"My Kingdom For A Horse" - Problem Of War Termination And Modern Military Strategy AUTHOR LCdr Mary K. Rich, USN CSC 1991 SUBJECT AREA - National Military Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Title: "My Kingdom For a Horse" - Problem of War Termination and Modern Mili- tary Strategy. I. Theme: War termination is a complex process for linking policy and strategy to the postwar settlement which must address the issues that precipitated the conflict. II. Thesis: "Simple old soldiers" must not press for complete military vic- tory; similarly, political leaders must not abdicate policy to strategy. III. Discussion. The struggle to resist military defeat and capitulation, ac- cording to Clausewitz, should be tied to the belligerent's military and eco- nomic capabilities to continue resistance, as well as his war aims and na- tional policies. The difficulty of war termination is compounded when a bel- ligerent refuses to accept political defeat after he has been defeated decisively on the battlefield. War termination models attempt to rationalize this paradox and envisage other factors that contribute to ending wars: domestic politics, perceptions of relative strength, bureaucratic interests, and most importantly, expectations about the postwar settlement -- sovereignty, political stability, economic recovery. The war in the Pacific between the United States and Japan was a struggle of unprecedented dimen- sions, representing the difficulties of war termination in modern industrial societies where belligerents have unlimited means to impose their will on the enemy. The relationship of war aims and belligerents' motivations and percep- tions to war termination, when examined against the record of military and political events that coalesced in the final months of the Pacific war to end the fighting, validates the utility of war termination models. More impor- tantly, the interaction of opposing strategies and objectives highlights the problems of restoring peace when war termination is shortsighted. IV. Summary. The concept of total war introduces a new paradigm in war terminations that is especially relevant in modern industrial societies where belligerents have unlimited means to impose their will the enemy. In total war a belligerent who has suffered strategic defeat may nonetheless in desperation choose to exhaust his remaining resources, rather than accept political defeat. V. Conclusions. Strategy must serve policy; specifically, the objective of military strategy is to win wars and thus achieve the political objectives for which the war is fought. Just as military planners need to understand that statesmanship can also be decisive for achieving victory, so too must politi- cal leaders be sensitive to the limitations of military strategies and be ready to modify war aims to end hostilities. To this end, an accurate ap- praisal of the costs of contained resistance and military prospects for vic- tory is essential. "My Kingdom For a Horse" The Problem of War Termination and Modern Military Strategy Thesis. "Simple old soldiers" must not press for complete military victory; similarly, political leaders must not abdicate policy to strategy. I. War Termination Models A. Concept of Strategic Defeat B. Underlying Assumptions C. International Relations D. Bureaucratic Politics E. Relationship of War Aims 1. Concept of Unconditional Surrender 2. Associated Military Strategy II. Historical Analysis of WWII - Japan's Perspective A. Domestic Politics B. Japanese Military Strategy C. Opposition to Unconditional Surrender D. Potsdam Declaration E. Surrender III. Historical Analysis of WWII - U.S. Perspective A. Military Planning B. State Department Interests C. Role of Unconditional Surrender D. Potsdam Declaration E. Soviet Entry into War F. Atomic Bomb "My Kingdom for a Horse" The Problem of War Termination and Modern Military Strategy War termination is a complex problem confronting modern nation states. Since this century's first Great War the nature of international conflict has perhaps for the first time approached Clausewitz's concept of total war. That the unlimited means of waging war today can be decisively translated into battles of annihilation is demonstrated only too clearly by the recent Gulf War. The struggle to resist military defeat and capitulation, accord- ing to Clausewitz, should be tied to the belligerent's military and economic capabilities to continue resistance, as well as his war aims and national policies.1 However, other concerns also arising far from the battlefield but not addressed by Clausewitz -- national prestige, competing bureaucratic interests, and international politics -- compound the difficulties of war termination. Consequently, no longer is battlefield victory the sine qua non for war termination; rather, it may be nothing more than the prelude to war termination. In the era of total war, we might well adapt Clemenceau's adage that war is "too important to be left solely to the generals," to "war termnation is too important to be left solely to winning the war." 1. Peter Paret, "Clausewitz" in Makers of Modern Strategy ed. Peter Paret (Princeton, 1986), 199, 210. Except insofar as winning 'incidentally' involves war termination,2 the transition from war to peace (ie., conflict resolution) encompasses more than ceasing hostilities because it also defines what happens after war ends. That is, the victor is concerned that the enemy does not renew hostilities after a short interlude of peace.3 However, expectations of postwar settlements -- sovereignty, political stability, economic recovery -- irrevocably affect how wars end in a total war milieu. This paper will examine the problems of war termination between nations and focus on the role of military strategy in ending wars. Specifically, this paper will discuss war termination issues against the backdrop of the Pacific war be- tween the United States and Japan (1941-1945), and correlate military opera- tions with Grand Strategy. Clausewitz's assertion that war is based on ra- tional choices and calculations, arrived at by relating means to ends, is largely refuted by the evidence of modern warfare which uses unlimited means. Fighting protracted wars is costly and exhausting. Theoretically, when the goal of hostilities is the total destruction of the enemy, resistance will continue down to the last man. However, not since the destruction of Carthage has a war culminated in such a fashion. Conflict between bel- 2. Janice Gross Stein, "War Termination and Conflict Reduction or How Wars Should End" in Jerusalem Journal of International Relations (Fall, 1975), 1. A.J.P. Taylor's How Wars End (Hamish Hamilton, 1983) is a good example of equating war termination with the 'incidental' cessation of hostilities. 