cites (or, if it does, it shouldn't). It does individually cite individual chapters of particular works where those works are available online and it is possible to provide individual external links directly to those individual chapters. I wouldn't anticipate doing that in this article.

To clarify, I would anticipate using the {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}} templates here to provide the aforementioned links, and also would anticipate placing a citation in the References section for Irokawa, Daikichi (1995), The age of Hirohito: in search of modern Japan, New York: Free Press, ISBN 0-02-915665-3 — currently one element of a double-barreled citation. Some additional issues might emerge during this, and I'd handle those as they came up. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) History of the Philippines (1898–1946) has {{Harvnb}} inside <ref> tags. Harvard references should appear in the text and not inside <ref> tags. I object to your plan to put this style of double reference into the article (i.e. text->notes->references)

(2) History of the Philippines (1898–1946) has the full references which are repeated. This is one example where the full reference is repeated three times:

This clutters the References section. The full reference should appear once. The style guides tell you how to write a partial reference. I'm not objecting to Harvard referencing in principle, I'm objecting to its incorrect implementation in History of the Philippines (1898–1946) being repeated in Surrender of Japan. patsw (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows both in-text harvard references and footnote-style harvard references. Footnote-style rather than in-text style happens to be used by both this article and by the other article mentioned here. I have no desire to get into a discussion about the merits one citation style vs. another, and if I were to get into such a discussion I probably would not do it in WT:CITE rather than here.

Incidentally, it is my understanding that when when originated by Edward Laurens Mark in 1881, harvard referencing used footnote-style references (though formatted somewhat differently than is popular today). See this.

Regarding those three references, as I explained previously each references and provides a clickable link to a particular chapter of the same book. It's a matter of editorial judgment whether or not the convenience provided by clickable links to referenced chapters outweighs the clutter their presence produces, and I'm not arguing that point either way here.

I'm removing this page from my watchlist. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding

This section is outstandingly well-written! I am intimately familiar with this subject, having just written a couple of articles about it, and this account carefully and faithfully presents the facts without once stepping into controversy. There are so many land mines in this topic area that it is breath-taking to watch the author calmly and skillfully avoid them. This is an amazing, virtuoso performance of encyclopedia writing. No one, except a person who was well versed in the myriad controversies that surround this subject, can appreciate how carefully and artfully the author (or authors) have managed this problem. I am going to nominate this. It is excellent, excellent work.WardHayesWilson (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: B-Class British military history articles | British military history task force articles | B-Class Canadian military history articles | B-Class Japanese military history articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class World War II articles

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.