Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Us role in WWI
American intervention in WWII
American policies after ww2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Evaluate the wisdom of American insistence on the “Unconditional Surrender” of Japan.
Introduction
The United States of America is a warrior nation. To pretend otherwise ignores a national history colored in red blood and gun smoke. Despite this, the American national conscience seeks forever the moral high ground. This national need extends to America’s ability to wage and sustain war. World War II was no exception. The Call to Arms came only after Japan’s killing of unprepared men in Pearl Harbor. The nation did not see the attack as an attack on a legitimate target but as an immoral attack. Giving in to its warrior spirit, the nation looked for retribution. Unable to shake a conscience developed and tempered by its early religious heritage, though, the nation needed more justification than mere revenge for the coming actions it would take. America’s policy of “Unconditional Surrender” provided this justification. Implied in Unconditional Surrender was the concept of Unconditional Warfare – total war. Further implied in the concept of total war was the justification for a fully violent and vengeful response. America needed the moral justification implied in the policy of Unconditional Surrender.
Elegant Violence: Japanese v. American views on Warfare
To the Japanese, the concept of Unconditional Surrender was a nightmare. The Japanese government had instilled in its people the idea that Unconditional Surrender to American forces would involve horrendous tortures and degradations. Whether or not the Japanese government actually believed their own war propaganda, there was concern among the Japanese leadership that Unconditional Surrender would mean the end of Japan as a nation-state due to the expected American dismantling of the Japanese Imperial system (Freedman 201).
The American public’s perception of Unconditional Surrender was not necessarily the perception of the nation’s leaders, though. In fact, most post-war planners in Washington saw America’s Unconditional Surrender policy as flexible (James 725) . However, the President did not choose to share his actual views on Unconditional Surrender with the public. To do so, would have been to negate the violent imperative behind America’s total war against Japan.
Japanese and American perceptions of total war were much more in accord. Both the Japanese and American military cultures had strange and sometimes conflicting ideas about legitimate actions and targets. Both cultures could justify outrageous carnage and destruction in the pursuit of victory.
That being said, the Japanese military’s almost fanatic devotion to Mahanian warfare mixed with their own Samurai code meant that, many times during the war, Japanese commanders passed up incredible targets of opportunities deeming them not worthy enough.
Once significant recurring theme affecting Japanese planning for war was the psychology of arrogance ...
The Russo-Japanese War has many lessons to offer and this essay has discussed the three most enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict for limited aims. History has and will likely continue to show us the inherent difficulties of successful and durable war termination. The leadership foresight needed to pre-plan war termination that achieves the political goal is often beyond the capabilities of countries and their leadership. The Japanese provide us with a rare scenario where their pre-war plan was nearly identical to the post war results. As a result, the Russo-Japanese War can offer current planners and leaders several valuable lessons on war strategy, planning and termination that are still relevant to today’s conflicts.
The United States was at peace with Japan following peace negotiations that had been made. The President expresses his concern that the United States was still in conversation with Japanese government and its Emperor looking towards the continuation of peace in the pacific. Japanese had a series of secret plans to bomb America. The president says that the previous day’s attack on Hawaii Islands had caused severe destruction to American naval and military forces. In his speech, he expresses his regrets to inform the Congress that Americans had lost their lives. He continues to state that American ships had been submerged in elevated seas starting from San Francisco and Honolulu. Consequently, these harsh actions by Japanese government made Roosevelt, as commander in chief of the army and navy, dictate on the possible measures to fight back. He is very confident to state that even if it takes a long period for the United States to conquer the enemies’ actions, which he refers to as old-fashioned invention, the people of America will emerge the absolute victory. He believes that, through defending his nation against enemies, he will be acting upon the will of his people and of the Congress. He promises his people that such attacks w...
President Roosevelt, after examining the thirteen-page of a fourteen page transmission understood "this means war." Although, Roosevelt theoretically had knowledge of Japan’s intentions, he did nothing to offset or notify others about the
In 1945, the United States was facing severe causalities in the war in the Pacific. Over 12,000 soldiers had already lost their lives, including 7,000 Army and Marine soldiers and 5,000 sailors (32). The United States was eager to end the war against Japan, and to prevent more American causalities (92). An invasion of Japan could result in hundreds of thousands killed, wounded and missing soldiers, and there was still no clear path to an unconditional surrender. President Truman sought advice from his cabinet members over how to approach the war in the Pacific. Although there were alternatives to the use of atomic weapons, the evidence, or lack thereof, shows that the bombs were created for the purpose of use in the war against Japan. Both the political members, such as Henry L. Stimson and James F. Byrnes, and military advisors George C. Marshall and George F. Kennan showed little objection to completely wiping out these Japanese cities with atomic weapons (92-97). The alternatives to this tactic included invading Japanese c...
