Conditional Japanese Surrender

WI Japan offered terms including the release of POWs and withdrawal from all occupied lands some time in the spring or summer of 1945 prior to July.

There were certainly elements in the Japanese leadership who wanted to stop. Many would not have liked the idea of Japan being cut into zones of occupation which included a Soviet one- which must have looked like real possibility.


1a) If nuclear weapons had never been used in anger would there be less fear of their use?

1b) Would the bomb have been a smaller priority for Stalin?

1c) When would the general public first hear about the bomb?

2) Would this have prevented North Korea?

3) What would have been the effect in China?

4) What would be the relations between such a Japan and the West?

5) How much danger would there be of a "stab in the back"?
 
WI Japan offered terms including the release of POWs and withdrawal from all occupied lands some time in the spring or summer of 1945 prior to July.

There were certainly elements in the Japanese leadership who wanted to stop. Many would not have liked the idea of Japan being cut into zones of occupation which included a Soviet one- which must have looked like real possibility.


1a) If nuclear weapons had never been used in anger would there be less fear of their use?

1b) Would the bomb have been a smaller priority for Stalin?

1c) When would the general public first hear about the bomb?

2) Would this have prevented North Korea?

3) What would have been the effect in China?

4) What would be the relations between such a Japan and the West?

5) How much danger would there be of a "stab in the back"?

This is in ASB territory. The US wasn't going to accept some repeat of Versaille setting up a new war with Japan in 20 years.
Unconditional surrender or continued war were the only options Japan had.
 
Ironically the peace proposal of summer 1945 Truman refers to his in memoirs, mistakenly seized on by various revisionists and 'Hiroshima deniers', was a Japanese proposal which explicitly did not disarm Japan, surrender Japan nor even yield Manchuria nor any colonies and territories held prior to 1937.

So if at that point Japan still isn't prepared to accept defeat...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Zero likelihood event.

Japan was going to be defeated in detail. The Emperor has MacArthur to thank for his survival, it was Mac who pushed to leave him in place, figuring (correctly as it turned out) that as long as the Emperor was left alone the Japanese would accept occupation and the reordering of their political system with minimal protest.

Even with that, the Japanese were allowed to rebuild as quickly as happened IOTL because they were needed as a buffer against the Soviets and PRC. Until that became necessary there was a serious plan to turn Japan into a faming society, with no industry to speak of.

The Allies were REALLY PISSED OFF with Japan, and the closer they got to Japan, the more pissed off and scared they became. The Kamikaze was proof to a lot of senior Allied leaders that the whole country had flipped out, and the treatment of POW and civilian internees was taken as proof that the Japanese were, at best, criminally brutal. So the Allies figured they had a archipelago full of bloodthirsty madmen on their hands. You do NOT cut any sort of deal with that sort of opponent; you wipe them out or make them admit total defeat.
 
Zero likelihood event.

Japan was going to be defeated in detail. The Emperor has MacArthur to thank for his survival, it was Mac who pushed to leave him in place, figuring (correctly as it turned out) that as long as the Emperor was left alone the Japanese would accept occupation and the reordering of their political system with minimal protest.

Even with that, the Japanese were allowed to rebuild as quickly as happened IOTL because they were needed as a buffer against the Soviets and PRC. Until that became necessary there was a serious plan to turn Japan into a faming society, with no industry to speak of.

The Allies were REALLY PISSED OFF with Japan, and the closer they got to Japan, the more pissed off and scared they became. The Kamikaze was proof to a lot of senior Allied leaders that the whole country had flipped out, and the treatment of POW and civilian internees was taken as proof that the Japanese were, at best, criminally brutal. So the Allies figured they had a archipelago full of bloodthirsty madmen on their hands. You do NOT cut any sort of deal with that sort of opponent; you wipe them out or make them admit total defeat.

Even so, the Japanese were damn lucky to have Macarthur- they served up their generals as sacrifices and let the corrupt Imperial, civilian and corporate administration get off scot free. If there was any justice the Emperor would have been strung up post haste.
 
