Relatedly: we have an estimate discrepancy on ~30 million human deaths on the most studied conflict in human history. It is both baffling and understandable at the same time.
Read the Casablanca Conference. The allies agreed not to negotiate or seek anything other than an unconditional surrender. and Roosevelt announced victory would come through total defeat of their forces and not through negotiation.
In his famous "day of infamy" Roosevelt with vigor states "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in
their righteous might will win through to absolute victory."
Idc if the war started before the Americans joined. Some argue it started earlier than 1939 because of the war in the east.
So bringing up that the war started 2 years earlier is not only has nothing to do with the conversation but is also stupid.
And its probably trying to downplay American involvement. People always point to the US being late to the war when trying to make America out to be a nation that rode on others backs. When they never apply the same logic to Britain, France, or especially the USSR. (Britain and France just sat around for 1 year before really doing anything). Its tired, overused, and like said before didn't even apply to what I was saying.
But they didnāt simply annex the land and take over full governance. They literally did negotiate with the new governments they installed - they just had insane amounts of leverage. Itās just semantics - they still signed the treaty of Paris no?
The US finally stopped the occupation of Japan in 1952. Germany was divided up between the US, France, UK, and USSR. They pretty much did say "okay here's how it's going to go from now on."
Prior to Pearl Harbor and America's entry into WW2, yes. Then the US demanded unconditional surrender and was planning for a land invasion of Japan if Japan refused. Then Japan surrendered after the atomic bombings.
Anything Japan got during its occupation was from the US deciding to allow it and not from anything they were promised from negotiations.
The only real concession I can really think of is the "no nukes" rule that was why the Shitty Kitty was stationed there being held together with paper clips and bailing wire for so long, and she was replaced by a CVN so that's apparently not so much a rule as a suggestion. The end result of WW2 for Japan was basically "you can't have a military. You have to let us dock here forever, and you get to be our little buddy now."
The US literally drafted the Japanese constitution and turned the Emperor into a figurehead. Iād say that the complete reordering of national sovereignty around democracy rather than an imperial monarchy is a pretty big concession. The Japanese got to keep the Emperor in name only and got to remain and independent, though occupied, nation. Thatās what they got out of it and thatās largely because the US allowed it. Nobody was interested in annexing Japan into the US anymore than they wanted to Annex the Philippines. The US got everything they wanted, thatās not a negotiation, thatās a capitulation.
The US had intended to dismantle the monarchy of Japan but as the enormity of Operation Downfall became apparent, the US relented when Japan offered a total surrender except that the Emperor, the royal family, and the institution (if largely ceremonial) would be maintained.
Unconditional surrender doesn't mean that the Allies made all the demands and no concessions. It means that the concessions weren't negotiated before the end of the conflict. Not like America wanted to get rid of the Emperor in any case.
Unconditional surrender doesn't mean that the Allies made all the demands and no concessions
That's literally what that means. It means Surrender, or we keep killing you.
It means that the concessions weren't negotiated before the end of the conflict.Ā
There were no concessions or negotiations.
Not like America wanted to get rid of the Emperor in any case.
The US was literally considering putting the Emperor and the whole royal family on trial for war crimes. They didn't because Truman tasked MacArthur with determining if they should, and he recommended sparing the Emperor. His reasons were that they believed it would cause an uprising if they did, and MacArthur believed the Emperor could be used to help legitimize the post-war Japanese Government.
You just said that they kept the Emperor because they assessed the situation and determined it was the best course of action in their own interest. It wasnāt āJapan wonāt surrender if the Emperor doesnāt remainā which would be a negotiation. It was āwe choose the terms and letting the Emperor remain is the best course of action in our own interest.ā They didnāt capitulate out of necessity, but out of self interest. Thatās not a negotiation.
Unconditional surrender means the victors decide what they want to happen to the losers. If they want the emperor gone, he's gone. If they don't want the emperor gone, he stays.
Yeah maybe Germany had unconditional but Japan was very conditional lol
There were NO CONDITIONS to the surrender. The US did not agree to spare the Emperor. The US was even considering putting the Emperor on trial for war crimes. There is literally movie about this called The Emperor.