Prior and during the war, the Japanese were known for their citizens’ extreme loyalty and commitment to their nation, but after the dropping of the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of these feelings diminished within the Japanese nation. Prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb, over 70% of people in Japan believed that their nation could come out on top in the war even after more than a decade of constant fighting and the Japanese being on the defensive for over three years since the Battle of Midway. Directly after the use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the percentage of Japanese people that believed that defeat was inevitable rose to over 50%. Many people in the two cities that were bombed by the United States were affected more so than the rest of the Japanese population. For example, a 25% increase in suicidal thoughts was reported in the two cities struck by America’s new deadly weapon.
On the morning of December 7, 1941, the United States was attacked for the first time on home soil by the Japanese. Esteemed former president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spoke to congress the day after the Pearl Harbor attack, in what would be his most renowned speech and one of the best speeches in American history. He spoke with the purpose of persuading his audience, the congress, to go to war with Japan. The tone of the speech is melancholic but forthright, which reveals the pain and sorrow felt by citizens and the need for an urgent response.
One of, if not the most influential part, of allowing the bombs to drop is because of the mentality of the Japanese military and the pull they had in politics. As Maddox stated, “[t]he army, not the Foreign Office controlled the situation” (Maddox, pg. 286). Although Japan had an influential leader in regards to their emperor, the military wanted to and would have engag...
One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that point that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
The initial terms of surrender were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, in which the United States, Great Britain, and China all participated. But unlike post World War II Germany, which was split into four quadrants among the Allies, the occupation of Japan was solely and American endeavor. This document was by no means tame. Military occupation would see to it that its measure would be properly carried out. Justice would be served to those "who deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest," Disarmament of the military, reparations as the Allies saw fit, and the "remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people" were also to be enacted. At the head of this revolution, as spelled out in Potsdam, was Douglas MacArthur.
This book is written from a perspective foreign to most Americans. Historically, American students are taught from a single perspective, that being the American perspective. This approach to history (the single perspective) dehumanizes the enemy and glorifies the Americans. We tend to forget that those on the opposing side are also human.
(McInnis, 1945) Though the public did not know this, the allies, in fact, did. Through spies, they had learned that both Japan's foreign minister, Shigenori Togo and Emperor Hirohito both supported an end to the war (Grant, 1998). Even if they believed such reports to be false or inaccurate, the leaders of the United States also knew Japan's situation to be hopeless. Their casualties in defending the doomed island of Okinawa were a staggering 110,000 and the naval blockade which the allies had enforced whittled trade down to almost nothing.
War changes people’s lives; it changes the way people act, the way they think, and what they believe in. The people of Japan hold tradition and honor above everything else, this is something that did not change throughout the war. Though the world is changing right before the Japanese peoples’ eyes, they keep honor and tradition locked into their minds as well as their hearts. Frank Gibney’s statement, “There is no question that the Japanese people had participated wholeheartedly in the war effort.” is partly true as well as not. True in the sense that the Japanese did do certain things that may be counted as participating in the war, yet these acts were not done wholeheartedly.
In the process of war the public skipped to the conclusion that all Japanese Americans were out to get them. The suspicion of a government takeover was on everyones mind. Paranoia led people into to thinking every single Japanese American was guilty, no matter if it was a child, a WWI veteran, or if they had ever even been to Japan. The suspicion did not end there, inducing temporary segregation, and the exploitation of japanese american’s human rights. Mass hysteria and racism influenced the government's actions towards the Japanese.
Japan is no longer safe! This was the sentiment of most Americans after The Doolittle Raids; America’s first bombing attack on mainland Japan. These raids had a profound effect on American morale during WWII. The supposedly impregnable island of Japan had been ruptured and The U.S. was now on the Offensive. Initial perceptions of American people’s the support of these raids would reflect an unwavering dedication to the complete annihilation of the Japanese foe. Though it is true that nearly all Americans supported the war, some did have reservations. The damage done to the Japanese people as well as the welfare of U.S. soldiers was and issue for many. Destination Tokyo, a wartime film, depicts the issue of the pure necessity to fight the Japanese as far outweighing any loss of life or property. Also the April 19, 1942 New York Times editorial “The Attack on Japan” casts the raids as the only effective, meaningful response to the coldhearted Japanese enemy. How are these claims related to one another? Is this a valid justification for war? More broadly, what do these claims speak about human nature in general?