Even so, the Japanese were damn lucky to have Macarthur- they served up their generals as sacrifices and let the corrupt Imperial, civilian and corporate administration get off scot free. If there was any justice the Emperor would have been strung up post haste.

Hmmm... the Japanese were very lucky. If MacArthur was just a bit more vengeful, they'd have been toast.
 
Zero likelihood event.

Japan was going to be defeated in detail. The Emperor has MacArthur to thank for his survival, it was Mac who pushed to leave him in place, figuring (correctly as it turned out) that as long as the Emperor was left alone the Japanese would accept occupation and the reordering of their political system with minimal protest.

Even with that, the Japanese were allowed to rebuild as quickly as happened IOTL because they were needed as a buffer against the Soviets and PRC. Until that became necessary there was a serious plan to turn Japan into a faming society, with no industry to speak of.

The Allies were REALLY PISSED OFF with Japan, and the closer they got to Japan, the more pissed off and scared they became. The Kamikaze was proof to a lot of senior Allied leaders that the whole country had flipped out, and the treatment of POW and civilian internees was taken as proof that the Japanese were, at best, criminally brutal. So the Allies figured they had a archipelago full of bloodthirsty madmen on their hands. You do NOT cut any sort of deal with that sort of opponent; you wipe them out or make them admit total defeat.

But even so, if MacArthur had removed the Emperor I doubt it would cause serious convulsions. In a poll that was held just after the war, only 7 % felt 'sorry for the Emperor', but I suppose that's just the immediate reaction. If the poll was conducted a bit later, when the thought of settled for a bit. After all, the Emperor is a Christ-like figure for the Japanese.
 
But even so, if MacArthur had removed the Emperor I doubt it would cause serious convulsions. In a poll that was held just after the war, only 7 % felt 'sorry for the Emperor', but I suppose that's just the immediate reaction. If the poll was conducted a bit later, when the thought of settled for a bit. After all, the Emperor is a Christ-like figure for the Japanese.

So, if they had strung up the Emperor, maybe the shell-shocked population would accept it at the time, but then later the God-Emperor would become a semi-immortal martyr figurehead for Japanese nationalists. Even better if the Allies had deindustrialised Japan by force, it could get very messy indeed. A combination of a marginalised MacArthur and a slower Soviet advance could yield a pretty interesting TL.
 
So, if they had strung up the Emperor, maybe the shell-shocked population would accept it at the time, but then later the God-Emperor would become a semi-immortal martyr figurehead for Japanese nationalists.

Not if you don't abolish the monarchy. Hang Hirohito like the criminal he was but don't visit the sins of the father upon his son. Crown Akihito as Emperor, ASAP.
 
There were certainly elements in the Japanese leadership who wanted to stop. Many would not have liked the idea of Japan being cut into zones of occupation which included a Soviet one- which must have looked like real possibility.

Who were these "elements" you refer to? I remember Mitsumasa Yonai, Isoroku Yamamoto, and Shigeyoshi Inoue opposing the war with America (was Konoe one of them as well?), but how many people in Japan during WWII really thought peace was possible, and didn't adopt some shattered gem (gyokusai, IIRC) policy?
 
uh.....no, sorry. Have you even met a Japanese before?

Yes. I have several Japanese friends, mostly Nisei. :) But since they've (most of them, at least) have been abroad for their lives, and have only visited Japan a few times, they're a bit hard pressed for Japanese culture (of course, I could always ask their parents, but nobody expects anyone to say "Hey, did you use to revere this guy here?").

Flocculencio said:
Not if you don't abolish the monarchy. Hang Hirohito like the criminal he was but don't visit the sins of the father upon his son. Crown Akihito as Emperor, ASAP.

This could work if MacArthur (or the US guys in charge of the occupation) believed has Crown Prince Akihito not been indoctrinized by Hirohito. I remember reading that some Household Rule made by Meiji or someone made military education a must. Or the Americans will just suspect him to be a Romanov-like figure (off RA2).
 
Top