Talk:Potsdam Declaration

message: russia had a nuterality agreement with japan during the time of the postdam declaration.  I think this article needs to be revised.
Isn't this should be named "Potsdam declaration" (lowercase d)? -- Taku
Either that, or just merge it with Potsdam conference. Ellsworth 13:57, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: I do not imagine there were diplomatic ties to Japan from any of these three countries at the time.  So how is something like this issued?  Maybe passed through the hand of a nuetral third party?  Does anyonr have a clue what is meant by "issued"?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Among other things, the Declaration was printed on leaflets and dropped over Japanese cities. See http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm for more information. Yaush (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issued how? 

message: The conditions state that Japan will no longer have a military. Nothing mentions what should/will happen if Japan is atacked by another country (the attack not provoaked by Japan). How does it defend itself?
:Cs1kh 11:47, 25July 2007 (UTC)
: If Japan had been attacked during the occupation, it would have been the responsibility of the U.S. to defend the country. Nowadays, despite the 'renunciation of war' in the 1947 Constitution, Japan has a substantial military, the Japan Self-Defense Forces.
:—wwoods 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, a country can have a military and be far from able to effectively wage a war of attack.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Japan is attacked? 

message: This article absolutely needs info about Japan's response. I've copied the below statement from a webpage, but I'd prefer a complete description of this from a reputable source. 
On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki announced that Japan intended to "ignore" the Potsdam Declaration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.12.10 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan's response? 

message: Can anyone take an article seriously when it demonstrates such a poor grasp of language and composition?
¶1,S-1 :  Bad enough that its authors chose to call it the Potsdam Declaration, it certainly was not a statement; nor was it a declaration, but that’s history  The fact that it was an ultimatum should be explicit in the first sentence of the article, not the third. 
¶1,S-2 :  Grammatically incorrect -  “was issued by … … that outlined the terms …”. The sentence could be broken in two in the interests of clarity.
¶1,S-4 :  I have no idea what the author means to convey.  A nuclear bomb cannot be the start of a conference, at least not in English.  
¶2,S-1 :  Promulgate connotes publication and dissemination, neither of which happened historically.  The author needs to state that a counter demand was made by the Japanese.  The sentence ought to be broken into two – rejection and counter demand, followed by Russian threat & bombing.
¶2,S-2 :  I have no idea what the author means to convey with intended / acceptable / recourse.  Bad idiom at the end :  ‘has been subjected to …’ or ‘ has been the subject of …’ – you takes your pick.
I would offer to rewrite the article but for the sentences that are inscrutable.  I don’t think I am nitpicking here, nor identifying typos.  Poor language invariably muddies the waters, and clarity is the sine qua non for Encyclopedia entries. 
Tofindya (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Grammar, Syntax and Composition 

message: Should we add a fact that the Potsdam Declaration is superseded by Treaty of San Francisco? If it is not literally superseded, should we give some description on relation between Treaty of San Francisco and Potsdam Declaration (particularly on the incompatible terms between the Treaty and Declaration）. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction is between terms of surrender and the final peace terms. The Potsdam Declaration laid out the former. The final peace terms, which brought about normalization of relations between the Allies and Japan, were laid out in the Treaty of San Francisco. It couldn't hurt to link the latter in this article, though. Yaush (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes the discrepancies should be high-lighted. And the facts that China did not attend the San Francisco conference and the SF treaty was not ratified by most of Japan's victim countries. This may explain Japan's frosty relations with her victim countries as the terms of surrender was not fully carried out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.131.8 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of San Francisco 

message: "Japan's initial rejection of the ultimatum led directly to Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9. "
The Potsdam Declaration was issued on July 26, 1945, and the first order about the bombs was made on July 25.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/ferrell_book/ferrell_book_chap6.htm
This paragraph needs neutral POV reconsideration.124.210.21.10 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting the bombs would have been dropped even if the Japanese had promptly sued for peace on the basis of the Potsdam Declaration? Yaush (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  president diary First he decided to drop atomic bombs, and at the same time he thought it needs some warning which he was sure to be rejected. The oder was made on July 25, just a day before the Potsdam Declaration. This is not a coincidence. Atomic bombs are dropped not because of The Potsdam Declaration, but the declaration issued to drop bombs. This is another aspect of this article. 124.210.21.10 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't really answered my question. Are you suggesting the decision to drop the bombs would not have been reversed even if Japan had promptly sued for peace? Yaush (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not suggesting the decision would not have been reversed. What I'm saying is he was "sure they will not do that", and he didn't worry about canceling the decision. The very point is, he added the political step to issue the declaration, so that later people like you would make that question sentence and it be felt effective. 124.210.21.10 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, uncoordinated train of thought. The bombs were not dropped until many days later - don't confuse preparatory orders with final orders. These are old discussions, but still distressing that no RS was discussed to support your belief that somehow there was a POV issue.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  cause of dropping atomic bombs? 

message: This article states that the Potsdam Declaration did not demand "unconditional surrender." But the article on the Cairo Declaration states that:  (1) the Cairo Declaration demanded unconditional surrender (A "main point" of the declaration is said to state that "The Allies are resolved to bring unrelenting military pressure against Japan until it agrees to unconditional surrender." The actual text of the Declaration in the Department of State archive confirms this claim.); and (2) the Potsdam Declaration incorporated the Cairo Declaration by reference ("Japan specifically accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration, which incorporated by reference the terms of the Cairo Declaration. . . ." The text of the Declaration confirms this claim; see item #8.). These articles are not consistent and therefore one or both of the articles is in error. I have no expertise or first-hand knowledge and therefore I can do more than point out the apparent problem. But it appears to me, based on my web-based fact checking, that this article, rather than the article on the Cairo Declaration, is in error. 
:Note: Apologies for any breach of policy, form, or etiquette. I don't generally comment. But while watching the film Japan's Longest Day I thought to do a bit of fact checking via Wikipedia and ran into this issue. The film made out that the Potsdam declaration was softer than the Cairo Declaration in not insisting on "absolute and unconditional surrender." 
Wbmccarty (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconditional Surrender 

message: "On the other hand, the declaration offered that:"
The declaration stipulates everything, none of it is 'offered'. Dividing the stipulations on the wikipedia page assumes that the 'offers' were intended as offered and/or welcomed as offers while the others were intended to be unwelcomed stipulations and were unwelcomed. "shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives." might be seen as an offer. Many soldiers would have seen it as a requirement to become dishonored. Hard to divide this as a stipulation or offer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.92.243 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  offered? 

message: Just as the headline says, this article claims that "The Declaration was never transmitted to the Japanese government through diplomatic channels." However, the article on Mokusatsu claims that the declaration was "transmitted to the Japanese government diplomatically via Swiss intermediaries". These two claims are mutually exclusive. It would be great if someone could get to the bottom of this and fix whichever article needs fixing. --86.101.112.68 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Declaration was never transmitted to the Japanese government through diplomatic channels." - is this true? 

message: — Assignment last updated by RubBec03 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Remembering the Asia Pacific War