[Phoenix8]

Disinformation or disagreement?

Firstly the Soviets wanted Manchuria so they of course didn’t forward the peace feelers. It’s had little to do with the Potsdam meeting or Casablanca etc Stalin was a ruthless tyrant truly intent on world domination, even more so than Hitler.

Secondly there were actually MORE peace feelers put out than the ones I listed:

1. Lisbon, Portugal
A certain Inoue, The counselor of the Japanese Legation in a Portugal requested a contact with US representatives and said the Japanese wanted peace but would not accept unconditional surrender. May 7, 1945

On may 19, he requested again as he feared paper and wooden houses fire bombed in Japan would leave the population destitute.

The OSS contacted the US ambassador who told his higher ups. It was decided Inoue must only bring terms regarding unconditional surrender and only as an official representative of Japan.

2. The Vatican, Rome Italy

In Jan 1945 The Japnese Emperor was told officials of the highest order would seek leave terms through The Vatican as intermediary. The Emperor expressed no “disapproval” of the efforts.

Eventually a memorandum was sent by the OSS to the president of the USA that the Japnese Holy See would work with the Pope to mediate possible peace terms.

It’s not obvious what happens to that proposal, other than being rejected due to the unconditional surrender mantra.

3. Bern Switzerland.
In may 1945 the OSS gave information to the US ambassador that the Japanese foreign minister Shunichi Kase wanted to pursue peace directly with the Western Allies on the conditions Japan not become communist and the Emperor remain untouched. Wild Bill Donovan wrote a handwritten note on the form saying “should we pursue this?”.

Again like the overtures in Rome it’s unclear what became of the Japanese effort. Likely rejected again as before due to Roosevelt.

This is not my opinion, this is sourced as “secret and classified” by the OSS and not released until 1993 by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Memoranda-President-Japanese-Feelers.pdf

____________

In my opinion you (all) give too much rigidity in your arguments. With too much value on formal agreements and public announcements of Diplomatic efforts. For a thousand years it’s been know the REAL action occur behind the scene with Machiavellian moves and whispers behind closed doors. Things are then reported to the public afterwards and in a light that the victor desires.

Ohh and agreements and pacts can be broken. There is no reason why a conditional peace couldn’t have been arranged. The Soviets ended their non-aggression pact with Japan a full year in advance through a legal loophole on the pact. Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941 and violated their Non- aggression pact.

Pacts are just promises and words on paper. Actions are the only thing that really matter.

The unconditional surrender idea was a boneheaded move by an ailing democratic/socialistic President and was an unnecessary huge mistake .

[Phoenix8]

Oh and on Germany I even said it “was less certain”. If I remember correctly.

That would have had to involve some sort of German uprising, which indeed did happen. Recall the bombing of Hitler in the Wolf’s Lair bunker.

Still a conditional surrender demand would have likely strengthened the uprising not weakened it.

[BroJoeK]

Phoenix8: "The unconditional surrender idea was a boneheaded move by an ailing democratic/socialistic President and was an unnecessary huge mistake."

Casablanca Conference, January 1943:
Girard (France), FDR (USA), De Gaulle (France), Churchill (UK)

Pres. Roosevelt was 60 years old at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943 when he and Churchill first announced their policy of "Unconditional Surrender" for all Axis powers.
In that, FDR followed the examples of:

1. George Washington at the 1783 Battle of Yorktown

2. Ulysses Grant at the 1865 Appomattox Court House.

What FDR wanted most to avoid was Woodrow Wilson's mamby-pamby First World War "Peace Without Victory" and "14 Points" that only set the predicates for the Second World War.

As for Churchill, of course, he well understood the problems resulting from demands for "Unconditional Surrender", but he also understood the high value of clarity and simplicity of purpose which "Unconditional Surrender" provided.
And Churchill knew that "Unconditional" for Americans does not mean the same thing it would for Axis or Communist powers.
For Americans, "Unconditional" came with a lot of conditions in terms of human rights and democratic government.

The key point for both FDR and Churchill is that "Unconditional Surrender" kept any of the Allied powers from negotiating separate peace terms with any of the Axis powers, and that was no small matter.

It's also worth noting that no other Allied leader, such as Joseph Stalin or Charles De Gaulle, expressed opposition to FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" policy.

Phoenix8: "In my opinion you (all) give too much rigidity in your arguments.
With too much value on formal agreements and public announcements of Diplomatic efforts.
For a thousand years it’s been know the REAL action occur behind the scene with Machiavellian moves and whispers behind closed doors.
Things are then reported to the public afterwards and in a light that the victor desires.
Ohh and agreements and pacts can be broken.
There is no reason why a conditional peace couldn’t have been arranged.
The Soviets ended their non-aggression pact with Japan a full year in advance through a legal loophole on the pact.
Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941 and violated their Non- aggression pact.
Pacts are just promises and words on paper.
Actions are the only thing that really matter."

Sorry, but none of that argument makes any sense to me, so what, exactly, are you trying to tell us?

[frog in a pot]

Disinformation or disagreement?, or conclusions based on selected or not well-understood facts?

Wild Bill Donovan wrote a handwritten note...“should we pursue this?” ...
This is not my opinion, this is sourced as “secret and classified” by the OSS [Wild Bill] and not released until 1993 by the CIA.

You offer a question, but no opinion. Wild Bill had an absolute duty to confer with his principle, but it is worth noting he asked, "Should we pursue this?", he did not say, "We should pursue this" or even, "this has merit".

Likely rejected again as before due to Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was dead, it was most likely rejected by a much healthier, alert and well-informed Truman.