Unconditional Surender

Ah, so you agree that the U.S. in fact did not give any concessions to Japan regarding the Emperor. You state that this was because of its obligations rather than what it would have done anyway, but that hardly matters does it?

The US had already before surrender decided to retain the monarchy, do you understand that?

Are you reading the same paragraph 11 that the rest of us are? It explicitly says that there will be deindustrialization such that Japan would not be able to rearm for war. It also says that enough will be retained such that the Japanese won't all die while still paying the reparations that will be demanded, but that's just an obvious corollary to the promise that the Japanese people won't be destroyed or enslaved, which was also given to Germany. That the Morganthau Plan would have resulted in the destruction of the German people was precisely why it was not carried out.

The Morgenthau Plan wasn't carried out because Roosevelt died. The fact is that it was the agreed upon US approach for a period of time. And it would not have allowed Germany "to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind," which is what Japan was promised.
 
The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

And Germany did not get any promise that the Allies would respect its national integrity like this as well.
 
In 1948, after 3 years in which Stalin had verbally abused his former allies, broken his promises on democracy in Eastern Europe, threatened Turkey with the Sudetenland treatment, tried to break up Iran, overthrown the government of Czechoslovakia, and begun a blockade of Berlin, Henry Wallace ran a presidential campaign in which he blamed it all on Truman and advocated US-Soviet cooperation. His turn did not come "just about exactly" when these things happened. Wallace's views on the Soviets were based on a Kremlin-choreographed trip to Siberia he once took and generous doses of wishful thinking, not facts and principles.
Actually Wallace was in favor of improved relations with Russia prior to his trip.
It should also be noted that Churchill was running a spy network in America to influence opinion and even alter the government's position to a more pro-British line. (If we actually had a pro-war organized conspiracy (though I have no doubt many powerful Americans favored war, they were not necessarily organized) such a network would be unneeded.) Ironically for the author of the piece, while it would fit his conclusions, he left it out, in part due to the fact that Britain also tried to get rid of Wallace or at least keep him out of positions of power over foreign relations. (One of the people spying on Wallace was Roald Dahl...)
Lastly, it's ironic that this author apparently supports the Korean War...but Harry Elmer Barnes didn't...
 
Wallace can best be summarized by his deliberate decision in 1948 to run as a spoiler in hopes of costing Truman a term of office in his own right despite the only possible beneficiary being the Republican candidate who FDR found to be utterly unsuited to the presidency.
 
Doubt It

I will repeat my comment/question: kill off or incapacitate FDR before the declaration of unconditional surrender. Would Britain be able to influence America's goals for Europe? I doubt Churchill wanted the OTL situation. Does anyone know what the British would have/might have accepted for an honorable surrender (and perhaps beyond the pale of ASB, an honorable peace)?

That is only if the Parliament and House of Lords totally believed in Churchill's rantings on the emergent dangers of Communism or Stalin's ambition to control Europe. Without a complete agreement on the issue by most of the British government it would be hard for P residential successor Harry Truman and Secretary of Defense John Marshall along with Congress to truly take his word for it. Remember that red fever didn't sweep the US until only after OTL post-war events unfolded.
 
The US had already before surrender decided to retain the monarchy, do you understand that?

And it explicitly was not a concession to the Japanese, as demonstrated by the U.S. refusing to accept any conditions onto the Potsdam declaration, do you understand that? Also, can you provide a source that the final decision had actually been made as opposed to just certain people saying they think it would be a good idea?

The Morgenthau Plan wasn't carried out because Roosevelt died. The fact is that it was the agreed upon US approach for a period of time. And it would not have allowed Germany "to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind," which is what Japan was promised.

This is certainly not accepted fact. Some people argue this, but there's plenty of evidence that Roosevelt only supported the Morgenthau Plan insofar as he did not understand the full ramifications. Certainly the limited deindustrialization that occurred post war based on inertia from Roosevelt's plans would almost exactly fit in Article 11 of the Potsdam declaration, and has no resemblence to the total deindustrialization called for by Morgenthau.
 
Last edited:
Top