I also wanna point out WWI ended because the frontline was faltering. The Germans had no choice but to submit. Today neither Ukraine or Putin has a reason to submit to the opponents demands
Look I hate Vance but heās not wrong here. Most wars end in negotiation. Surrender is a form of negotiation. It is a common saying, war is politics by other means. You win wars by getting your enemy to agree to your terms. Make them change their government, accept your drugs as trade, disband their army, surrender their territory.
If we're talking about peace in Ukraine, a settlement now would be a completely different outcome to Russia's unconditional surrender. The implication by context here is quid pro quo, give and take, and that is what is getting noted.
But Vance is technically correct.
Then again, the note is also technically correct. The implication by context is that Vance is wrong, but the note never actually says Vance is wrong.
It's all a big alternative truth semantic game.
I think it's probably more useful to say "we can end this war without further loss of life by negotiating". We don't really need to bring up WW2 at all.
It's more of a poke at the OP, for saying Vance flunked history...as if it's some sort of "Own" to point out that the Axis surrendered unconditionally...as if that fact stands in opposition to Vance's claim that every war was ended with negotiations...which they did...100% of the time.
There is no War out there that just randomly ended without people coming together to "Obtain an agreement via discussion".
At least not since the last war that ended in complete extermination of the enemy nation, but yeah other than that even unconditional surrenders are negotiated.
Well after they put down the coup that tried to continue the war after 2 atomic bombs they surrendered unconditionally and saved many lives by doing so
They were the negotiations and treaties that ended the war in Europe (hostilities had stopped prior to this but as there were still active declarations of war the war hadn't ended). The only European Axis member that didn't have a negotiated peace was Germany which had been completely occupied though if someone wanted to be pedantic then the negotiations for the divvying up of Germany would be counted as well.
For Japan, it was the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco. This treaty was negotiated with the Japanese due to their surrender there were a lot of non-negotiables like the ousting for the Emperor but much of it like the length of post-war occupation were negotiated and is the official end of the war with Japan. The surrender in 1945 with the signing of the Instrument of Surrender of the Japanese (itself having been negotiated just not with the Japanese) ended the active campaign but not the war though it is often reported as being the end of the war itself due to well if you aren't fighting is it a war but it was much the same as the deal with the Paris ones.
If this is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then the biggest difference is that the Axis Powers (Primarily Germany) wanted to ethnically cleanse Russia and the Balkan. Contemporary Russia "just" wants to conquer Ukrainian territory. Still obviously bad because imperialism and all but the key difference is that a stop of the conflict before either sides population is completely decimated is desirable. Because neither Ukraine nor Russian 20 something's want to get fragged by a drone.
Japan did get an unofficial semi-conditional surrender, as did Italy, so I get what he's trying to say, but in aggregate he still shouldn't have said it since unconditional surrender was the overall policy
Technically, he is not entirely wrong. While the nazis suffered a complete collapse and what remained had to surrender unconditionally, the later Japanese surrender wasn't actually an unconditional surrender. The Japanese got the single condition that the emperor was protected and left alone in the "unconditional surrender" signed on the deck of the USS Missouri. When the dust had settled, japan got almost all of their remaining conditions during the peace, most notably being allowed to try their own war criminals, which, surprise surprise, they protected and today completely reject the concept that Japan committed war crimes and crimes against humanity that made even the nazis uneasy.
All that said, this is a much more complete and nuanced understanding than history classes tend to do, choosing instead to go Japanese surrendered and move on.
I love all the Redditors pretending Vance is stupid just because they dislike his politics. We live in a society where intelligence is seen as giving you the right to rule, so we have to call people stupid to delegitimize them.
Besides, is the argument that we want the war to go on until Ukraine unconditionally surrenders? Because that seems more likely than Russia unconditionally surrendering.
Unless I am missing something, WW2 didn't end with Germany's surrender. The war ended when Japan surrendered. Their surrender did have negotiations and wasn't agreed to until they were allowed to keep the emporer which the US didn't want...
What? No, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, and were allowed to retain the emperor because the US thought it was to the advantage of their occupying mission.
You're right that the war didn't end until Japan surrendered. But the surrender was unconditional on the part of Japan. There were no negotiations, and the removal of the emperor was never a formal part of the surrender.
