Alternate aftermath of Leyte, Japan surrenders

Suppose that Leyte Gulf was a more complete catastrophe for the Japanese. The only ships to escape are a handful of destroyers, 2 or 3 cruisers, and Yamato. The sheer shock of this debacle allows the most fanatical of Japan's government to be overthrown, with the Emperor stepping in. The result: Peace is deemed acceptable if there can be some small face-saving measures, and the following offere is sent through neutral channels to the Allies:

Japan will surrender with the following conditions:
The Emperor is inviolate, and will retain his throne.
All Japanese forces withdraw to the Home Islands. They may bring their light equipment (machine guns, rifles, and grenades) but not heavy equipment such as artillery and trucks...basically, what each soldier can carry.
The Japanese Navy will be reduced to 1 battleship, 6 cruisers, and 20 destroyers, and NO submarines...just enough to save face and say "We still have a navy."

The army will be similarly reduced. Excess equipment to be scrapped or turned over to the Allies.

Japanese air forces (including naval air arm )to be limited to 100 combat planes.

The Allies to have full rights to search the Home Islands to enforce the terms of the treaty. (This will mean, initially, an army of ocupation at first, drawing down as circumstances permit.

Permanent US bases in several locations, chosen by the USA.

The Japanese negotiators are cagey enough to suggest that Japan is strongly anti-communist. Forthermore, excess Japanese gear in China could be left to Nationalist forces.

Behind the scenes, it's mentioned that public war crimes trials would threaten stability...but if the ones to be tried were given the opportunity to commit Sepuku (and so urged by the emperor) then the issue could be semi-avoided.

So---any chance of the Allies accepting this? If not, what might be accepted to allow some saving of face in return for an end to hostilities without an invasion?
 
If that deal was in good faith, I can see the Allies taking it. Japan would absolutely keep the Yamato (the thing had a pile of AA, and its still a big thing for the Japanese to say "we're still powerful!") in such a deal.

It's a good deal for the allies - they knew full well that invading the last Islands the Japanese held and the home Islands themselves would be an absolute nightmare. Good for the Japanese too, because at that point the Americans hadn't start burning Japan's cities to the ground.

This focuses the American forces on Europe afterward too, not good news for the Nazis. I can see the atom bomb (if its used, which it might not be) on Berlin or Hamburg.
 
It's possible that the Allies would take the deal. Did the "unconditional surrender" apply to all members of the Axis, or primarily on Germany? If the Japanese were the ones to initiate this, there's a a chance.

One thing on the Yamato, keeping it would be reducing it to little more than an anachronistic showpiece. Remember that the original USS Constitution and the HMS Victory are still in comission, but they're not used.
 
In 1945, this of course being long before SAMs, the Yamato still had some use. Anything with 132 anti-aircraft guns is going to make life really nasty for any incoming aircraft.

Post-war, assuming Japan is onboard with the allies, I can it called back again for Korea just for its 18-inch guns. But after that, you're correct, it's too big and slow to be of much use.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually, the 25mm Hotchkiss derived AAA on Yamato was a relatively ineffective weapon towards the end of the war. This is evidenced by the failure of it to knock down many aircraft in the later stages of the war - even the great numbers of guns on Yamato knocked few aircraft out of the sky on her final sortie.. It really needs replacing with 40mm Bofors.

I'm not entirely convinced the US would even take the generous terms offered here. I think Calbear would probably agree with me that the US was so angry at Japan and determined to achieve unconditional surrender that nothing short of what happened OTL would be acceptable. The Japanese had offered quite a lot through neutral channels OTL when they made a surrender proposal, but it was their insistence on the inviolability of the Emperor that scuppered it. Yes, the Emperor was retained after the war, but at the time, it was pretty much unacceptable to some in the US government that such a condition could be accepted. Let's not forget that even after that offer and the dropping of the bombs the US was fully prepared to steel itself for an invasion if necessary.


Sargon
 

Typo

Banned
Wouldn't this basically amount to unconditional surrender? I mean occupation of the home islands and all.
 
OK...counter-ofer?

Sargon, I see your point...it would be very marginal if the offer would be taken. Yet, an invasion would be horrendously expensive...can you think of any American counter-offer that might be taken by the Japanese, who are reeling, but still have great pride? I'm assuming that the people in charge won't accept unconditional surrender, or they will be ousted in turn--yet they want to salvage what can be salvaged from the mess.
 