3. Michael I. Handel, Ward Strategy and Intelligence (Frank Cass, 1989), 457. ligerents will cease when they are able to agree mutually upon a settlement. The problem of war termination, then, is to negotiate terms for ending the struggle that will be binding without effecting the total destruction of the enemy.4 Negotiating terms, in turn, will be influenced by perceptions of the belligerents in reference to their respective power. Studies of war termination within this framework have narrowly focused on norms for ad- judicating relative military strength, which will then allow belligerents to decide whether victory can be attained at a price they are willing and able to pay.5 This approach to war termination necessarily assumes a rational calculation of costs versus benefits. The concept of strategic surrender provides a ready reference for cal- culating costs versus benefits. In this model, a belligerent's residual power to continue resistance is weighed against his expectations about the postwar political settlement. If a state has unharnessed resources that it can mobilize or commit to strengthen its bargaining power, then it may be willing to incur additional war costs to achieve something better than defeat or stalemate. However, when continued resistance can no longer in- fluence the outcome, the loser will surrender his war-making capability and accept the political terms dictated by the winner. In a total war the denouement is reached when the loser has no hope of exhausting his op- 4. Lewis A. Coser, "The Termination of Conflict" in Journal of Conflict Resolution (December l961), 347. 5. For examples of war studies in this category, see H.A. Callahan, What Makes a War End? (Vanguard, 1944) and Fred C.Ikle, Every War Must End (Columbia University, 1977). ponent's manpower, nor has the economic resources with which to reverse his own losses but wishes to preserve his remaining strength against further at- trition. In either case, the strategic surrender model posits that capitulation is preceded by a rational calculation of political outcome, ap- praisal of military prospects, and estimation of the cost for continued resistance.6 Rational calculation must be predicated on knowledge of both sides' strengths and goals, that is, relative present and future military strength, its effect on continued resistance, and value of political stakes. Addi- tionally, one or both of the belligerents must be able to compare costs and benefits of alternative courses of action.7 Critics of the rational model of war termination charge that rival bureaucratic interests, and not indi- viduals influence the decision to end a war, and further, that knowledge of the enemy's political goals and values, or even of one's own, is incomplete or imperfect. The ability to measure the proportionality of war costs -- human losses, industrial ruination -- in relation to the objectives -- ter- ritorial acquisition, security -- are certainly chimerical at best. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the rational model is defended by its proponents on the premise that a policy maker who lacks comprehensive knowl- edge will nonetheless act rationally to "satisfice" [sic] within the bounds 6. Paul Kecskemeti, Strategic Surrender (Standford, l958), 5-27. 7. Handel, 470-473. of information that is available.8 If, for example, the available evidence points to defeat, then the loser will rationally cut his losses.9 Another assumption underlying war termination is that military victories produce predictable political outcomes. Although wars are fought to achieve political objectives, social, economic, and international constraints may intervene to prevent the victor from translating military success into decisive political advantage. The Arab-Israeli Wars aptly illustrate the tenuous linkage between military victory and political events.10 Further, the terms "victor" and "defeated" tend to be defined solely by military criteria. Such a narrow definition, however, may not reflect the postwar world wherein a belligerent who has emerged victorious nonetheless lacks the resources to shape the new international order.11 This paradox was recog- nized almost a hundred years ago in a memorandum of May, 1892, from the Chief of the Russian Imperial General Staff, General Obruchev, to the Rus- sian Minister of War: In any case, the conflict will end with a general congress; and at that congress the party that at the moment represents the strongest force will carry the greatest weight. The peace treaty will be written not so much by the victor, if the latter has exhausted his forces, as by the 8. William O. Staudenmaier, "Conflict Termination in the Nuclear Era" in Conflict Termination and Military Strategy ed. Stephen J. Cimbala and Keith A. Dunn (Westview/Frederick A. Praeger, 1987), 18-19. 9. Kecskemeti, 9. 10. For a discussion of the tenuous linkage between military victory and political positions, see Staudenmaier, 2O-21 and Stein, 9-10. In Martin Van Creveld's The Transformation of War (Free Press,1991), the difficulties of linking military and political outcomes is cited as one of the reasons con- ventional warfare has become obsolete among modern nation states. 11. Janice Stein, 7-8. side that has preserved its forces and can threaten to launch a new war under conditions advantageous to itself.12 Issues of international relations offer a broader view of war termina- tion than can an analysis of military outcomes alone. Of interest here are the role and impact of military and political leaders, the influence of domestic politics, including public opinion, and states' perceptions (or misperceptions) of one another. For example, when it is not possible to at- tribute rationality to war leaders -- Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein -- then the premise that decision-making itself is rational is subject to chal- lenge. Likewise, military leaders may pursue irrational objectives (honor, prestige, etc.). Prolonged fighting or reversals in battlefield fortune may cause a shift in public support for the war and lead to war weariness. In democracies this element of Clausewitz's famous war trilogy may contribute to a decision by the government to terminate hostilities (Vietnam). War termination from the perspective of international relations must also con- sider policy making and bureaucratic politics.13 Bureaucratic politics in relation to foreign policy making represent the interests and behavior of different groups and individuals within the fed- eral bureaucracy -- Congress, Defense Department, Department of State -- who maneuver to shape Presidential decisions and actions to reflect their per- ceptions of national security interests. Bureaucrats are defined as civilian career officials, political appointees, and military officers. The 12. George F. Kennan, The Fateful Alliance (Pantheon/Random, 1986), 265. 13. Handel, 458-470. "public" influences foreign policy formulation only insofar as its senti- ments and perceptions of national security interests are at great variance with those of the bureaucracy. At the White House level, maintaining Amer- ican power and prestige underlie national security decisions, which are con- ditioned by domestic politics, the economy, and personal interests. The in- teraction of individual motives, organizational interests, and sources of power of the various participants is unpredictable. Consequently, the dif- ferent strategies developed by bureaucrats to shape the President's perspec- tive on an issue may only be coincidental to the final decision. In the words of President Kennedy: "The essence of ultimate decision remains im- penetrable to the observer -- often, indeed to the decider himself."14 Within the context of war termination, bureaucratic politics will inter- vene to determine both the political objectives of the war as well as the military strategy for defeating the enemy. As the war progresses, percep- tions about battlefield trends and correlation of forces will underwrite changes in the military and political objectives articulated by the dominant bureaucratic participants. More importantly, however, bureaucrats will maneuver to shape postwar foreign and domestic policies to secure both long term U.S. interests and their primacy in postwar decision making; that is, to influence the postwar political configuration.15 14. Morton H. Halperin, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Brook- ings Institution: 1981), 5-6, 14-15, 63-82, 116, 232. 