Japanese forces not as fanatic

WI JAPAN had respected the Geneva convention in relation to POWs and its soldiers had not been so reluctant to surrender and seeking to persuade civiliians to die rather than lose.

How different would the Pacific War be?

How different would attitudes to Japan be?
 
Clearly the Pacific War would have been more humane. There still would have been racism at play among the white Allied powers, but if the Japanese behaved honorably, obvious Japanese military capabilities would have overcome some of that, and the Japanese would be respected. The Allies might well have been less insistent on unconditional victory over a Japan that was less fanatic.

The difference would really take effect during and after the end of the war. A less fanatic Japan might well have seen the writing on the wall as early as 1943 and sent out serious peace feelers that the Allies might not reject out of hand. The war might have even ended a year earlier in an armistice with Japan retreating to its pre-1937 gains, with the ultimate situation in China to be resolved in an eventual peace treaty once the other Axis powers were defeated. There would be no push for war crimes trials, Japan would possibly not be occupied. Japan might be treated more like Italy was OTL...a basically reasonable and former 1914-1918 Ally that just went a bit crazy in the 1930's.
 
Actually Japan followed the rules of war until the Second World War. Prisoners were taken on both sides in the Russo-Japanese war. In World War I the same rules applied. it wasn't until the late 1920 that the Japanese Army and military went into fanaticism
 
To be fair, much of the reputed Japanese unwillingness to surrender was caused by their (partly justified) belief that they would be massacred if attempting to surrender. It's worth noting that the U.S. offered bribes of ice cream and three days leave to its soldiers in an attempt to get them to take Japanese prisoners (rather than killing them out of hand), and still had a huge amount of trouble getting them to do so.
 
Actually Japan followed the rules of war until the Second World War. Prisoners were taken on both sides in the Russo-Japanese war. In World War I the same rules applied. it wasn't until the late 1920 that the Japanese Army and military went into fanaticism

Weren't the Japanese heavily criticised because they didn't help Chinese sailors after their ships sank during the First Sino-Japanese War?

On the OP it's a hard WI because it'll be hard to influence the Japanese military to change their stratagem, because they were brought up by it and fanatically believe it themselves. But if it was so the ramifications are endless. It actually may lead to more of the Japanese being stereotyped as "surrender monkeys", depending on how they escape from committing mass suicide.
 
That's kind of putting Descartes before the horse; Japanese militarism and behavioural extremism were borne of the same roots, so anything curbing the violence of their war-making would also hamper the decisions to go to war in the first place.
 
If they weren't fanatic, why would they start the war in the first place? The war was basically suicide by cop, a refusal to give in to American demands and a choice for death before dishonor. A more reasonable Japan would recognize it can't openly oppose the USA and start negotiations.
 
Top