Sargon

Donor
Monthly Donor
The sticking point is the thing about the Emperor. The Japanese will have to be more flexible on that point if the US is going to bite. Perhaps the Emperor intervenes earlier than OTL and accepts that his position not being inviolate is part of the deal as set out above. Then he just has to avoid any attempted coup as he had to do OTL before he makes the surrender speech, assuming the US accepts it.

The US really wants to be in a position to have the Japanese agreeing to their terms. That's something else that needs to be considered.


Sargon
 

Hendryk

Banned
Post-war, assuming Japan is onboard with the allies, I can it called back again for Korea just for its 18-inch guns.
If Japan surrenders in the wake of Leyte, there probably won't be a Korean War. The USSR will still be busy on the Western front, so there won't be any Operation August Storm or an analog thereof, and the Chinese Nationalists will be able to regain control of Manchuria. So no Communist occupation zone in Korea, nor, subsequently, a DPRK.
 
Counter-offer?

The sticking point is the thing about the Emperor. The Japanese will have to be more flexible on that point if the US is going to bite. Perhaps the Emperor intervenes earlier than OTL and accepts that his position not being inviolate is part of the deal as set out above. Then he just has to avoid any attempted coup as he had to do OTL before he makes the surrender speech, assuming the US accepts it.

The US really wants to be in a position to have the Japanese agreeing to their terms. That's something else that needs to be considered.


Sargon

OK...here's a possible American responce:

The emperor renounces all divine heritage, but him and his current family are gauranteed immunity from prosecution, and to be allowed to remain in the Imperial Palace. So long as he cooperates, he will remain head of state until the terms of the treaty are fulfilled. Durring that time, he, along with the government, whatever it may be, must cooperate in all ways with the Americans. (It's an occupation and military rule in all but name--but there's a lot in a name.) When "reconstruction," the term used for the American rule, is over, a general ellection will be held to see if the people of Japan wish to retain the monarchy.

Meanwhile, the fleet is to have its fuel and weapons off-loaded, and be guarded by an Allied fleet. Likewise, the army is to remain in barracks, and the air force likewise guarded.

Hidden facilities are to be uncovered, and anyone attempting to deliberately violate treaty terms will NOT be allowed Sepuku, but will be tried by the Allies, ensureing public humiliation for anyone so caught.

As part of his surrender speech, the Emperor might be made to place blame for the war squarely on the heads of the previous government--which is EXACTLY where it belongs.

Are we on track for something that can be made to work, and work quickly, before anyone tried a counter-coup?
 
^ Again, as Sargon pointed out, that's not all that different from what happened at the end of the war. But the Americans as earlier pointed out were right pissed off, and wanted things to end on their terms. But Roosevelt was pragmatic and his Congress was not idiots, and if Japan offered reasonable terms I don't believe that the US would turn them down.
 
At the Cairo Conference, held either right before or right after the meeting in Tehran, FDR, Churchill and Jiang agreed that Japan must surrender unconditionaly which leads me to doubt that this offer would be accepted. Of course, it it did the effects would interesting. As has been said, there would be no Korean War, with a unified U.S. occupation of Korea. The Soviets stay out of the Pacific War.They may very well not get the Kuril and Saklin Islands back. There is the fact that the Atomic bomb is not used. Would the Manhatten project continue after Germany surrenders? Would Germany surrender sooner, if the Pacific front vets arrived in April 45 or so?
 
^ Again, as Sargon pointed out, that's not all that different from what happened at the end of the war. But the Americans as earlier pointed out were right pissed off, and wanted things to end on their terms. But Roosevelt was pragmatic and his Congress was not idiots, and if Japan offered reasonable terms I don't believe that the US would turn them down.

Then we have to disagree. Both Roosevelt and the Congress would know what the US public thought and wanted for Pearl Harbor.
Way later in the war than Leyte, a majority of the US public wanted the Emperor hanged (preferably) or at least imprisoned, or exiled, as opposed to a tiny minority who didn't care if he remained on his throne.
 
The Japanese did try to surrender in December 1944, their only condition being that "the position of the Emperor is not affected", the Americans rejected, in line with the treaty with the British and Soviets from Casablanca 1943 - no allied power would accept peace with any axis power on any other condition than unconditional surrender.

