Talk:Potsdam Declaration

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)

Delete External Link

The link to Hiroshima is deleted since it is not mentioned in the text. --Xplore

Who issued it?

There's some confusion about whether Stalin or Chiang Kai-Shek issued the decleration. According to the wikiquote article (and other sources) it was Chiang Kai-Shek (along with Truman and Churchill). (Stalin wasn't even at war with Japan at that time). But I can see how the picture of the "big three" here in this article can confuse things. I don't think it should be here. Shanes 02:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, Churchill was recalled from the Conference after the elections put the Labour Party in charge of the UK government. Should it say that Attlee(sp?) "issued" it? Ellsworth 23:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Attlee became primeminister 27.july 1945.

From the Japanese version (and as I'm a native speaker of Chinese I'm just guessing the meaning of kanjis there) it seems that China had a representative at Potsdam and Chiang Kai-shek gave his consent over radio relays to the Conference. So the Potsdam Declaration was issued under the names of the US, Britain, and China but China did not formally attend the Potsdam Conference, which participants included the US, Britain, and the Soviet Union.

Issued how?

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)

divinity of the Emperor?

Apparently, one of the conditions was that the emperor was to say that he was not a divine leader and that he could make mistakes. Was this a real condition, as it's not mentioned in the article (I think)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.95.146 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2007

See the text of the Declaration. There's no explicit mention of the emperor.

—wwoods 13:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From the text of the declaration:

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

Does this not include the emperor?

If Japan is attacked?

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)

Japan's response?

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)

Problems with Grammar, Syntax and Composition

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)