No nuke and conditional Japanese surrender

WI the Manhatten project did not happen.

Suppose, in say May 1945 Truman secretly managed to communicate an offer to the Japanese.

The Office of Emporer could stay, though Japan would be occupied if Japan surrendered and Hirohito would not face trial

However if they did not surrender not only would they be conquered, but also Hirohito would be hanged and it would be likely that after the USSR would likely insist on a zone of occupation.

The effect of this might amongst other things have been to have all of Korea occupied by America and North Korea might be prevented.

I do not know the effect on China.

Neither do I know how much bigger the risk of actual fighting during what was the Cold war in OTL
 
This is basically the deal that the Japanese were trying to make via the USSR, and Truman totally ignored them. Japan is going to surrender on the point of a bayonet, basically.
 

Markus

Banned
WI the Manhatten project did not happen.

Suppose, in say May 1945 Truman secretly managed to communicate an offer to the Japanese.

The Office of Emporer could stay, though Japan would be occupied if Japan surrendered and Hirohito would not face trial

However if they did not surrender not only would they be conquered, but also Hirohito would be hanged and it would be likely that after the USSR would likely insist on a zone of occupation.


It´s not going to work. The Japanese insited on:

-on occupation at all
-keeping all pre-war posessions outside China
-no prosecution of war criminals
-self disarmament
 
This is basically the deal that the Japanese were trying to make via the USSR...


Truth is Life,

No it wasn't.

Among several other things, the Japanese were trying very hard to retain veto power for the Emperor over occupation policy.

... and Truman totally ignored them.

No he didn't.

He and other were cautiously optimistic over the proposals being radioed to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow. They thought that Japan had accepted the points in the Potsdam declaration, until a rather smart lawyer in the State Department pointed out just what the proposed provision that surrender agreement would not "prejudice the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler." actually meant.

After having it's ass kicked across the Pacific, after being nuked twice, after watching the Soviets tear through Manchuria like green corn through a goose, the Japanese government was still trying to pull a fast one. Byrne, Truman's Secretary of State, drafted a reply to this Japanese ploy that stated flatly "... from the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers."

That means that the idea that that the US promised to maintain the imperial institution and the incumbent emperor to obtain Japan's surrender is yet another myth.

The forum discusses the end of the Pacific War about once a quarter on average, meaning the same old myths are brought up and shot down once a quarter on average.

Japan is going to surrender on the point of a bayonet, basically.

That and starve.

Operation Downfall will not go ahead as planned. A majority of the Joint Chiefs were against by August of '45. Some sort of US landings will take place, mostly because of what Stalin is going to do.

The USSR will land on Hokkaido, regardless of losses, and, when they do, the normal level of Japanese resistance there coupled with normal Soviet practices will mean that few Japanese will be left alive on Hokkaido to witness the surrender.

A "No Bomb" timeline will be very ugly.


Bill
 
Okay, Bill, I misremembered. As soon as I saw Markus I saw that. Nevertheless, the general conclusion--that the Japanese are not going to surrender to the US except if they are invaded or are actually starving to death--stands. No negotiated surrenders.
 
You know, where does this myth that Japan was all set on surrender on the same terms we ended up giving them anyway but we refused for some reason, commonly given as either bloodymindedness or a desire to use an A-bomb on nonwhite people to scare the Soviets, come from? I keep running into it all over the place, not just here where you'd expect it, but yet have never seen an actual text or first-hand source saying so. It seems to be just generally believed by the majority of the public. I remember mostly unrelated discussions in college where this is just brought up as a noncontroversial fact.
 
You know, where does this myth that Japan was all set on surrender on the same terms we ended up giving them anyway but we refused for some reason, commonly given as either bloodymindedness or a desire to use an A-bomb on nonwhite people to scare the Soviets, come from?


xchen08,

The revisionist historians of the 1960s and now, because they, their students, and their students' students are now exactly like the elderly, tenured, entrenched, hidebound, debate stifling academics they originally rebelled against, it's their version of history that gets taught whether it is accurate or not.

Remember, there's always an ideology behind a history.


Bill
 
The revisionist historians of the 1960s and now, because they, their students, and their students' students are now exactly like the elderly, tenured, entrenched, hidebound, debate stifling academics they originally rebelled against, it's their version of history that gets taught whether it is accurate or not.

Hmm, I must have been lucky in my teachers and professors then. Like I mentioned, I had never been taught this view of events in highschool or college, and so keep on being surprised whenever I run into a normal, not particularly political person who states this view as accepted fact.
 
P.S. I was very sad to read of the "'slowdown" to your post-Apollo timeline. Real Life is truly a selfish bastard when it denies us your next installments!

Oh, well I'm happy you're reading and enjoying it anyways. There hadn't been a lot of comments recently so I didn't know anyone was still following.
 
Top