It is possible that the Japanese might have surrendered in January 1945, in name inconditionally, with US occupation and dismantling of the Japanese armed forces, and a secret, verbal agreement that the Emperor was to remain - after all, the Americans did keep him around after ww2 anyway.
 
The Japanese did try to surrender in December 1944, their only condition being that "the position of the Emperor is not affected",

Really? Could you please describe who made such a proposal to whom, with what official Japanese governmental backing, and quote your source on the issue? Thanks.
 
Way later in the war than Leyte, a majority of the US public wanted the Emperor hanged (preferably) or at least imprisoned, or exiled, as opposed to a tiny minority who didn't care if he remained on his throne.

Heh. Seems the Japanese are in agreement with the Americans. Only a very small minority (that is, after the firebombing, the nuking and the loss of family members) of Japanese felt sorry for the Emperor. A lot more wanted him hanged - He led Japan into calamity, after all. Can't blame them.
 
Really? Could you please describe who made such a proposal to whom, with what official Japanese governmental backing, and quote your source on the issue? Thanks.

Well, 'did try to surrender' might be a bit over the top. What they did do was that several feelers were sent out from the office of the emperor and the more liberal parts of the government, offering such terms to the Americans.

By the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the Japan campaign was underway as Allied forces closed in on the home islands and an invasion of Japan seemed inevitable if the war continued. By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms which would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand — the proposals all included the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender. Additionally, these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful members of the Japanese government itself and thus can not be said to represent the true willingness of Japan to surrender at this time. Those opposed included members of the Supreme War Council Anami, Umezu and Toyoda.
(cut-and-paste from sources wikipedia article).

Information is from Chicago Daily Tribune August 19 1945 and well established in other sources.

I think it is very well possible that Japan could have surrendered in January 1945, they managed to do it in August,s o why not in January?
 
Well, 'did try to surrender' might be a bit over the top. What they did do was that several feelers were sent out from the office of the emperor and the more liberal parts of the government, offering such terms to the Americans.

What they did was to send off some feelers. Whether they were authorized at the top level is very debatable; surely if they were by the Emperor, they were not by the government.

(cut-and-paste from sources wikipedia article).

Yeah. Have you read carefully the end of the text you quoted?

"Additionally, these proposals were strongly opposed by powerful members of the Japanese government itself and thus can not be said to represent the true willingness of Japan to surrender at this time. Those opposed included members of the Supreme War Council Anami, Umezu and Toyoda."

I think it is very well possible that Japan could have surrendered in January 1945, they managed to do it in August,s o why not in January?

Um, because in January the Supreme War Council was not inclined to surrender, no matter at what terms, while they finally changed their mind after the second, yes, the second, nuke? That would be a darn good reason why not.
 

Typo

Banned
Yeah I agree, the whole nukes thing and the firebombing deal kinda changed the picture for Japan
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Japanese did try to surrender in December 1944, their only condition being that "the position of the Emperor is not affected", the Americans rejected, in line with the treaty with the British and Soviets from Casablanca 1943 - no allied power would accept peace with any axis power on any other condition than unconditional surrender.

It is possible that the Japanese might have surrendered in January 1945, in name inconditionally, with US occupation and dismantling of the Japanese armed forces, and a secret, verbal agreement that the Emperor was to remain - after all, the Americans did keep him around after ww2 anyway.

Not quite.

The Japanese also wanted a few other little things, like no action against their war criminals, recognition of their position in Manchuria, no demobilization of their forces, and access to U.S. Steel scrap amd oil exports to be resumed. In short, they wanted to WIN the war despite having their military in utter retreat.

There is also the fact that the suggestions were at a low diplomatic level, and were not supported by the IJA, without the Army's support there was no hope of peace. It is important to point out that the hard core of the IJA tried to prevent the eventual August '45 surrender AFTER 67 Japanese cities had been burned to the ground, TWO nuclear weapons had been deployed, Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been taken, Starvation was beginning in the Home Islands, AND the USSR had entered the war.

The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. They wanted to get the bombing to stop. That is it. Peace on the terms that the Japanese offered as late as July of 1945 would have resulted in 1) Impeachment of the President who accepted the terms, 2) a "victory myth" ariing in Japan that would have made the Nazi "WW I betrayal" myth seem like mathematic fact & 3) a second Pacific War within 10 years.
 
Top