From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / History / Royalty & nobility (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:31, April 16, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Royalty and nobility task force.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

The line "nine days after the detonation at Hiroshima" is an important detail because it puts the date of the broadcast into context. It's hardly an irrelevant detail. Manning 03:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the context has to be made clear. But then what about other events? Like the bombing at Nagasaki or Soviet's invasion. I am not against making context clear but the way it is done. I wasn't sure how to fix so I simply removed it with a hope that someone might can come up with a better idea. -- Taku 01:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What happenned to the storming of the palace?[edit]

The fact that the imperial palace was stormed by so many officers is new to me. However, the article should specify more about this battle. Why did it fail? What happenned to the officers? Volland 12:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be more info on this around. I'll go and find the original links I used, and then see if I can get more detail from somewhere. Manning 05:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link for the Japan Times. I'll see what else I can find.Manning 05:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Where can I find more information about the type of Japanese used in this? I know some Japanese, but I looked at the Japanese Wikisource's copy and it was entirely unintelligible. There is no Hiragana. Could some tell me about this? Perhaps we could add on a link or article about the form of Japanese used by the Emperor in this declaration. ありがとう! --LakeHMM 04:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The language was reorganized after the war; it's a form of classical Japanese, which had a few extra sounds, a few different structures, etc. The article on classical Japanese is more equivalent to middle English, though; the article you want to see is Historical kana usage which does go in to some of the changes made in 1946. IIRC,. the article here also says that the emperor spoke an archaic form of court Japanese, and since classical Japanese reached its peak during the Heian period, it may well be related to that. --Golbez 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I wish the articles on it were more in depth. I just think it's interesting because it doesnt look like there are any verb conjugations, just a bunch of kanji tied together by a few katakana particles here and there. --LakeHMM 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
About the only word I know in proper Japanese is "Japan" (日本), and I can't actually see it in the text! Mind you though, wouldn't just "a bunch of Kanji, no verb conjugations and the odd Katakana particle" actually be a lot easier to learn? XD (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of article by professor[edit]

The Wikipedia help desk received the following e-mail from a Japanese professor.

"Some of my students made a same error in their paper on the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War (The Imperial Rescript on Surrender is wrong., because the emperor did not mention surrender at all. It did not did the Soviet Entry of the war and the war with China, either. ) I found that they used the Wikipedia's entry on Gyokuon Hoso.

Gyokuon Hoso literally means a broadcast of the emperor's voice. So the entry should be started as follows,

The Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War read by the emperor himself was broadcasted at noon on Agust 15, 1945. This radio broadcast was known as the Gyokuon Hoso. This Imperial broadcast announcement informed the people that the Japanese government had accepted the Potsdam Declaration demanding the Japanese unconditional surrender."

I have made some corrections to the introduction accordingly. Capitalistroadster 07:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Still wasn't quite right; I attempted to distinguish the two more clearly. As the professor said, Gyokuon-hoso is only the broadcast itself, during which the surrender document (the Rescript) was read out. Jpatokal 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Req. for info about the recording[edit]

Does anyone have information about the disposition of the "record" that the Emperor's speech was recorded onto (and then played back over the radio)? English language histories I've looked at sometimes mention it (especially in the context of how the hard-liners tried destroying it before broadcast) but I've been unable to find anything further.

(For that matter, anyone have technical details about the type of recording and the equipment?)

When I speak to Japanese acquaintances, those who acknowledge knowing what I'm talking about tend to change the subject.

Thanks Wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Text differences[edit]

The text used here is very clearly different from that used at Surrender of Japan, particularly in the crucial case of explicit mention of the word "surrender" as opposed to "accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration". If nobody can establish the provenance of the translation used here I will go ahead and replace it with the translation used at Surrender of Japan, which to all appearances is more accurate. Slac speak up! 08:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of “English” Wikipedia don’t we understand here?[edit]

“Gyokuon-hōsō” for an English-language Wikipedia? Get real. Greg L (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It pleases me that you made a constructive proposition, like another name, rather than just doing a drive-by complaint. Oh wait... --Golbez (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Surely names don't get translated? A person called Kiku Tanaka isn't going to have their article renamed to "Chrysanthanem Middle of the field". (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)