15. In fighting to a Finish (Cornell University, 1988) Leon V. Sigal has disaggregated the major bureaucratic players involved in the Pacific war and examined how the conflicts arising from their diverse motives and organiza- tional interests affected war termination. Before turning to the final months of the war when military and politi- cal events coalesced to end the fighting, I will examine U.S. war goals to determine their relationship to war termination. The formula for uncondi- tional surrender expressed U.S. and coalition war goals. Although it served as the basis of war propaganda to forestall war weariness and sustain our Allies in the bleakest moments of the war, it failed to articulate meaning- ful political objectives for the war.16 Indeed, its very ambiguity com- pounded the dual problems of formulating military strategy and allocating limited war resources in far-flung and vast theaters of operations. The concept of unconditional surrender originated with President Roosevelt, who foremost wanted a legal basis for terminating hostilities. He attributed the failure of World War I to secure a lasting peace to the postwar settlement which Germany repudiated because it was harsher than the original armistice agreement.17 Thus in Roosevelt's mind there would be no "broken promises" to rankle the enemy after the war.18 Additionally, uncon- ditional surrender would provide the victors with carte blanche to restruc- ture Japanese society -- military occupation, postwar punishment of war criminals, disarmament -- and thus to eradicate the militarism responsible 16. Anne Armstrong, Unconditional Surrender (Rutger's University, 1961), 8-11, 59-63; Maurice Matloff, Mr. Roosevelt's Three Wars: FDR as War Leader (U.S. Air Force Academy, 1964), 5-8, 9-12. For a discussion of the peace treaty as a legal instrument, see Stein, 2-3, 13. 17. Brian L. Villa, "The U.S. Army, Unconditional Surrender, and the Potsdam Proclamation" in Journal of American History (June 1976), 69-70. 18. Matloff, 3,11; Armstrong, 40, 44-45. for Japanese aggression. This concept of war as a crusade to vanquish evil reflected his concern for a lasting peace, and likewise appealed to public sentiments for redressing the infamy of Pearl Harbor.19 President Roosevelt was unwilling to articulate his political objectives for the war because he wanted to postpone the postwar political settlement until after victory had been won. He had no desire to preserve the European balance of power system and accordingly did not want to be bound by politi- cal or territorial concessions to either America's enemies or allies.20 In- stead, he supported a new international order embodied in a United Nations organization to maintain peace. Unconditional surrender, as a formula for total victory, would also provide the lowest common denominator for coopera- tion among the Allies and thus overcome the inherent difficulties of coali- tion warfare arising from conflicting political goals.21 In conformance with the policy of unconditional surrender, President Roosevelt refused to allow military strategy to serve the ends of policy.22 Insofar as military exigencies did not intrude upon policy, the sole end of strategy was to achieve the destruction of enemy armed forces, and thus remained divorced from political considerations. To the State Department the President delegated planning for the postwar settlement; thus the State 19. Kecskemeti, 25-26; Villa, 70-71; Matloff, 1O-11; Armstrong, 16-21. See also John W. Dower's War Without Mercy (Pantheon/Random, 1986) for a valuable discussion of the dimension of racism in the struggle to uproot evil and tyranny. 20. Matloff, 11-12. 21. Armstrong, 39; Matloff, 12. 22. Armstrong, 249-251. Department had no role in strategy formulation. That President Roosevelt separated military strategy from political aims may be deduced from examina- tion of the record of the major Allied war conferences during the first years of the war: Casablanca, First Quebec, Moscow, Cairo, Teheran, Second Quebec. Those were attended by the Commanders in Chief and their military staffs for the purpose of planning military strategy and priorities, but were inconspicuous for the absence of political advisers from the State De- partment.23 Although military strategy in the Pacific was subordinate to the policy of defeating Germany first, the pressing problem of defending the Southwest Pacific theater from imminent Japanese encroachment demanded immediate ac- tion. However, ad hoc plans to prevent further Allied collapse conflicted with Lend Lease production schedules and logistic capabilities, and divergent British and American strategies for resource allocation. When combined defensive operations under the British Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific (Field Marshall Wavell) failed to hold Burma in 1942, they were abandoned; the headquarters was dissolved and responsibility for planning defensive operations was reassigned to individual theaters of operations: Central and Southwest Pacific theaters under American cognizance; and India-Burma-China under the British.24 Consequently, Allied strategy for defeating the Japanese reverted to the Rainbow series of war plans prepared 23. Armstrong, 5-6; 49-50. 24. Grace Pearson Hayes, The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in World War II (U.S. Naval Institute, 1982), 61-81. in 1939.25 Rainbow 5 assumed the rapid fall of the Philippines and strategic maritime defensive operations to contain Japanese advances using limited resources. Once British and American forces had defeated Germany and Italy, they would be reassigned to the Pacific.26 However, by late 1942, half of the available American ground forces and one-third of Army Air Corps were fighting in the Pacific, and by December 1943, American manpower in the Pa- cific outnumbered that in Europe.27 The amphibious island campaign underly- ing maritime strategy to interdict Japanese sea lines of communications had required greater army ground and air resources than originally projected. Additionally, failure to establish unity of command in the Pacific dupli- cated manpower and logistics requirements.28 Notwithstanding these inefficiencies and shortcomings, American supe- riority in firepower, mobility, logistics, and wartime production were decisive in reversing Japanese victories.29 Japan's defeats at Midway, the Solomons, New Guinea, and the Marshalls crippled Japanese offensive capabil- ity. Additionally, strategic bombardment and naval interdiction of Japanese 25. Hayes, 88, 96-103; Clayton D. James, "American and Japanese Strategy in the Pacific War" in Paret, 711. 26. James, 710-711; Russell Weigley, The American Way of War (Indiana University,1973), 270. 27. Weigley, 270-271. 28. James, 720-721, 726-729. 