# WWII: Why did the Allies require an "unconditional surrender" when it prolonged the war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 11, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687 "2009-09-11T14:38:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/21 "2009-09-14T01:19:57Z")
The only way the Axis could have won WWII, or at least not lost, was to split the Allies. Almost all their mid- to late-war strategy was to this effect, and Hitler maintained his delusion this was just about to happen until very near the end. This was much of the reason for the Battle of the Bulge, for instance, which deliberately targeted the seam between the US and British armies, hoping to do a France 1940 and drive the Commonwealth off the continent again, forcing them to make a separate peace. The Allies, realising this, and also in order to allay Stalin’s concern of exactly this (he was already convinced that the western Allies were deliberately delaying starting a second front in order to have Russia continue to shoulder the bulk of the war effort), agreed that no-one would make a separate peace. The West for their part were worried Stalin would make a separate peace once they got to the German border, leaving them to face the whole German army. This in turn required unconditional surrender terms. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/22 "2009-09-14T04:05:59Z")
The Japaneese were also fighting to death to inflict as many deaths as possable so the Americans back home would want to sue for pease. If they could get the fighting to stop for a while it would give them time to rebuild and rearm. And they could maintain the lands and resources in China. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/23 "2009-09-14T06:37:14Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > So unconditional surrender was aimed at assuring that defeated people KNEW they were defeated. I agree with this. Although I think the US were too accomodating to Japan in the unfolding of events after surrender. I think it was a mistake to allow the imperial family to continue to be seen as the symbol of the State - the right wingers even today drive through the streets unhindered and blaring their hate propoganda at full volume. Also I think it was a mistake not to install English as the official language. Various reasons for that, but I don’t want to hijack too much. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/24 "2009-09-14T08:20:39Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > I won’t say any more about this, to avoid transforming this thread to something which better belongs in Great Debates. I’ll just direct interested Dopers to historian Gar Alperowitz’ book _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_. That book is an extremely questionable work of scholarship. Alperovitz misrepresents sources, takes quotes out of context, and perpetuates discredited arguments. For a decent revisionist argument for the use of the atomic bomb, I recommend Hasegawa’s _Racing the Enemy_. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2009, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/25 "2009-09-14T12:20:00Z")
> [@](#): > > There is plenty of evidence that, at least in part, we essentially prolonged the war in this way in order to give the Manhattan Project folks time to make two atom bombs, which we could then use to show the Russians who would have the upper hand after the war was over. > > Sec. of State James Byrnes was particularly adamant that we should not clarify the surrender terms to the Japanese, even just to ensure that the emperor would not be harmed – even though, in the end, that’s what we did anyway, once the bombs were “successfully” used. > > A related part of the evidence for this was Truman’s deliberate delaying of the Potsdam meeting, with the lame excuse that he had some unfinished business in Washington related to the “end of the fiscal year”. > > I won’t say any more about this, to avoid transforming this thread to something which better belongs in Great Debates. I’ll just direct interested Dopers to historian Gar Alperowitz’ book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. I disagree. There is no evidence that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was part of a postwar plan. They were what they appeared to be - an attack against a country we were at war with. In the beginning of 1945, the atomic bomb was regarded as just another weapon that would used as it became available. It only obtained its mythic status after it appeared to have single-handedly ended the war. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/26 "2009-09-15T04:44:33Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > I agree with this. Although I think the US were too accomodating to Japan in the unfolding of events after surrender. I think it was a mistake to allow the imperial family to continue to be seen as the symbol of the State - the right wingers even today drive through the streets unhindered and blaring their hate propoganda at full volume. BS. The Imperial family kneeled symbolically so the Japanese public did as well signalling to everyone ‘they won, it is over’. From '45 to '52 MacArthur traveled from his home to the Diet without bodyguards. If ONE Japanese person thought his holiness wanted MacArthur dead he would have suicided himself into it. If we had sentenced the Emperor to war crimes we’d now be facing a regime worse than North Korea. