Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (425905)	12/20/2019 1:29:49 PM
From: Asymmetric	Respond to of 541856

Unconditional surrender, as the Americans and the West were demanding, was unacceptable to the Japanese military leaders, prior to Soviet entry into the war. Like Nazi Germany, Japan had signed a non-aggression pact much earlier with Stalin that, according to the article, was supposed to last until 1946. A 'preference' so to speak, of not losing to the Soviets, was not material because the Soviets were still on the sidelines. Once the Soviets entered the war and blew thru Manchuria, and began conquering the Japanese islands in the north, in only 4 days mind you, it was like the Germans skirting the French Maginot line and coming at the French through Belgium. It was so obviously over, especially with the complete destruction of Germany, and the surrender of Italy, and the isolation of the continued Japanese war effort, that preference again, did not come into play. As you probably know, the Soviets entered the war against Japan, as requested by the West and Roosevelt (in Malta?), and so since in this sense, they were coming to the aid of the Allies, it was the United States that was in the principal role, and that the Japanese were forced to surrender to. So in my view, and probably the author's view, Japanese preference of who they'd rather surrender to was immaterial.