29. James, 729. For an overview of American military operations in the Pacific, see Weigley, 269-311 and Allan R. Millett and Peter Maslowski's For the Common Defense (Free Press, 1984), 430-470. sea lanes virtually paralyzed industrial production and denied Japan's ac- cess to critical raw materials.30 Yet the war did not end. Although Japan had exhausted its resources to continue the struggle, it was willing to prolong the war. Conversely, America's policy for total victory was stalemated by conflicting courses of action.31 The denouement of rationally calculating policy and appraising military prospects was at hand. In- transigence prevailed, however, and fighting continued for another year. Why? Historical analysis of events from January to August 1945, juxtaposed against the construct of different war termination models, suggests a number of complex reasons for the continuation of hostilities.32 Although there is agreement on the essence of the historical record, each model imputes dif- 30. U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) (Pacific), Japan's Struggle to End the War (Government Printing Office, 1956), 3, 10-12; Togo Shigenori, The Cause of Japan (Simon and Schuster, 1956), 275-276; Gar Alperovitz, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (Elisabeth Sifton/Penguin, 1985), 154; Robert J.C. Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender (Standford University, 1954), 11; and Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War (Pantheon, 1968), 181-202. 31. For an overview of conflicting military strategies, see Weigley, 269- 311 and Hayes, 479-482, 492-507, 563-566, 588-590, 603-624, 645-652. For war termination from the perspective of key State Department individuals see Gaddis Smith, American Diplomacy During the Second World War (Newberry Awards Records, 1985; James F. Brynes, Speaking Frankly (Harper and Brothers, 1947); and Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era Volume II (Riverside, l952). 32. Sophomoric historical analysis will not be conducive to war termina- tion studies. This analysis must avoid the military historians' usually narrow focus of ascribing simple cause and effect relationships to histori- cal events, with little consideration for the complexity and inter- relationships of diverse factors. Judging military history, one would think that diplomacy and politics played no apparent role in history. At the same time, the antipathy of diplomatic historians to military history must also be eschewed. fering degrees of significance to the motivations of the belligerents and their perceptions of events. Let us now examine those motivations and per- ceptions and how they interacted to end the fighting. On the Japanese side, military reverses and domestic economic paralysis helped to strengthen the political voice of moderates who wanted to end the war. Indeed, the Japanese defeat at Saipan has been linked to the fall of the Tojo war government which represented the militaristic interests of the officer corps. Japanese collapse in Okinawa further eroded the credibility of the military to win the war, and an even stronger "peace" government than the one following Tojo's fall emerged a week after hostilities broke out there.33 Although intransigent militarist factions still survived in the new government, the peace-seekers had greater political room to maneuver for ending the war. Regardless of their inclinations, the different political cliques recognized the desperation of Japan's position to further prosecute the war, based on reports of fleet, air, and merchant ship losses and deteriorating economic capacity. However, each pursued a different course of action: continue fighting with renewed vigor and sacrifice; negotiate an end to the war; or surrender unconditionally by accepting the Allied terms.34 Those political leaders who wanted to offer further resistance based their prospects on the existing strength of the army, which numbered three 33. USSBS (Pacific), 1-3, 6; Saburo Hayashi, Kogun: The Japanese Army in Pacific War (U.S. Marine Corps Association, 1959), 111-112. 34. USSBS, 1-4; Shigenura, 274-335; Ienaga, 203-228; and Butow, 166-188. million even after the fall of Saipan. This was clearly a force capable of inflicting heavy losses on the Allies.35 Additionally, the Allies had only occupied a small proportion of the territory which Japan had seized earlier in the war. Japanese military strategy had been formulated to offer prog- ressively stiffer resistance, culminating in the eventual defense of the homeland island. To that end, at the beginning of 1945 military operations in China shifted from annihilation of the Chinese Chungking forces resisting in the interior provinces, to preparations for repulsing American amphibious landings along the coastal areas of South and Central China. Priority was given to destruction of air fields in China from which American B-29 bombers had operated to sink Japanese shipping in the China Sea and to launch raids against Japan proper. Army divisions in China were also shifted to Man- churia and Korea to prepare for anticipated Soviet entry into the war, based on intelligence reports in March 1945 of Soviet troop buildup in Siberia. (Their political objective in regards to their fear of opening of hostilities with the Soviet was to offer the Russians generous terms in ex- change for neutrality.) Finally, units in Okinawa were transferred to the homeland to bolster defenses for "the decisive struggle." This redirection in strategy reflected the uncompromising Army position that Japan would 35. USSBS (Pacific), 1. This military manpower figure included roughly 460,000 (Hayashi, 173) for the army in Manchuko [Manchuria]. Taken alone, this assessment of Japan's military power is validated by the difficulties of Allied war planners and commanders alike to project the casualties for invasion of the Japanese homeland. For a further discussion of these dif- ficulties, see Hayashi, 102-112; Sigal, 109, 116-117, 119, 121, 205-206; Al- perovitz, 10; Herbert Feis, Japan Subdued (Princeton University, 1961), 180. resist to the bitter end.36 Supporting the militarists in part were moderates who opposed uncondi- tional surrender. They hoped to conduct wartime diplomacy backed by Japan's creditable military capability so as to win concessions from the Allies for ending the war. Specifically, they wanted to preserve the "national polity"37 and sovereignty of the Emperor, and were willing to disarm unilaterally, but be left to prosecute their own war criminals. They were also willing to cede conquered territories (with perhaps the exception of Korea and Formosa, for reasons of agricultural autarchy). As Japan's posi- tion steadily deteriorated during the early months of 1945 the moderates pressed to negotiate an end to the war before its military strength was to- tally exhausted. They attempted to parlay their fear of Soviet belligerency into a request for Soviet mediation to end the war on terms more acceptable than unconditional surrender. The request reflected their belief that Soviet interests would also be served by having a strong postwar ally for its looming confrontation with the United States.38 They rejected approach- 36. Hayashi, 90-91, 137-146, 169-175. 37. National polity reflected the unique characteristics of the Japanese nation -- purity, filial piety, virtue, loyalty to the Emperor -- that set the Japanese people apart from all other peoples. See Dower, 221-222. 