Deal or No Deal

Kantaro Suzuki who became Prime Minister of Japan on April 7, 1945 tried to negotiate a peace deal. What I read is that his only condition was that Herohito stay on the throne. Since that is what happened any way, would it have changed anything if Truman approved such a deal? Could Truman have sold this to Congress and the American people?
 
The deal was Hirohito would stay on the throne as an absolute or semi-absolute monarch. He would still be considered a god.

No way in hell the Americans are accepting that.
 

Japhy

Banned
What would have happened has the US accepted such a deal?

Well besides the fact they wouldn't, as we were (justly) demanding an unconditional surrender...

Japan gets off very lightly in 1945 and is bound to become a destabilizing regime again in the future. Basically, nothing good will come from this.
 
The Japanese would be even less willing to accept that they did anything wrong in the war than they are now, so relations with the rest of Asia would likely be more tense regarding the war than they are now
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Japanese would be even less willing to accept that they did anything wrong in the war than they are now, so relations with the rest of Asia would likely be more tense regarding the war than they are now

You mean like the Japanese PM did just last year by telling, politely, the keepers of Yasukuni shrine to go fuck themselves?

(also I'd question the whole "seen as a god" thing - it was more akin to the roman emperors than the Pharaoh) - that said I don't think it would have been possible because it also IIRC included no provisions to deal with Korea. It was about as unrealistic as any post-hitler-assassination scenario where a military junta asks for a peace that keeps Grossdeutschland around; the Chinese would not have accepted a peace where they still have a land border with Japan I think.
 
Last edited:
You mean like the Japanese PM did just last year by telling, politely, the keepers of Yasukuni shrine to go fuck themselves?

(also I'd question the whole "seen as a god" thing - it was more akin to the roman emperors than the Pharaoh) - that said I don't think it would have been possible because it also IIRC included no provisions to deal with Korea. It was about as unrealistic as any post-hitler-assassination scenario where a military junta asks for a peace that keeps Grossdeutschland around; the Chinese would not have accepted a peace where they still have a land border with Japan I think.

62 years after isnt too bad is it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7020335.stm
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-03/...panese-troops-japanese-atrocities?_s=PM:WORLD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6414445.stm
 

archaeogeek

Banned

I mean, it's not great, but at least they're coming around to it. Although I'm not so sure the only blame goes to the japanese themselves vs how MacArthur ran the occupation, since it required the rehabilitation of a lot of then notables who had very bloody hands (tbh it sort of happened with Germany, only it's less obvious because post-war Germany was a horrid mess and with 4 occupation zones, and figuring out what happened and who did who and who was whitewashing who is still an ongoing process)
 
I mean, it's not great, but at least they're coming around to it. Although I'm not so sure the only blame goes to the japanese themselves vs how MacArthur ran the occupation, since it required the rehabilitation of a lot of then notables who had very bloody hands (tbh it sort of happened with Germany, only it's less obvious because post-war Germany was a horrid mess and with 4 occupation zones, and figuring out what happened and who did who and who was whitewashing who is still an ongoing process)

Do you think a long-term military occupation might ensure the Japanese were more willing to accept their guilt like the Germans? If Japan is administered by the US, there'd be less need to rely on Japanes officials, and by the time the US leaves a new generation of civil servants might be ready to run the country. Do you think Hirohito getting the war crimes tribunal he deserved would have had a positive impact in regards to post-war Japanese attitudes?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Do you think a long-term military occupation might ensure the Japanese were more willing to accept their guilt like the Germans? If Japan is administered by the US, there'd be less need to rely on Japanes officials, and by the time the US leaves a new generation of civil servants might be ready to run the country. Do you think Hirohito getting the war crimes tribunal he deserved would have had a positive impact in regards to post-war Japanese attitudes?

On the occupation: I'm not sure, I feel the problem was more who was made "Shogun", i.e. an incompetent but politically powerful prima donna of a general, more than the length. They should have organized things such that it was actually possible to form a civil service.
As for Hirohito, I could easily see Britain protesting that last one; of course the British are, at that point, as dependent on the US as the french for economic survival for the next few years so they can't really do much. And of course there's the problem that a republic would not fly at least with the Japanese elites (I'm not sure the people would have cared as much compared to other more pressing needs, like eating at all). With Akihito only 12 at the time they did have a clear successor who'd be an adult in a few years and was mostly clean thanks to his age though.
 
On the occupation: I'm not sure, I feel the problem was more who was made "Shogun", i.e. an incompetent but politically powerful prima donna of a general, more than the length. They should have organized things such that it was actually possible to form a civil service.
As for Hirohito, I could easily see Britain protesting that last one; of course the British are, at that point, as dependent on the US as the french for economic survival for the next few years so they can't really do much. And of course there's the problem that a republic would not fly at least with the Japanese elites (I'm not sure the people would have cared as much compared to other more pressing needs, like eating at all). With Akihito only 12 at the time they did have a clear successor who'd be an adult in a few years and was mostly clean thanks to his age though.

Why do you think Britain would be against Hirohito being tried? Britain and the Commonwealth had 10000s of POWs tortured and abused by the Japanese, and although the Empire in that area of the world is essentially gone, I think Britain would still feel disgust at the way the populations of the colonies were treated. A republic probably wouldn't be popular with the Japanese elite, but like you say, Akihito could take over soon anyway, and its not like their in any position to argue
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Why do you think Britain would be against Hirohito being tried? Britain and the Commonwealth had 10000s of POWs tortured and abused by the Japanese, and although the Empire in that area of the world is essentially gone, I think Britain would still feel disgust at the way the populations of the colonies were treated. A republic probably wouldn't be popular with the Japanese elite, but like you say, Akihito could take over soon anyway, and its not like their in any position to argue

On principle mostly, the myth that the emperor "reigned but didn't rule" like Victor Emmanuel III (who was after all spared) and Georges VI still had a lot of currency at the time and of course this could be taken as a problem; there was, after all, some humdrum about the trial of Karl Dönitz IOTL so I'm only basing myself off that.
 
Top