Anyone have handy Roosevelts statements or explinations as to why he wanted unconditional surrender? Be interesting to see what he actually said or wrote about this.

The same for Churchill, Alan Brooke & the rest, for that matter.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380



"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63




This might of interest to you Schwamberger....


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

You single out Japan as being racist, which is interesting.
Have you tried living in Korea or China either?
It isn't only a 'white' character flaw.
I have lived in Korea. I also deal with Chinese students. I have found faults and greatness in each. Asian cultures are interesting, but no matter how you look at it, there is a thin veneer of civilization holding a barbarian in check. It is one thing to view people as individuals, but another to see them collectively.

Do you realize that your description and criticism of Japan since the Russo-Nippon War is even MORE applicable to the USA or Britain or any of us in the West? No nation is immune from criticism. And most have gone through an expansionist period. Britain is the prime example of that, going from an island to a world power in no time (relatively speaking). But attitudes change and WWI changed the common attitude about the use of military for empire building

If you think their Emperor wanted war, led them to war, then you haven't even read the Western Histories I have. The fellow was hardly a Genghis Khan you make him out to be. There is no doubt I believe he holds some responsibility, but so do all the American and Western leaders who expanded their nations by force, occupation, annexation these last couple of centuries.The emperor was no Ghengis Khan, but instead of acting as a divine leader, he allowed himself to be led by those who were suppose to be his advisors. The public, despite their overall attitude about being good followers to their leaders, had only one true devotion; the Emperor. Had he been less willing to listen to the militants, there could have been many changes. Even Tojo was not the real power behind the war, IMHO. I believe the real power was, as is now, the industial leadership that holds more total power than most understand.

If you knew Japanese history, you'd know that their 'warrior culture' had lived peacefully in self imposed isolation from their neighbours for over 300 years!

It was the Americans, still with legalized racial slavery, in 1854 US Commodore Perry actually shelled and killed Japanese fishing village to force the Japanese to open up to American trade and follow Western lead into the next century.
Imagine, the idea of sending a warfleet, without warning, into a foreign port and use force to demand they comply with your demands.As usual, the total story is more than can be condensed in a brief paragraph. The growth of nations and the inclusion into the world around us, is never going to be painless. Wrongs are done on every side. The Japanese held a centrific view of the world. Their treatment of our people had much to do with the actions of Perry, but often it is just an excuse. Does anyone really equate our ancestors with people today. We evolve, mentally and physically.

My Atlas of World History, Conways, printed in the USA... shows that from 1900-30? the USA alone invaded foreign nations 7 times WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR, sometimes even to replace a democratically elected gov't they didn't like, and 5 of those times tens of thousands were killed(in their nation's histories, murdered).
Imagine that, attacking someone without a declaration of war? A declaration of war is meaningless. Sending troops into battle is a normal function of any nation. The larger the nation, or the more ambitious, the more frequent the need to see combat. The goal of military use is to gain a desired resource, or to protect what is already possessed. In today's society, the more advanced nations are less inclined to think expansion. As always, it is the ones that cannot find other ways to gain goals that attack others.

Japan saw these Western Powers bully and war foreign peoples to extend their domination, secure over sea trade and teach their future leaders who came to school and live in the USA to respect and obey racist segregation laws. Where in the USA it was ILLEGAL for an Asian to marry a white, for a Japanese immigrant to own property and have citizenship rights through the 1930s. I wonder where they got these crazy ideas?

Invading foreign lands, forcing them to bow to our God, convert to our religion, speak our language.
Setting up an Empress of India to rule over the Shahs, and Rajahs and Muharajahs and Zulu Kings.
Where did they ever get the idea?

Till we came along, the Japanese revered the Chinese as the superior people, the Centre of the Universe. I have never felt that they reveed the Chinese. Feared them, yes, respected them as a numerical overwhelming foe, yes, revered them, no.
Who was it that gave Korea to Japan? The USA.
Who gave Formosa to Japan? The West.
Who was it that supported their new militarists gaining control over their Constitution?
German/France/USA ...Army
Britain...Navy

Japan was on the Allied side in WW1.
But Japan, China and Russia were amongst countries who never signed the Geneva Conventions.
Yet did we apply those conventions war-crime and crimes against humanty clauses for far more bio-chemical deaths to even the defeated who did sign after WW1?
No.

Gee, I wonder where the Japanese got the idea any of what they did was acceptable?
even profitable?

It is easy to judge the past based on knowledge and mores of the current societies. The problem is when we reflect on details without dealing with the world politics and capabilities at the time. Cause and effect is a gamble that can go any direction. Often events at one end of the world can destroy the benefits of an action at another end of the world. Look at all the 'What if' discussions here.

