Fate of Imperial Japan

Hullo. I have some questions about imperial japan during ww2. What would happen if Emperor Hirohito was assasinated say in...1943? Who would take his place and would his sucessor be better for japan or worse during the war? Also is there any chance at all that japan could keep South Sakhalin besides losing it to the russians?
 
Hullo. I have some questions about imperial japan during ww2. What would happen if Emperor Hirohito was assasinated say in...1943? Who would take his place and would his sucessor be better for japan or worse during the war? Also is there any chance at all that japan could keep South Sakhalin besides losing it to the russians?

One of his brothers would have succeeded him if the Emperor died. The war wouldn't have gone differently as the emperor had very little direct control over the flow of operations and strategy.

The only way to not have Japan lose territory to the Soviet Union is to keep the Soviet Union out of the war, which is impossible to prevent if Japan hasn't surrendered by summer 1945.
 
One of his brothers would have succeeded him if the Emperor died. The war wouldn't have gone differently.

The only way to not have Japan lose territory to the Soviet Union is to keep the Soviet Union out of the war, which is becomes impossible to prevent if Japan hasn't surrendered by summer 1945.

Well arguably it could have gone worse for Japan. Maybe this Emperor doesnt see value in surrender and the whole nation dies kicking and screaming :(
 
Well arguably it could have gone worse for Japan. Maybe this Emperor doesnt see value in surrender and the whole nation dies kicking and screaming :(

But it could have gone the other way as well. It depends on how willing the emperor is to defy the military junta as well as the willingness of the junta to be overcome.

The way I see it, invasion by the Soviet Union is the ultimate blow, that even in OTL made enough of the junta see reason. There were still some who were opposed to the end of the war, but they are not necessarily the rule rather than the exception.
 
Well arguably it could have gone worse for Japan. Maybe this Emperor doesnt see value in surrender and the whole nation dies kicking and screaming :(
*Grimaces* In my mind i'm seeing a worse situation for japan as america dropping more than 2 A bombs. That would devastate the japanese economy even more.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Russians are going to get at least as much in this scenario as IOTL, maybe more. Akihito would have become Emperor, although at 10 years of age there would be a Regent/Regents.

Where it gets bad is that, after Nagasaki and the Soviet Declaration of War, there is no Emperor in place to confirm the "Peace Party" position when the chance arises.

Japan either gets blockaded and bombed until it surrenders or it gets invaded. If the U.S. invades Kyushu give it one in four odds that Soviets at least take a shot at capturing Hokkaido, even money that the Red Army winds up with all of Korea.

Add somewhere around 2-2.5 million additional Japanese civilian deaths, 150-200k additional IJA/IJN KIA, and depending on whether MacArthur gets his way our not somewhere between 2,500 and 50,000 additional U.S. KIA.
 
The Russians are going to get at least as much in this scenario as IOTL, maybe more. Akihito would have become Emperor, although at 10 years of age there would be a Regent/Regents.

Where it gets bad is that, after Nagasaki and the Soviet Declaration of War, there is no Emperor in place to confirm the "Peace Party" position when the chance arises.

Japan either gets blockaded and bombed until it surrenders or it gets invaded. If the U.S. invades Kyushu give it one in four odds that Soviets at least take a shot at capturing Hokkaido, even money that the Red Army winds up with all of Korea.

Add somewhere around 2-2.5 million additional Japanese civilian deaths, 150-200k additional IJA/IJN KIA, and depending on whether MacArthur gets his way our not somewhere between 2,500 and 50,000 additional U.S. KIA.
Wouldn't casaulty rates for the usa be more than that? I can't remember the websites currently but almost all predictions of casaulties from an allied invasion of japan were in the 1 mill or higher range.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wouldn't casaulty rates for the usa be more than that? I can't remember the websites currently but almost all predictions of casaulties from an allied invasion of japan were in the 1 mill or higher range.
They are, but that is INCLUSIVE (IJA/IJN, Civilians, "volunteer militia", U.S. and Allied forces). The ringer in the U.S. KIA figures is just how effective the Kamikazes would be, and for how long could the effectiveness of the attacks be maintained. The Japanese had a good plan, attacking just the transports with the Kamikazes but it is an open question if it would have worked. Most of the Japanese air crews were so ill trained that they would be hard pressed to tell a fishing trawler from an aircraft carrier from the air.
 
Plus any invasion would have even more concentrations of fighters for CAP and interception. The kamikazes would still get through, but just how much would have to be worked out.
 
They are, but that is INCLUSIVE (IJA/IJN, Civilians, "volunteer militia", U.S. and Allied forces). The ringer in the U.S. KIA figures is just how effective the Kamikazes would be, and for how long could the effectiveness of the attacks be maintained. The Japanese had a good plan, attacking just the transports with the Kamikazes but it is an open question if it would have worked. Most of the Japanese air crews were so ill trained that they would be hard pressed to tell a fishing trawler from an aircraft carrier from the air.
What do you predict would be the most losses allied navies would take during an invasion of Japan? And how long would it take to take the capital?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What do you predict would be the most losses allied navies would take during an invasion of Japan? And how long would it take to take the capital?
Naval losses could be severe. The Japanese had 12,000+ aircraft for use as kamikazes, and they had a decent plan to use them to draw off U.S. fighter cover so the relatively low number of remaining experienced air crew could make conventional attacks.

At a guess, at least 60 ships sunk, 20-25 DD, 20 transports, 20 or more LST (wouldn't be a serious surprise if a couple of CV/CVL and/or CA/CL were lost), 400+ damaged. If the Japanese plans worked perfectly, total ship losses could come close to 100, mostly transports and LST, if the Allied countermeasures worked perfectly, figure 30 ship sunk. Perfect just flat doesn't happen so...

By Capital you mean Tokyo? Late Fall 1946, maybe as late as early Spring 1947. The Kyushu landings were going to be delayed, a typhoon came through the anchorages for half the planned invasion force in mid October of 1945 and was throwing transports completely out of the water and sank, grounded, or damaged around 300 ships/craft/boats.

https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...acific-typhoon-october-1945.html#anchor593215

It would have been early February before the Allies could have landed on Kyushu, considering storm season, other weather, and hours of daylight. That alone pushed the Honshu landing back to August/September 1946.

That whole time ~100,000 civilians a month are dying in areas under Japanese occupation. 20-40,000 Japanese civilians are dying every month from bombing and famine caused by the blockade.

Nightmare all the way around.
 

Wendigo

Banned

In the event of an Allied invasion of Japan, what happens to the 3 million+ Japanese troops still stationed in China, the Pacific and the rest of Asia?

How long does it take for the Allies to defeat them? And how costly would it be?

p_134.jpg
 
Top