38. Shigenori, 279, 286; Butow, 112-141; and Sigal, 49-54. It is dumbfounding that Stalin did not attempt to extract from the Japanese the same -- if not better -- territorial concessions ceded to him by the Allies at Yalta in exchange for neutrality, without having to fire a single shot! When juxtaposed against the American pessimism in June 1945 about not being able to stop the Soviets from advancing against Japan if they wanted to, Stalin's restraint from political duplicity is even more remarkable. The Americans would not have been able to prevent Stalin from mediating peace in the Pacific any more than they could have prevented Soviet forces from in- vading Manchuria. In view of Japanese reluctance against opening a second front in Manchuria in 1941 to coincide with Germany's offensive into the Soviet Union, certainly Soviet mediation could have been explained in terms of Stalin's "gratitude" to Japan. ing neutral countries for mediation because they believed that the United States would only reiterate its demand for unconditional surrender: if the Soviet Union with its influence and strategic interests in the Transamur region were unable to negotiate acceptable peace terms for Japan, then neutrals likewise could not.39 Advocates of unconditional surrender within the wartime coalition government feared the annihilation of the Japanese nation and people. They were willing to accept the Allied terms to end the war immediately pending only the clarification of the Emperor's sovereignty. The peace proponents rejected the political objectives of both the militarists and the moderates concerning the Soviet Union: the militarists' desire for neutrality on the grounds of lost opportunity,40 and the moderates' for mediation on the basis of pragmatism. They correctly interpreted Soviet equivocation since March 1945 on Japanese peace proposals41 as an ominous signal of Soviet inten- tions. The peace leaders further recognized the futility of negotiating a separate end to hostilities with the Chungking forces because of U.S. in- fluence in China.42 In view of Japan's bleak prospects for influencing ei- ther the military or political peace terms, the unconditional surrender ad- 39. Shigenori, 286. 40. The time to forge cordial relationships with the Soviet Union would have been when Japan was militarily strong, not weak as in her current posi- tion. See Shigenori, 280. 41. For discussions on Soviet maneuvers to avoid "answering the mail," see Feis, 54-57, 65, 68-69, 92; Shigenori, 296, 298, 301, 307; and USSBS (Pacific), 7-8. 42. Shigenori, 303. vocates were unwilling to sacrifice additional resources to continue Japa- nese resistance. Ending the war immediately would secure the underpinnings of Japanese postwar reconstruction; further belligerency would risk certain devastation. The loss of Okinawa intensified the political debate within the govern- ment to end the war. The political leaders perceived Okinawa as a strategic defeat because it undermined all prospects for winning or ultimately turning back an American invasion of the homeland.43 The position of the peace ad- vocates remained unchanged. However, for the moderates the defeat at Okinawa reinforced the urgency for Soviet intercession because similar losses could only weaken Japanese wartime diplomacy which depended upon suc- cessful military operations. Although sobered by the Okinawa defeat, the militarists nonetheless continued to advocate a strategy of attrition to im- pose unbearable losses on the Americans. If the U.S. nonetheless persisted in its invasion of the homeland, then Japan could make peace after inflict- ing as much damage as possible on Allied landing forces. Despite efforts to end the war, the Japanese government publicly sup- ported an increased war effort to bolster domestic confidence and army morale.44 Privately, divergent factions within the cabinet continued to struggle to reconcile the different military and political strategies for 43. Shigenori, 317. 44. Public discussion of foreign policy is often targeted to domestic audiences vice other governments. See Stein, 22. American observers inter- preted Japan's war rhetoric as indicative of the government's intransigent position, not simply as propaganda to appease army fanatics. See Sigal, 147- 53. ending the war. The unconditional surrender of Germany in May 1945 further underscored Japan's untenable position for continued resistance. When the cabinet was unable to agree on a course of action, the Emperor in June 1944 initiated a conference of the Supreme War Direction Council.45 After listening to the members' official opinions, the Emperor asked them to con- sider a plan for ending the war and defending the home island.46 The Im- perial desire for peace influenced war policy only insofar as the members would be able to concur on a strategy for implementing it. If consensus could not be reached and one of the dissenting members resigned, the cabinet would dissolve. Successive collapses of the Japanese government would have exposed the fragileness of the peace initiatives and perhaps invited an army coup to reassert military control over the war effort. Although the Army Minister refused to support unconditional surrender to the last day of the war, he was also unwilling to resign out of fear of jeopardizing the stability of the government and thereby prolonging the war. The United States issued the Potsdam Declaration on 26 July as a final appeal to the Japanese government to surrender. The declaration detailed the conditions for surrender, threatening annihilation of Japanese armed 45. The Supreme War Direction Council was established in August 1943 to formulate political and military policy for prosecution of the war, includ- ing manpower and economic decisions. Its members were limited to the Premier, Foreign Minister, Army Minister, Navy Minister, Army Chief of Staff, and Navy Chief of Staff. Because the Council excluded secretaries and lesser members, its deliberations were private, thus removing inhibi- tions on free exchange of opinions. See USSBS (Pacific), 4 and Shigenori, 283. 46. USSBS (Pacific), 7. forces if Japan did not capitulate. The essence of the declaration pres- cribed military occupation, disarmament, prosecution of war criminals, and cession of conquered territories. The declaration was ambiguous in its omission of the national polity and role of the Emperor -- the two key is- sues at stake for Japanese moderates and peace advocates. The peace advo- cates immediately urged acceptance of the declaration to dispel any American misperceptions about Japanese peace intentions.47 However, the final con- sensus of the War Council was to defer acceptance of the Declaration until the Soviet Union responded to the latest request for mediation. In the in- terim, debate continued over the war crimes clause as well as the ambiguity surrounding the future form of Japan's government and the role of Emperor. There were, however, no objections to ending the war. On 6 August, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; on 8 Au- gust, the second bomb hit Nagasaki; and on 9 August, the Soviet Union en- tered the war against Japan. In the continuing debate on acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration after these events, the army still intimated that it was capable of inflicting another "Okinawa" on the Americans and insisted on four conditions for surrender: no occupation, unilateral disarmament, Im- perial sovereignty, and Japanese jurisdiction of war crimes. The Emperor initiated another meeting of the War Council to break the deadlock. He stated that in view of the gravity of the crisis, he did not wish to risk 47. When the press queried the premier about Japan's response to the Potsdam Conference, he blundered into using a word that had varying shades of meaning. The press sensationalized its coverage of the cabinet's response by depicting the more severe meaning of the premier's term. See Shigenori, 313 and Butow, 143-149. the annihilation of the Japanese nation by prolonging the war, and therefore could no longer