Talk:Surrender of Japan

Were the atom bombs the main reason for surrender?

According to these Stanford and MIT professors , later released docs show that it was known that it was well-known that the main condition the Japanese wanted was that no harm would come to the emperor and that Truman finally signaled he would abide by this only after the two bombs were dropped.

References

Jewel Voice Broadcast ➡ Hirohito surrender broadcast

Please change "Jewel Voice Broadcast" to Hirohito surrender broadcast, per the revent move of that page (because Jewel Voice Broadcast is, it turns out, a 2006 Wikipedia user-spawned neologism).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

It should say the British Empire instead of Great Britain in the lede. Jgins (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. I replaced it with United Kingdom as the most recognizable term; I think British Empire may place undue emphasis on the UK's global spread, which isn't super relevant to its role in the Potsdam Declaration etc. Ovinus (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect info under Further surrenders and resistance

Under the section titled "Further surrenders and resistance", the last sentence reads:

"Some may never have heard of it. Teruo Nakamura, the last known holdout, emerged from his hidden retreat in what was now independent Indonesia in December 1974, while two other Japanese soldiers, who had joined Communist guerrillas at the end of the war, fought in southern Thailand until 1991."

According to this Associated Press article: https://apnews.com/article/ade6f55bfed4013ad1b7b4e955e9d1ae

...that last bit of information in bold is incorrect. The two Japanese men fought in Malaysia, not Thailand, and they returned to Japan in early 1990, not 1991. 166.181.80.38 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Good work! Updated link for your article: https://web.archive.org/web/20201103224558/https://apnews.com/article/ade6f55bfed4013ad1b7b4e955e9d1ae ... your source is more contemporaneous than the Wilmott et al source, and yet I'd still like to see what Wilmott et al cites as _their_ source! Cancerward (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added your AP ref and noted that Wilmott et al seem to have a typo. The Wilmott et al source which seems to be about the same two reads

The actual process of surrender throughout East Asia, the Western Pacific, and Southeast Asia was not complete until spring 1946. It would not be until 1974 that the last surviving Japanese not to have surrendered finally emerged from his hiding place on Lubang in the Philippines. Some Japanese in Malaya deserted after August 1945 and joined the communists. Two survivors did not lay down their arms in southern Thailand until 1991. For some, it seemed, there was no end to World War II. Cancerward (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Simple spelling mistake/typo. "the Emperor's will that Japan surrender."

Change "Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the Emperor's will that Japan surrender.".

To

"Afterward, Tōgō told Suzuki that there was no hope of getting better terms, and Kido conveyed the Emperor's will that Japan surrenders."

Or rewrite this part entirely. 109.235.37.171 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The existing grammar is fine. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely. 'afterward' (as opposed to 'afterwards') suggests the use of English American grammar and the use of the plural form for 'Japan surrender' suggests the use of British American grammar. In any case, I can agree it's probably fine as is; at most a minor confusion on the use of grammar

. Thank you for looking at it. 89.205.135.89 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

FAR needed

A 2009 FA with notable issues:

• Countless sentences and paragraphs without refs.
• The article overuses quotes and blockquotes, of which many are lengthy.
• Some large paragraphs only supported by one citation at the end.
• Many webpages referenced when they're better covered by high-quality academic books and journals.
• More than a third (73/185) of all citations rely only on Frank 1999 and Hasegawa 2005 as of now.
• Thousands of new, quality texts on this vital topic exist in TWL. Some are definitely due for inclusion.
• Citations and explanatory notes are mixed, but the problem is that different refstyles are used for each note.

Pinging FAC nominators Wwoods and Raul654. Wretchskull (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Do you still have these concerns with the article? If so, do you want to take this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)