Talk:Potsdam Declaration

russia had a nuterality agreement with japan during the time of the postdam declaration. I think this article needs to be revised.

Isn't this should be named "Potsdam declaration" (lowercase d)? -- Taku

Either that, or just merge it with Potsdam conference. Ellsworth 13:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete External Link

The link to Hiroshima is deleted since it is not mentioned in the text. --Xplore

Who issued it?

There's some confusion about whether Stalin or Chiang Kai-Shek issued the decleration. According to the wikiquote article (and other sources) it was Chiang Kai-Shek (along with Truman and Churchill). (Stalin wasn't even at war with Japan at that time). But I can see how the picture of the "big three" here in this article can confuse things. I don't think it should be here. Shanes 02:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, Churchill was recalled from the Conference after the elections put the Labour Party in charge of the UK government. Should it say that Attlee(sp?) "issued" it? Ellsworth 23:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Attlee became primeminister 27.july 1945.

From the Japanese version (and as I'm a native speaker of Chinese I'm just guessing the meaning of kanjis there) it seems that China had a representative at Potsdam and Chiang Kai-shek gave his consent over radio relays to the Conference. So the Potsdam Declaration was issued under the names of the US, Britain, and China but China did not formally attend the Potsdam Conference, which participants included the US, Britain, and the Soviet Union.

Issued how?

I do not imagine there were diplomatic ties to Japan from any of these three countries at the time. So how is something like this issued? Maybe passed through the hand of a nuetral third party? Does anyonr have a clue what is meant by "issued"?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am watching a fascinating Japanese film, titled "Japan's Longest Day", about the surrender of Japan. It states (from the subtitles) "The Potsdam Declaration ... was intercepted by the Overseas Broadcast Station at 6:00 AM on July 26th, 1945". I imagine that a paper version would have been delivered via a neutral embassy.

Tofindya (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, the Declaration was printed on leaflets and dropped over Japanese cities. See http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm for more information. Yaush (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

divinity of the Emperor?

Apparently, one of the conditions was that the emperor was to say that he was not a divine leader and that he could make mistakes. Was this a real condition, as it's not mentioned in the article (I think)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.95.146 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2007

See the text of the Declaration. There's no explicit mention of the emperor.

—wwoods 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From the text of the declaration:

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

Does this not include the emperor?

Agreement to point six would require the emperor to admit to irresponsibility, deception and misleading people. If the emperor was even included in the declarations. The declaration does not explicitly include or disclude anyone specific and seems to imply a decision on specifically who would be include would be determined after Japan's surrender. The western interpretation was that the emperor was "God" (or at least a god) and "God" is infallible. By this logic, the emperor would be submitting to the idea that he was not a god by submitting to point six. But as I understand it, The emperor was considered an incarnate kami. Divine in nature but not equivalent to a god in the western sense. Kami are both good and evil. A closer comparison would be to use the word angel. Angels, like kami, are divine, good, and evil. "Satan, and his angels" (Rev 12:7) for examples are evil angels and still are divine beings (2 Pet 10b, Jude 1:9). Even by this logic, the emperor could include himself and submit to point six and still claim to be an incarnate kami. In any case, even if intended, nothing in the declaration required a "renunciation of divinity". At best, would be to claim that the declaration eventually lead to circumstances in which a "renunciation of divinity" came to be. As this renunciation occurred much later and as a separate matter from the declaration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If Japan is attacked?

The conditions state that Japan will no longer have a military. Nothing mentions what should/will happen if Japan is atacked by another country (the attack not provoaked by Japan). How does it defend itself?

Cs1kh 11:47, 25July 2007 (UTC)

If Japan had been attacked during the occupation, it would have been the responsibility of the U.S. to defend the country. Nowadays, despite the 'renunciation of war' in the 1947 Constitution, Japan has a substantial military, the Japan Self-Defense Forces.

—wwoods 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, a country can have a military and be far from able to effectively wage a war of attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Japan's response?

This article absolutely needs info about Japan's response. I've copied the below statement from a webpage, but I'd prefer a complete description of this from a reputable source.

On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki announced that Japan intended to "ignore" the Potsdam Declaration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.12.10 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Grammar, Syntax and Composition

Can anyone take an article seriously when it demonstrates such a poor grasp of language and composition?

¶1,S-1 : Bad enough that its authors chose to call it the Potsdam Declaration, it certainly was not a statement; nor was it a declaration, but that’s history The fact that it was an ultimatum should be explicit in the first sentence of the article, not the third.

¶1,S-2 : Grammatically incorrect - “was issued by … … that outlined the terms …”. The sentence could be broken in two in the interests of clarity.

¶1,S-4 : I have no idea what the author means to convey. A nuclear bomb cannot be the start of a conference, at least not in English.

¶2,S-1 : Promulgate connotes publication and dissemination, neither of which happened historically. The author needs to state that a counter demand was made by the Japanese. The sentence ought to be broken into two – rejection and counter demand, followed by Russian threat & bombing.