rely on the performance of the army to restore peace.48 Whereupon the Japanese government surrendered to the American government on 10 August and accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration with the under- standing that surrender did not prejudice the Emperor's sovereignty. On 13 August the cabinet received the American reply which stated that the authority of the Emperor upon surrender would be subject to the Supreme Commander of Allied Power,49 and additionally that the ultimate form of government would reflect the will of the Japanese people. The cabinet ob- jected to making the Emperor subordinate to another individual and believed that popular sovereignty would subvert the national polity. The army resisted further compromises that would threaten the national polity and refused to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The army stated its desire to continue the war until its sole condition of preserving the national polity for surrender could be accommodated. The Emperor again in- tervened to avert army opposition from undermining Japanese prospects for peace. He reiterated that not accepting the Potsdam Declaration would im- peril the national polity and risk annihilation of the Japanese nation.50 48. USSBS (Pacific), 8-9. 49. Obviously to be appointed, as there had been no Allied Supreme Com- mander in the Pacific except for a couple brief months in the beginning of the war. See Taylor, 199. 50. It is purely speculative to impugn ulterior motives to the Emperor for his firmness to end the war, but the question of whether Hirohito wanted to destroy the political power and traditional social and cultural prestige of the military is intriguing. Recall Stalin's staunch admonitions to his countrymen to offer fierce resistance to the invading Germans on the grounds of national survival. The Soviets refer to World War II as their Great Patriotic War, which immeasurably enhanced both Stalin's and the Red Army's prestige. It's a counter factual fantasy to imagine that had Japan not sur- rendered and successfully turned back the planned American invasion on the He ended the war accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, and asked the cabinet to draft an Imperial rescript announcing Japan's surrender for broadcast to the people.51 The motivations and perceptions of Japan's American counterparts in the war were equally complex. Military strategy in the spring of 1945 for total victory was attenuated by persistent service rivalries and the difficulty of ending the war quickly with minimum casualties.52 The Navy postulated that a maritime strategy of naval blockade alone would compel Japanese capitula- tion. Army Air Force planners likewise advocated an independent strategy of strategic bombardment for overcoming stubborn Japanese resistance. The Army, however, maintained that a ground invasion of the homeland was essen- tial for achieving decisive victory, and that aerial bombardment and naval blockade weakened but did not destroy military resistance.53 The dif- ficulties confronting the Joint Chiefs of Staff in melding the services' divergent military strategies into a unified plan were only exacerbated by the imperative for rapid victory.54 In addition to vindicating the effec- (cont.) home island, the Japanese Army would have enjoyed incalculable prestige in Japanese politics and society. 51. USSBS (Pacific), 9. 52. The political leadership had imposed a twelve month deadline on the services for victory in the Pacific following German capitulation. See Villa, 74. 53. Sigal, 88-89, 137. 54. The compromise strategy reached planned for an amphibious invasion of Kyushu. Further operations to land on the Tokyo plains were deferred pend- ing the Kyushu outcome. See Sigal, 121. tiveness of their respective strategies, the service planners also wanted to establish the preeminence of their service in the postwar world and thus in- crease their share of the declining defense budget following demobiliza- tion.55 The belief that a military solution was necessary for the defeat of Japan dominated planning to end the war. However, planners had doubts about achieving the twelve month deadline for victory because of the difficulties of logistics preparations and estimates of Japanese capabilities for in- flicting heavy losses on the American forces. Military leaders thought the policy of unconditional surrender would prolong Japanese resistance and thus increase American casualties. Accordingly, Army and Navy planners recom- mended retaining the Emperor to induce Japan to surrender.56 The State Department however opposed the military's efforts to modify the President's surrender policy. The majority of its members supported un- conditional surrender as the basis for reforming Japanese postwar society.57 55. Sigal, 178-17 and Perry McCoy Smith, The Air Forces Plans for Peace. 1943-45 (John Hopkins University, 1970). In fact, the Army Air Corps estab- lished a separate planning division in 1943 to establish the autonomy of an independent Air Force after the war. This division concentrated on strategic bombing as the sole mission of the new service, with the goal to obtain the lion's share of the postwar defense budget by consolidating all aircraft. In addition, this division was relieved of all responsibility for current military operations: its only mission was to plan for eventual ser- vice autonomy. 56. The diplomatic record of General Marshall's opposition to uncondi- tional surrender should not be confused with his support of the Army's ground invasion p1an. He thought military strategy by itself could not depend on Naval blockade or aerial bombardment to force Japan to accept un- conditional surrender. See Villa, 75-92; Feis, 64; and Sigal, 111, 119-120, 137. 57. Vl1la, 88-89. The objective for purging militarism from the Japanese national character required a fundamental transformation of Japanese social and political in- stitutions; retention of the Emperor would ultimately subvert that trans- formation.58 Thus the costs and military risks attendant on invading Japan were not compelling military reasons to abandon political objectives.59 Military planning for the invasion led the Joint Chiefs of Staff to study the effect of Japanese political and military resistance on strategy and conversely, the political and military effect of unconditional surrender on Japanese resistance. The Joint Intelligence Staff (JIS) study which con- sidered those issues concluded that the concept of unconditional surrender was incomprehensive to the Japanese, but that if the Japanese people equated with the concept with national annihilation, then they would resist fier- cely. However, Imperial sanction of surrender, whether on conditional or unconditional terms would restrain resistance. The study further concluded that shared authority between the Emperor and the occupational commander would ensure postwar political stability.60 Thus the military occupation of Japan which was postulated for postwar military and social reform provided a military reason for retaining the Emperor and thus mitigating the uncondi- tional formula.61 A separate JIS study on Army Air and Navy strategy to end the war ex- pressed a similar belief about unconditional surrender and recommended 58. Sigal, 128; Villa, 89. 59. Villa, 74-79. 60. Sigal, 85-86, 98-99, 131-32, 256-51; Villa, 80-84. 