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 a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Related task forces... British military history task force Canadian military history task force Japanese military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

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

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)

Contents 1 Merge with Japanese Instrument of Surrender ? 2 I read... 3 suggest removal of POV language 4 surrender of japan 5 Japanese name order 6 Soviet entering into the war

[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.

[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)