Even today we invade countries even without declarations of war
to secure our resources in someone else's country
to launch pre-emptive strikes on foes just because we 'feel' are a threat
to leave troops and bases in foreign lands to protect our friendly regimes
US personnel and citizens are immune to international war crimes tribunals
Again, politics is a complex business, with few winners in the short term. Battles are fought because diplomacy fails. But also, diplomacy can be a tool used to distract and delay. Often rogue elements will use the process as cover for actions that will be detrimental for their enemies. The fun part is that they can use that diplomacy to refute any charges of violations when challenged. People have a tendency to find simplistic answers to complex issues.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

In January 1943, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met in secret near Casablanca, Morocco, for their second wartime summit meeting. At the final press conference on January 24, Roosevelt announced to the world that the Allies would not stop until they had the “unconditional surrender” of Germany, Italy and Japan. It was an impulsive statement by the American president, who later explained that the idea for it had “simply popped into my mind” while contemplating Ulysses S. Grant’s ultimatum to Confederates during the Civil War. At the time the pronouncement stirred a flurry of debate among British allies and his own generals, with the consensus of opinion being that it was a disastrous policy that would goad the Axis powers into a fight to the death. Who knew Grant’s shadow was so long?

http://www.historynet.com/historical...s/4754821.html

__________________

To counter that anecdotal quote:
Unconditional surrender was the only logical path for Germany.
The ongoing Italian surrender situation and contemporary political moves to protect those negotiations created the historical 'argument' over this.

This nonsense about it goading Germany to fight to the end is one of David Irving's little hobby horses. It does not hold water and often forms a central pillar of those that try to present Nazi Germany as having some sort of victim status.

Those units in the field fighting in the West always had the option to surrender, regardless of the overall political situation. Many chose to do so as they perceived the war could not be won but plenty fought on until destruction, or the very end of their tactical tether. They were fully willing to do so and would have done whether the politicians offer for the country was unconditional or not.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

What about the Morgenthau plan then, Adam?

__________________

The original draft of that plan was well beyond unconditional surrender; That a de-industrialised Germany was to be left to "stew in her own juices for a long time" and was definitely made much of when Mr Goebbels got wind of it.
But he successfully did that with so many other distortions of potential or threatened Allied policy, noone could ever really quantify in months and years how much JG's work lengthened the war, regardless of whichever of the thousands of issues he chose to manipulate at any given time.
It's like saying that the much needed act of resisting & threatening belligerent Germany was 'just another way of lengthening the war'.

However it (the plan) becomes little more than a distraction, being largely put aside at Potsdam, and of course does not represent how Germany was actually treated. Quite the opposite as despite the messy division of Germany, (which was frankly inevitable with the Soviets calling so many of the shots), the postwar Western Germany was built up to one of Europes leading economic powers (perhaps the leading power) by the somewhat more significant (dare I say "unsordid" ) means of the more pragmatic Marshall Plan.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

That doesn't make any sense at all. I don't see what you're trying to imply.
Mussolini was trying to negotiate peace with Churchill behind Hitler's back since the Fall of France.
The negotiated surrender was in fact with Mussolini's Fascist Council who had him ousted.
Then the King, I believe, simply appointed a new PM.
Italian ended the war fighting Italian, I'm not even sure the Allied side got most of the Italian planes and tanks. I've read Italian fighters were not only defending Ploesti but even Berlin to the end of the war.


Personally I have no idea who David Irving is but I sincerely doubt he is behind the consensus opinion of not only our historians and leaders, but even non-Nazi Germans like Adolf Galland and Von Luck and their agreement on the issue.

Where do you get the idea that the aforementioned were ever inclined to present Nazi Germany has having some victim status?

Ridiculous.
You are dis-proving your own claims.
Every German knew that even if they surrendered to us, they and/or their families could be forced to go back under the Russian boot.
If Monty is forced by 'unconditional surrender' to say, 'sorry, but I have to send you and your families back to the mercies of Stalin'...what's the point in hastening the matter?

Are you serious?

They weren't fighting to 'win' the war at this point,
they were only fighting to either force conditional terms,
or make us pay for their upcoming misery.
What, you think the hundreds of thousands of women and children raped in Berlin were checked to make sure they were Nazi-Party Members first?
You think we only sent the Nazi-Germans back to Russian mercy?

Why do you think the Germans kept trying to negotiate a separate peace even surrender to the Allies? That's called 'conditional'.

I don't know of ANY of the German groups trying to resist or usurp Hitler and his Nazis who wanted to surrender to the Russians.
As long as there was 'unconditional surrender', there was no hope to even have only us occupy them post-war.

On Italy, the implication is that Churchill had no wish for the Italians to be spooked at the same time as delicate surrender negotiations were ongoing. Alanbrookes unedited diary tends to confirm this, though his diplomatic side means he is often somewhat coy on what he sees as political matters.

On surrender, the important distinction between what I said and your interpretation of it is "In the West". The decision most always lay with the individual unit, soldier, or perhaps more likely, Officer, the established and agreed fact that the Soviets would gobble up as much territory as possible and were not exactly tempting as captors is not something I would dispute, or ever have. The inevitability and force of the USSR's territorial expansion is another reinforcing factor for the case that unconditional surrender was the only course available to the rest of the Allies.