61. Villa, 81. clarifying the meaning of the policy. Both studies estimated that the war would end by fall 1945 if the Japanese people understood that surrender would not imperil their existence. The State Department rejected both studies. General Marshall countered with a suggestion for a new declaration demanding the surrender of the Japanese people and explaining the terms of unconditional surrender, to which the State Department agreed.62 Such a declaration, however, had to be issued when the enemy was weak so as not to be misperceived as a concession.63 The beginning of hostilities on Okinawa in April delayed the declaration until the military outcome of the campaign could be determined. Although American forces defeated the Japanese the U.S. suffered its highest army casualties and naval ship losses of the war to date. Military planners thus feared that Japan would threaten to inflict similar losses if the U.S. per- sisted in demanding unconditional surrender.64 Officials calculated that an appeal for unconditional surrender hinged on one of three decisive blows: the atomic bomb, which was promised in late July; Soviet entry into the war, expected in August; or an invasion of the home islands, planned for Novem- 62. Villa, 82-83. 63. Villa, 85; Ikle, 85-86. 64. It is ironic that while American planners thought the Japanese would perceive the capture of Okinawa as a phyrric military victory, Japanese mod- erates in turn rued their loss at Okinawa because it undermined their wartime diplomacy to end the war. The Americans were correct in their ap- praisal that the Japanese would use the threat of more Okinawa's to negoti- ate for conditions for ending the war. The problem was governments are not single actors, but comprised of divergent groups representing dissimilar perceptions. ber. Therefore, the opportune time for issuing the declaration would be sometime in July.65 Undersecretary of State Joseph Grew, however, was dissatisfied about linking statesmanship to military eventualities. He favored retaining the Emperor to preserve postwar order and relations with the U.S. to counter the threat of Soviet hegemony in the Far East.66 Grew appealed to the Presi- dent to reconsider retaining the Emperor in light of those postwar political objections. The President was sympathetic and directed additional study of the surrender policy. Members of the new committee were free to express personal views and were not constrained to represent their organizational interests. Almost unanimously they voted to approve retention of the Emperor to induce sur- render and ensure postwar political stability. Dissension focused on whether to make the declaration an appeal for surrender or an ultimatum threatening Soviet entry into the war and invasion of the home island.67 The resulting draft declaration incorporated both of those views. The President departed for Potsdam with the draft declaration to attend the last major Allied conference of the war, 12-26 July. Accompanying him was Secretary of State James Brynes who ultimately influenced the President to delete the references in the declaration for retaining the Emperor, as well as those warning of the pending Soviet entry into the war and invasion 65. Villa, 87. 66. Sigal, 97; Grew, 1447. 67. Sigal, 124-125; Villa, 87. of the home island. Brynes was reluctant to have the President compromise the policy for unconditional surrender and risk alienating the American pub- lic.68 The President however agreed to preserve the Imperial institution to effect an orderly surrender if the Japanese asked to retain the Emperor as a condition for surrender.69 Although Soviet entry into the war was imminent, the President did not discuss Far East issues with Stalin at the Potsdam Conference. His reluc- tance to talk about Japanese defeat and demand for surrender may have been motivated by his desire to avoid confrontation on the question of joint mil- itary occupation. President Roosevelt had first approached Marshall Stalin about entering the war against Japan in December 1941 immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor.70 Stalin replied that he could not risk a two front war while he was fighting large scale operations against Germany.71 Successive Allied defeats in the Pacific in 1942 and the unprecedented "kill-or-be-killed" nature of combat led military planners to postulate that Soviet entry into the Pacific war was essential to destroy Japanese armed forces for victory. Planners desired to use air bases in Siberia and con- duct combined Russian-American ground offensives in China against the Japa- 68. Sigal, 248-252; Villa, 89; Brynes, 209-210. 69. Villa, 90-91. This agreement underlied the response to Japan's con- ditional acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. 70. United States Department of Defense, The Entry of the Soviet Union into the War against Japan: Military Plans (Mimeograph, 1955), 1. 71. United States Department of Defense, 2. Additionally, the Soviet Union signed a Non-Aggression Pact with Japan on 13 April 1941. See Alexander Werth, Russia at War (Carrol & Graf, 1964), 121. nese Kwantung Army.72 Based on that planning, the President reiterated his request for Soviet participation at Teheran in 1943, to which Stalin tenta- tively agreed, but not before Germany had been defeated.73 Thus military strategy for total victory in the Pacific influenced policy74 and contrib- uted to the Yalta territorial concessions for "inducing" Soviet entry into the war.75 Although the Soviets promised participation in the war with Japan, dis- cussions between American and Soviet military planners on concept of opera- tions, intelligence, and Soviet capabilities and intentions in the Far East were frustrated by poor Soviet cooperation. The Soviets were reluctant to share details of their planning or respond to American queries for informa- tion, and tended to only engage in combined planning discussions to leverage Lend Lease material.76 Lack of Soviet and American military collaboration to defeat Japan also reflected differing Soviet and American views on 72. United States Department of Defense, 5-6 73. Dr. Jacob W. Kipp, The Soviet Far Eastern Build-up and the Manchurian Campaign, Fegruary-August 1945: Lessons and Implications (Soviet Army Studies Office, 1988), 8. 74. Since military strategy provided the cohesion for coalition warfare during World War II, Roosevelt might also have been motivated to use com- bined Russian-American military planning to cement closer ties with Stalin. 75. See Kipp, 7. Preparations for war with Japan were undertaken in the summer of 1943; the Teheran Conference was in November 1943, and Yalta in February 1944. For a discussion of Soviet military planning in the Far East, see also Lilita I. Dzirkals, "Lightning War" in Manchuria: Soviet Mil- itary Analysis of the 1945 Far East Campaign (Mimeograph, 1976) and Alexander Vasilevsky, "In the Far East" in Main Front: Soviet Leaders Look Back on World War II ed. John Erickson (Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense, 1987). 