¶2,S-2 : I have no idea what the author means to convey with intended / acceptable / recourse. Bad idiom at the end : ‘has been subjected to …’ or ‘ has been the subject of …’ – you takes your pick.

I would offer to rewrite the article but for the sentences that are inscrutable. I don’t think I am nitpicking here, nor identifying typos. Poor language invariably muddies the waters, and clarity is the sine qua non for Encyclopedia entries.

Tofindya (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of wasting your time writing how incorrect this or that is, you could have corrected the article instead...

Treaty of San Francisco

Should we add a fact that the Potsdam Declaration is superseded by Treaty of San Francisco? If it is not literally superseded, should we give some description on relation between Treaty of San Francisco and Potsdam Declaration (particularly on the incompatible terms between the Treaty and Declaration）. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is between terms of surrender and the final peace terms. The Potsdam Declaration laid out the former. The final peace terms, which brought about normalization of relations between the Allies and Japan, were laid out in the Treaty of San Francisco. It couldn't hurt to link the latter in this article, though. Yaush (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the discrepancies should be high-lighted. And the facts that China did not attend the San Francisco conference and the SF treaty was not ratified by most of Japan's victim countries. This may explain Japan's frosty relations with her victim countries as the terms of surrender was not fully carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.131.8 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

cause of dropping atomic bombs?

"Japan's initial rejection of the ultimatum led directly to Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9. "

The Potsdam Declaration was issued on July 26, 1945, and the first order about the bombs was made on July 25. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/ferrell_book/ferrell_book_chap6.htm

This paragraph needs neutral POV reconsideration.124.210.21.10 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the bombs would have been dropped even if the Japanese had promptly sued for peace on the basis of the Potsdam Declaration? Yaush (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

president diary First he decided to drop atomic bombs, and at the same time he thought it needs some warning which he was sure to be rejected. The oder was made on July 25, just a day before the Potsdam Declaration. This is not a coincidence. Atomic bombs are dropped not because of The Potsdam Declaration, but the declaration issued to drop bombs. This is another aspect of this article. 124.210.21.10 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't really answered my question. Are you suggesting the decision to drop the bombs would not have been reversed even if Japan had promptly sued for peace? Yaush (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting the decision would not have been reversed. What I'm saying is he was "sure they will not do that", and he didn't worry about canceling the decision. The very point is, he added the political step to issue the declaration, so that later people like you would make that question sentence and it be felt effective. 124.210.21.10 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) And so, it needs to be edited according to neutral POV. 124.210.21.10 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange, uncoordinated train of thought. The bombs were not dropped until many days later - don't confuse preparatory orders with final orders. These are old discussions, but still distressing that no RS was discussed to support your belief that somehow there was a POV issue.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender

This article states that the Potsdam Declaration did not demand "unconditional surrender." But the article on the Cairo Declaration states that: (1) the Cairo Declaration demanded unconditional surrender (A "main point" of the declaration is said to state that "The Allies are resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender." The actual text of the Declaration in the Department of State archive confirms this claim.); and (2) the Potsdam Declaration incorporated the Cairo Declaration by reference ("Japan specifically accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration, which incorporated by reference the terms of the Cairo Declaration. . . ." The text of the Declaration confirms this claim; see item #8.). These articles are not consistent and therefore one or both of the articles is in error. I have no expertise or first-hand knowledge and therefore I can do more than point out the apparent problem. But it appears to me, based on my web-based fact checking, that this article, rather than the article on the Cairo Declaration, is in error.

Note: Apologies for any breach of policy, form, or etiquette. I don't generally comment. But while watching the film Japan's Longest Day I thought to do a bit of fact checking via Wikipedia and ran into this issue. The film made out that the Potsdam declaration was softer than the Cairo Declaration in not insisting on "absolute and unconditional surrender."

Wbmccarty (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

offered?

"On the other hand, the declaration offered that:" The declaration stipulates everything, none of it is 'offered'. Dividing the stipulations on the wikipedia page assumes that the 'offers' were intended as offered and/or welcomed as offers while the others were intended to be unwelcomed stipulations and were unwelcomed. "shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives." might be seen as an offer. Many soldiers would have seen it as a requirement to become dishonored. Hard to divide this as a stipulation or offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Declaration was never transmitted to the Japanese government through diplomatic channels." - is this true?

Just as the headline says, this article claims that "The Declaration was never transmitted to the Japanese government through diplomatic channels." However, the article on Mokusatsu claims that the declaration was "transmitted to the Japanese government diplomatically via Swiss intermediaries". These two claims are mutually exclusive. It would be great if someone could get to the bottom of this and fix whichever article needs fixing. --86.101.112.68 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Remembering the Asia Pacific War

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GumTreeKookabura (article contribs). Peer reviewers: RubBec03.

— Assignment last updated by RubBec03 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)