I welcome you to provide similar information for the other combatants. I had that information at my fingertips, and I don’t even know how to research the legal situation in Japan. I would be very interested to read that.
I don’t think it’s relevant to this thread.
I think that when Japan ended its state of war within its own legal processes is the dispositive answer to the the thread. If you don’t know how, or just don’t want, to look that up, I understand.
I think this question was answered at post #5.
My bolding.
The agreement was with the Allies, of course, as the United Nations was yet to be organized.
FWIW, here’s McArthur’s remarks during the surrender ceremony. It is clear that the Allies are accepting the formal surrender of Japan, that the Japanese are “vanquished” and that this is the official end of the fighting part of the war.
Looking at a timeline of surrenders, while many major Japanese armies had surrendered before the official ceremony, there were quite a few that took up to a couple weeks to get around to officially surrendering. The biggest late surrender was in Taiwan and surrounding islands in mid-October. But, again, these were just pro forma surrenders of units that we no longer fighting and just waiting their turn to be taken prisoner.
Almost all fighting stopped after the Emperor’s speech. The most notable exception was the Russians continuing to fight and take over the rest of Sakhalin and the Kurils.
The surrender on August 15, 1945. At that point a state of war ceased to exist; the surrender was formalized September 2, but that was a formal recognition of a state that had existed since August 15.
The Treaty of San Francisco did not end the war, but was, well, a treaty that settled questions arising from the war. It’s worth noting India refused to sign it because they felt the treaty impinged on Japanese independence, and signed a separate treaty with Japan in 1952, but you wouldn’t say India and Japan were at war during that period of time.
Actually, the “Declaration by United Nations” was drafted in December of 1941, formally adopted by the Allies in 1942, and signed by additional countries as they joined the Allies. When the conference to create the modern UN was organized in early 1945, it was only open to countries that had signed that declaration and declared war on the Axis. So while the organization that we now usually refer to as the United Nations didn’t formally organize until October 1945, it is correct to say that Japan surrendered to The United Nations because that’s the term the Allies used for themselves at the time and “The United Nations” at the time is the organization that turned into “The United Nations” today.
Interestingly Article 53 of the United Nations Charter still declares that Germany and Japan are enemy states, and authorizes use of force against them without needing Security Council approval. While it’s generally considered to be obsolete, it hasn’t been formally removed or repudiated, so it’s possible to argue that hostilities with Japan and Germany haven’t ended.
Just for comparison, the occupation of Germany effectively lasted until at least 1955, when the US, UK, & France granted general sovereignty to West Germany and the Soviet Union followed suit with East Germany a few months later. And even then, Germany as it existed before the war did not regain full sovereignty until 1990 and the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.
I recall that the Allies demanded the propellers of Japanese aircraft be removed, for some pilots would take off and attack Allied aircraft.
Weren’t the Allies calling themselves the United Nations during the war? Quick check of Wikipedia says yes: Allies of World War II.
Well, technically, there were a few nutty Japs deep in jungles who were still fighting. And did so for decades, in some cases.
But they really didn’t matter. The war was over.
Occupation is a funny thing. Did the war end for France on 22 June 1940? Had the Germans won WW2 it probably would have been recorded that way. But the world was a different place for Japan. There was no liberating force waiting to retake it and restore the imperial throne.
The Emperor remained the emperor, there was no need to restore him.
Yeah, true, I was being a bit loose with history. Perhaps I should have said restored his power.
Actually not.
Look at the Instrument of Surrender, and Japan is not surrendering to the “United Nations” but rather to the four principal Allied nations, the US, China, Great Britain and the USSR, which are referred to as the “Allied Powers” in the document.
Regardless of any pedantic argument if it were technically correct or not to use the term “United Nations” as the recipient of the surrender, as that name is never (almost never?) used in histories books, movies, documentaries, etc. concerning WWII, it will be confusing to many people, especially as the Korean War was fought under the auspices of the UN.
Which again is confusing as the Emperor’s powers were severely limited under the post war constitution. Using the Emperor as as shorthand to signify the sovereignty of the nation of Japan is problematic.
For what it is worth, Churchill and Roosevelt used the term “United Nations” in communication when speaking of the Allies.
Said group were also referred to by themselves and in other documents as the United Nations, as I’ve already shown. It’s not exactly uncommon for a group of any sort to have more than one name used to refer to it. The fact that a term has drifted out of common usage doesn’t mean that it’s actually incorrect to use.