76. United States Department of Defense, 31-38; Hayes, 720. strategy and policy and later, distrust. By early 1945 prospects for peace in the Pacific were more sanguine and military planners revised their estimates of Soviet participation accordingly, stating participation was desired but no longer essential.77 No attempts were made however to dis- suade Soviet belligerency against Japan. American and Soviet relations were strained, and the U.S. was not in a position to use force while fighting the Japanese. The decision to drop the atomic bomb was similarly motivated by dif- ferent perceptions of its utility to policy. The atomic bomb was regarded as an extension of strategic bombing and careful considerations of its ef- fect on the postwar settlement -- international control of atomic energy, diplomacy, deterrence, savings in American lives -- were overridden by mili- tary and political exigencies for achieving total victory.78 The atomic bomb was a shock to both the Japanese and the Soviets. To the former it im- pressed upon the Japanese the urgency of accepting the Potsdam Declaration; to the Soviets it irreparably damaged relations with the West and contrib- 77. United States Department of Defense, 71. This view conflicts with military pessimism about achieving the twelve month goal for victory in the Pacific and subsequent initiatives to modify the unconditional surrender formula. The contradiction could be explained by growing distrust of the Soviets and service rivalries to establish the preeminence of their respec- tive service. See Sigal, 106-7. 78. For the reaction of the Soviet peop1e to the atomic bomb, see Werth, 1037-1038. For a discussion of sharing the bomb with Stalin, see Martin J. Sherwin, "The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War: U.S. Atomic- Energy Policy and Diplomacy, 1941-45" in American Historical Review (October 1973), 945-968. For a comprehensive and controversial discussion of the atomic bomb on diplomacy, see Alperovitz's, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. uted to a hard-line ideology obsessed with maintaining Soviet security at the expense of postwar economic reconstruction. War termination is a complex process for linking policy and strategy to the postwar settlement which must address the issues that precipitated the conflict. Strategy lust serve policy; specifically, the objective of mili- tary strategy is to win wars and thus achieve the political objectives for which the war is fought. Just as military planners need to understand that statesmanship can also be decisive for achieving victory, so too must political leaders be sensitive to the limitations of military strategy and be ready to modify war aims to end hostilities. To this end, an accurate appraisal of the costs of continued resistance and military prospects for victory is essential. The concept of unconditional surrender in World War II introduced a new paradigm in war termination that is especially relevant in modern industrial societies where belligerents have unlimited means to impose their won the enemy. In total war a belligerent who has suffered strategic defeat may nonetheless in desperation choose to exhaust his remaining resources, rather than accept political defeat. The danger of this scenario is the formula- tion of military strategies that either produce pyrrhic victories or cul- minate in annihilation of the enemy. "Simple old soldiers" must not press for complete military victory; similarly, political leaders must not abdi- cate policy to strategy. Bibliography Alperovitz, Gar. Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. New York: Elisabeth Sifton/Penguin, 1985 2. Armstrong, Anne. Unconditional Surrender. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer- sity, 1961. Butow, Robert J.C. Japan's Decision to Surrender. Standford: Standford Uni- versity, 1954. Byrnes, James F. Speaking Frankly. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947. Calahan, H.A. What Makes a War End? New York: Vanguard, 1944. Coser, Lewis A. "The Termination of Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution 5 (December 1961): 347-53. Dzirkals, Lilita I. "Lightning War" in Manchuria: Soviet Military Analysis of the 1945 Far East Campaign. Mimeograph. [Washginton, D.C.: 1976.] Dower, John W. War Without Mercy New York: Pantheon/Random House, 1986. Feis, Herbert. Japan Subdued. Princeton: Princeton University, 1961. Grew, Joseph C. Turbulent Era. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Riverside, 1952. Halperin, Morton H. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution 1974. Handel, Michael I. War, Strategy and Intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Frank Cass, 1989. Hayashi, Saburo and Coox, Alvin D. Kogun: The Japanese Army in the Pacific War. Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1959. Hayes, Grace Person. The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in World War II. Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1982. Ikle, Fred C. Every War Must End. New York: Columbia University, 1977. Ienaga, Saburo. The Pacific War. Trans. Frank Baldwin. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. James, D. Clayton. "American and Japanese Strategies in the Pacific War" in Makers of Modern Stragegy, ed. Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity, 1986 2. Kennan, George F. The Fateful Alliance. New York: Pantheon, 1984. Kecskemeti, Paul. Strategic Surrender. Standford: Standford University, 1958. Kipp, Jacob W., Dr. The Soviet Far Eastern Build-Up and the Manchurian Campaign, February-August 1945: Lessons and Implications. Fort Leaven- worth: Soviet Army Studies Office, 1988. Matloff, Maurice. Mr. Roosevelt's Three Wars: FDR as War Leader. Colorado: U.S. Air Force Academy, 1964 Millett, Allan R. and Peter Maslowski. For the Common Defense. New York: Free Press, 1984. Paret, Peter. "Clausewitz," in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Peter Paret. Princeton: Princeton University, 1986 2. Sherwin, Martin J. "The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War: U.S. Atomic-Energy Policy and Diplomacy, 1941-45" in American Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 4 (October 1973): 945-968. Shigenori, Togo. The Cause of Japan. Trans. Togo Fumihiko and Ben Bruce Blakeney. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. Sigal, Leon V. Fighting to a Finish. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1988. Smith, Gaddis. American Diplomacy during the Second World War. New York: New- berry Award Records, 1985. Smith, Perry McCoy. The Air Force Plans for Peace, 1945-45. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970. Staudenmaier, William O. "Conflict Termination in the Nuclear Era," in Con- flict Termination and Military Strategy, ed. Stephen J. Cimbala and Keith A. Dunn. Boulder, CO: Westview/Frederick A. Praeger, 1987. Stein, Janice G. "War Termination and Conflict Reduction or, How WArs Should End" in The Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, Vol. 1 (Fall 1975): 1-27. Taylor, A.J.P. How Wars End. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1985. United States. Department of Defense. The Entry of the Soviet Union into the War against Japan: Military Plans, 1941-1945. Mimeograph. [Washington, D.C.: 1955.] United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific). Japan's Struggle to End the War. Report No. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946. Van Creveld, Martin. The Transformation of War. New York: Free Press, 1991. Vasilevsky, Alexander, Marshal. "In the Far East." in Main Front: Soviet Lead- ers Look Back on World War II, ed. by John Erickson. McLean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey s International Defense, 1987. Villa, Brian L. "The U.S. Army, Unconditional Surrender, and the Potsdam Proclamation" in Journal of American History, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Jun 1976): 66-92. Weigley, Russell. The American Way of War. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univer- sity, 1973. Werth, Alexander. Russia at War. New York: Carroll & Graf, 1964.