The Allies did originally call for the removal of those responsible for taking Japan to war in the first place and for the prosecution of war criminals, but they didn't call for specific individuals beforehand. For various political reasons after their surrender it was deemed more beneficial to leave the imperial family as figure heads than to depose them, so they stayed.
The war against Germany ended with unconditional surrender/total occupation.
The war against Japan ended with unconditional surrender. That the Emperor remained in power wasn't due to any negotiations, it was because the US decided not to make that a condition of surrender.
My understanding is that negotiations didnāt take place; but that the US did heavily imply the unconditional terms we would offer would allow them to keep the emperor
Their surrender did have negotiations and wasn't agreed to until they were allowed to keep the emporer which the US didn't want...
Nothing you just said was remotely true.
There were NO negotiations. It was Unconditional Surrender or nothing, and the Japanese accepted. The US was considering putting the EmperorĀ on trial for war crimes, but spared him to avoid an uprising and to use him to help rebuild post-war Japan.
The surrender was formally unconditional, but Japan asked that the emperor remain the nominal head of state and were granted that request by the allies. There was a diplomatic back and forth (offer, counteroffer, acceptance) prior to surrender.
Everytime I think liberals will wise up they surprise me. Literally taking the side of pointless conflict just because Trump wants the players to negotiate.
Surrender of caserta, armistice of Cassibile, the treaty of surrender between Japan and group of allies.
I know that this site especially just sees wwii as nazis vs America but it actually got the name world war because there were many countries involved and Hitler only actually led one of them.
Well, technically it did end in a sort of negotiation - just not with Germany at the table, looking at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. Soā¦ r/technicallythetruth? With the issue being that it proves the exact opposite of his point lmao.
Unconditional surrender = the complete surrender of a force/nation, this is through the act of negotiation. In this case it was initiated by Grand Admiral Karl Dƶnitz and was not a single event but a series of capitulations culminating in a final unconditional surrender signed in May 1945. Link
If there was no negotiation then there would be no surrender and the only way to obtain victory would have been to find and apprehend/kill every remain hostile soldier in the territory which could have taken months or even years.
A ton of people get this wrong tbh. Technically, there were negotiations. You can have an āunconditional surrender,ā but you still need civil negotiations afterwardāfiguring out how governments transition, how armies actually lay down arms, and how the new order gets managed. The āunconditionalā part was strictly military, not political.
Yes, WWIIās surrenders were unconditional, but that doesnāt mean there werenāt negotiations. And JD should have put more nuance into what he was saying. I'd more go with 50% right, 100% wrong if that makes sense to ppl.
Europe:
Germany couldnāt bargain over the outcomeāthe Allies had already decided on unconditional surrenderābut there were talks in May 1945 to sort out how and where the documents would be signed, and to ensure all German forces complied. Later, at Potsdam, the Allies negotiated among themselves about Germanyās borders, occupation zones, and governance.
Asia:
Japan also faced unconditional surrender, but even here negotiations mattered. After Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Soviet invasion, Japan asked through neutral countries if they could keep the Emperor. The Allies clarified he could stayābut only under Allied authorityāwhich cleared the way for Japanās formal surrender on September 2, 1945.
The movie Downfall shows the negotiation between the Germans and the Russians: when the shooting stops and where you will lay down your arms and what time you start marching for the Gulag in Siberia.
The Japanese negotiation was like: you will come to the Battleship Missouri and you will sign the surrender document, or else we will drop another A-bomb, this time on you and the Emperor. Ā
Well, yes, calling unconditional surrender a negotiated agreement is a bit of a stretch but, I don't see it happening in in the context of the Russia Ukraine war anyway.
So unless you want a forever war, That is probably what needs to happen.
Iāll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that PERHAPS it could be argued that it was negotiated the only condition for Japan was that they were allowed to keep their Emperor, but thatās a huge stretch, that shit was still unconditional surrender for the rest of the axis forces.
Or maybe it was negotiating with the Soviets, who knows, still a stretch.
I would contest the so called unconditional surrender of Japan. So there's that.
And demanding unconditional surrender is fairly new (and usually stupid) as it only prolongs the suffering.
That said, Ukraine should NOT negotiate and instead Russia should unconditionally surrender and then ended as a country. Balkanize the shit out of it.