On, What better argument to offer them absolutely nothing for their pointless aggression? After 6 years of horrible war they deserved nothing and they would get nothing until that aggression had been thoroughly tamed.

To rely too heavily on the likes of Galland and Von Luck's testimonies regarding such politicised matters is dangerous, they may perhaps be "Non nazis" but they certainly brought their own rather strong agendas to the table. Mansteins 'Lost Victories' for example is an interesting (if somewhat dull) read but it must always be absorbed with an awareness that senior German ex-leaders postwar had more than a few irons in the fire regarding the protection of their own fragile or tattered reputations. The over-reliance on these perspectives is one that has lead the once interesting Irving to his current lowly status.

On Irving, If you have never heard of him then I'm awfully sorry, and have absolutely no wish to appear personal (I'm enjoying this little chat, as I hope you are too), but I would tend to disbelieve that you have covered anywhere near enough territory to assert so firmly what the historical consensus is.

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

It's like that SouthPark episode where the boys are trying to convince 2 others to fight when they really don't want to. Each time one doesn't show up or is wavering, they up the ante or increase the insults trying to convince the reluctant to believe the rhetoric of the promoters.

It's a motivating tool. Which usually means the leader is unsatisfied or worried about the support he has.

Has the original poster been satisfied with the replies?

Von P, Were actually able to read it? It is one the few books that I have ever put down and not finished. I managed to push my way to the halfway point. It was dreadful.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Just to add my two-cents worth to this discussion, focusing back on why the Allies demanded unconditional surrender.

The German People and the Germany Army felt like the politicians had stabbed them in the back by surrendering at the end of WWI. Many of them didnt see it as Germany Losing the war. Rather, they saw it as the Kaiser losing the war. The masses of German troops returning home turned Germany into a militaristic society with the formation of hundreds of Paramilitary groups (also due to vast unemployment) especially once the Kaiser was kicked out and the Weimar Republic was formed.

The political turmoil called upon these Paramilitary groups to fight each other and political rivals in the streets. The largest of these groups, like the SA and Stahelm (sp might be wrong on that last one) were training hundreds of former soldiers and young men how to fight, and arming them with military-grade weapons. By the time the Nazis took over in 1933, the Army still remained 100,000 strong (as per Versailles treaty) but the SA, shortly before its disbandment, consisted of over 2.5 Million Men.

I believe that it is partially for this reason that they called for unconditional surrender. They wanted to pull up the weeds by the roots, so to speak, instead of pulling off the leaves like they had at the end of WWI.

__________________

Balderdasher, I am sorry if your apologist attitude towards the Japanese cannot allow you to see the truth.

First off, WWI was not started by the French, British, or Americans. The lands occupied after winning that war, was an attempt to break up the German and Ottoman empires. the British and the French did assume control of some strategic areas, mostly for what was considered the spoils of war then. The United States did not embark on any excursions of conquest afte the Spanish American War. In fact, most of the lands obtained by that act, are in the hands of the people that live there. Only a few places are still territories of the United States, and those remain so by popular consent of the populace.

The reason I am pointing out the Japanese for criticism is for the simple reason that during WWII, the Japanese were the enemy. Not the Chinese or the Koreans.

As for the Emperor, no symbolic head of a nation is an actual leader any more. For over a century, most kings, emperors, etc. have lived existences of being guided by their handlers. It is still not an excuse for losing touch with the world around you. And Hirohito could have made a difference. I do not fault him for being the way he was raised, but I do make the point that he could have made a difference if he was a different and more assertive individual.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

I take great offense at your arrogance in name calling me a Japanese apologist.

Most sides of my family through the generations both sides had granddads or great uncles serve against the Japanese. One even reportedly murdered in a hospital bed, others in POW camps tortured and slave labour. I was raised by part of the family to hate the Japanese. The reason I took an interest in history was because of family service and suffering.

That's also when I learnt the world isn't as black and white as you'd infer.

One ex-wife was Japanese and no-one appreciates more how few rights gaijin like me have even the withdrawal of immigration, work visa and property/employment rights. Same thing in Korea. A reason my Korean engagement fell through wasn't only Korean racism, but my own family racism as it was a Korean troop that tortured some of ours, one to death.

Having lost everything, I now mostly work for companies against the Japanese if you will. Not a racist choice, just who'd hire me at the time.

At least I've taken Asian history, and not in Japan. I'm not Japanese, I'm about as white as you get. But I'm not so petty as to go along with what I know are lies, even if it is about someone I don't like.

My mainland Chinese employers love people like you and your talk, they believe it makes the rest of the world mis-trust and resent us all the more.
They even try to hire people to do so, political or corporate, propaganda.
We use history in negotiations all the time and I get paid to bring these things up like a professional debator depending on who hires me at the time. You do it just out of racist spite.

When I go back to work, I at least cherry pick facts and not make up stuff as you do.

Personal offense taken at your dispersion. Mute option enabled.