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/27 "2009-09-15T10:18:12Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > BS. The Imperial family kneeled symbolically so the Japanese public did as well signalling to everyone ‘they won, it is over’. From '45 to '52 MacArthur traveled from his home to the Diet without bodyguards. If ONE Japanese person thought his holiness wanted MacArthur dead he would have suicided himself into it. I disagree. (This is really GD material so I’ll keep it short). I can’t see how anything in your first paragraph pertains to what I said, so I can’t really address it. The imperial family was useful for demonstrating once and for all that the war was over and they lost, yes, if that’s what you are implying, I agree. However, getting to… > [@Sitnam](#): > > If we had sentenced the Emperor to war crimes we’d now be facing a regime worse than North Korea. I didn’t say sentence him, but whatever. I said abolish the position of emperor of Japan. Get rid of the tradition and institution of the imperial family, like Hirohito offered to do. Perhaps if they’d done that then maybe the cult of the emperor wouldn’t still be lingering around the sidelines like it is today and people (like the Mayor of Nagasaki in 1990) wouldn’t be getting shot for answering, when asked, that the emperor might have played a part in the tragedy of WWII. I think MacArthur could have done that and established a democracy with a constitution and judiciary to back it up (like he did), without Japan turning into N. Korea, which is a whole other kettle of fish. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/28 "2009-09-15T15:13:31Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > I think the US were too accomodating to Japan in the unfolding of events after surrender. I think it was a mistake to allow the imperial family to continue to be seen as the symbol of the State - the right wingers even today drive through the streets unhindered and blaring their hate propoganda at full volume. > > Also I think it was a mistake not to install English as the official language. Various reasons for that, but I don’t want to hijack too much. Many people think we were to accommodating to the royal family. Originally, we insisted that the Emperor would be held responsible for the war and be charged with war crimes. However, MacArthur was put in charge, and the cold war was reving up. Suddenly, we realized we wanted both Japan and Germany to be up and running as quickly as possible. The Emperor was useful in transforming Japan into a modern, democratic, non-militaristic society, so we ran with that. Now for your second comment: Why we should insist that a country where a very small minority spoke English should have English as its official language? That would seem to make the government less democratic and answerable to its people. Would you insist that parliamentary debate be in English and all laws and government documents be in English only? Voting only takes place in English? Official language designations are used in two ways: 1). To show minorities that their culture is appreciated. You usually do this by making that minority’s language one of the official languages such as in Canada where both French and English are official languages. 2). To oppress a minority and keep power in the hands of a single ethnic group. Such as Apartheid South Africa insisting that all government workers speak both Afrikaners and English. That kept power in the hands of the Afrikaners because they could speak both languages while most people of English stock could only speak English. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/29 "2009-09-15T16:12:21Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > Many people think we were to accommodating to the royal family. Originally, we insisted that the Emperor would be held responsible for the war and be charged with war crimes. However, MacArthur was put in charge, and the cold war was reving up. Suddenly, we realized we wanted both Japan and Germany to be up and running as quickly as possible. The Emperor was useful in transforming Japan into a modern, democratic, non-militaristic society, so we ran with that. Your timing’s off. We didn’t start trying to rebuild Japan as a strong nation until a few years after the decisions re: the fate of the imperial family were made. I’ve always been fond of the proposed plan to have Hirohito abdicate so Japan could start off fresh with a new Emperor, but really our biggest screw-up was leaving the Japanese bureaucracy more or less intact. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687/30 "2009-09-15T16:28:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Your timing’s off. We didn’t start trying to rebuild Japan as a strong nation until a few years after the decisions re: the fate of the imperial family were made. True. Japan’s economy didn’t really recover from the war until after 1950 when Japan became a staging area for the war in Korea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wwii-why-did-the-allies-require-an-unconditional-surrender-when-it-prolonged-the-war/509687.md?page=1)