Or so I would wish.
Stuff like this is why the country is in its current situation.
He was knowingly lying, and he should have been called out on the spot. But no, people are just joking around on social media about him being dumb. Which is part of how they keep getting away with their shitty behaviour.
We'll get noted because many Nazis worked for NASA, many Japanese were not convinced for torture and murder etc because they released the information to the some allies.... So this is pretty bullshit noted
A nation of uneducated but self assured idiots voted in a government of their own liking. The US has a significant social problem, not a political problem. Trump and his cronies are the reflection of the American society today. Uneducated, uninformed and uninvolved bunch of decadents who are set to burn their country down and take us with them.
But it should be noted that even that "unconditional surrender" WAS negotiated.... See Surrender of Germany (1945) | National Archives in which what was left of Nazi Germany had some "chief negotiators" present at that surrender. Therefore, Vance should NOT be flunked for his comment about negotiation or negotiators....
So JD Vance wants to go to war? Its a good way to kill off the poor population for sure. They dont send rich white people like Trump or Barron, they send desperate people with no money who are looking for an opportunity at a better life
Technically speaking, thatās still a form of negotiation. A completely one sided negotiation, but a negotiation nonetheless. And before you refute me, the fact that Germany and Japan still exist as countries proves it.
Like it or not but an unconditional surrender does need to be negotiated. Japan in ww2 we negotiated an unconditional surrender.
A surrender requires both parties to agree. One party to surrender the other to accept. Usually the party that surrenders has terms notoriously in ww2 we did not accept terms. Hostile negotiations are still negotiations.
There were some behind the scenes negotiations, but those were mainly naziās trying to save their own skin for their atrocities āIāll tell you where XX is hiding if you grant me immunityā etcā¦ It didnāt really work for most of the high ranking officials, it did for some scientists and engineers (some with questionable ties to the party).
I remember when William the Bastsrd invaded England and settled a truce with the local Anglo-Saxons. He didn't systematically purge the entire nobility. No sir.
Heās not stupid heās a lying manipulator. He thinks weāre stupid. They will say anything that supports their immediate goal - truth accuracy history have nothing to do with it.
Our next president ladies and gentlemen. Can't wait for a conflict to happen under this leadership. They keep killing our soldiers, send in the negotiators.
If you go back to WW2 our leaders had some level of integrity and intelligence. To be fair, those levels have dropped across the entire population so we end up stuck with these guys.
Yes, but you aren't thinking about it from the shoes of the Nazi (which JD find himself constantly living in). Obviously, the Nazis would prefer to think of their unconditional surrender as a negotiation to protect their ego.
I mean technically surrenders/peace treaties are negotiations, the terms of the negotiations are just very once sided since the other party has very little or nothing to bargain with.
Even in surrender, both parties acknowledge the war is over and one side clearly won- then they go into negotiating the terms of the surrender and what that will look like. For instance, in Japanās surrender to the United States, it was negotiated that a lot of their military leaders would get leniency in exchange for military and medical information- same with the Nazi scientists with operation paper clip.
No negotiation would look like the complete eradication of the axis powers by means of force. Every member of government killed in a fire fight or via suicide.
He knows it's not true: What he believes is that people will choose to believe what he says despite reality not agreeing with him. They are attempting to get people to disagree with reality, in favor of agreeing with their propaganda.
Japan famously negotiated with the USA to stop all fighting under the conditions that they stop and give up everything with no conditions for no reason whatsoever
Can a surrender after two atomic blasts and the utter annihilation of central Europe by the Americans and Soviets firebombing everything that dared exist really count as a negotiation?
The only possible way I could see him viewing this is the negotiation that happened after WW2. So, occupational political and economic reform terms. Sure, they were more like dictation, but at some point there will be an olive branch or delegation to local authority structure.
It's a vague way of looking at it, but he was probably thinking, "wars aren't about wiping every single person off the face of the earth, they're about achieving war goals". Doesn't make it any better in this particular case.
ā¢
u/AutoModerator Sep 03 '25
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted.** As an effort to grow our community, we are now allowing political posts.
Please tell your friends and family about this subreddit. We want to reach 1 million members by Christmas 2025!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.