If the Japanese Surrender of WWII was under the condition that the Emperor would remain in power, why do modern history books still call it unconditional surrender?

by ______DEADPOOL______

I was reading the wiki page on Surrender of Japan and it kept saying that Japan surrendered unconditionally, but there's one part that says:

Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would "prejudice the prerogatives" of the Emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan's form of government—that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power.

August 12

The Allied response was written by James F. Byrnes and approved by the British, Chinese, and Soviet governments, although the Soviets agreed only reluctantly.

Thanks

ParkSungJun

The Allies didn't agree to the Japanese response. They insisted on an unconditional surrender. That line you're reading there talks about the Allied Response to the Japanese refusal re: the Potsdam Declaration. It was only after the surrender, during the occupation under MacArthur, that the occupation authorities decided to keep the Emperor in power.