Post WWII Japan With Yamamoto?

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Something that has been bugging me lately. Sorry if it's been done before, but I don't wanna bump dead threads.

First off, the POD would be either Operation Vengence never is implimented, or Yamamoto miraculously Survives the Attack.

How would a Surviving Yamamoto affect the Rest of the War, as well as the aftermath?

 

[Hyperion]

Assuming that continued defeats at the hands of US and other allied forces didn't result in another event in which he is killed further along in the conflict than the attack on his aircraft, it is possible that at some point he might suggest putting out some offers to the allies about if not actually surrendering, at least trying to open some back channels, likely through the Swiss or Sweden.

If Phillippines Sea and the battles off the Phillippines late in 1944 goes ahead as in OTL and the Japanese are destroyed loosing large numbers of warships, including the rest of their carriers and large numbers of other battleships and cruisers, it is well possible that Yamamoto might recommend looking for a way to end the war by other means not involving military success.

 

[MNP]

Say he survives the attack, but is badly injured and effectively incapacitated or in a coma until Spring of 1945, that way everything is very similar but Yamamoto only induces minimal butterflies.

 

[adam888]

The obvious affect of Yammamoto surviving WW2 would be his
trial and execution as a war criminal, much like General Tojo.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Say he survives the attack, but is badly injured and effectively incapacitated or in a coma until Spring of 1945, that way everything is very similar but Yamamoto only induces minimal butterflies.

Let's try and keep him up, at it and able to create a larger effect.

The obvious affect of Yammamoto surviving WW2 would be his
trial and execution as a war criminal, much like General Tojo.

and that is after Japan's surender.
there is still a two year Gap between Operation Vengence and Japan's surrender, so what happens during that?

 

[Bill Cameron]

If Yamamoto isn't killed in the April 1943 attack all I see happening is Japan losing it's fleet faster. Seriously. And that's assuming he isn't simply removed from command. He only kept his job after Midway due to morale concerns and there were increasing efforts as Guadacanal dragged on to remove him from that post.

(Please note, I didn't say losing the war faster, just losing the fleet faster.)

Yamamoto has a overblown reputation. He was intelligent, glib, and quick with a memorable phrase, but he was also rather mediocre as a commander. Both the Japan and US gave him a lot of good press after the Pearl Harbor, Japan to praise it's new hero and the US to "explain" away the attack; i.e. he must be a genius to have beat us that badly. However, Yamamoto's subsequent war career in no way matches his "successful" Pearl plans.

Midway is an unmitigated disaster, so bad that the IJN lied to it's own government about how many carriers were lost. Yes, the US was lucky during the battle, just as Japan was lucky during the Pearl operation. Yamamoto's plans however frittered away Japan's various strengths at the time which allowed the US' subsequent luck even more scope to effect the battle. As bad as Midway was, the Guadacanal campaign and Yamamoto's actions during it as CinC of the Combined Fleet point to a very mediocre commander.

For decades, Japanese and IJN planning for a Pacific war against the US had centered around a series of attritive battles in which the USN forced it's way through Japan's defensive perimeter culminating in a decisive battle near the Philippines where a weakened US fleet would be beaten. At Guadacanal, the exact situation which Japan and the IJN had been planning for decades presented itself and both the IJN General Staff and Yamamoto failed to realize that.

Here's a Japanese outpost, here's the USN trying to capture it, and yet Yamamoto did not use the opportunity to significantly damage the USN. To be sure, the USN lost many more ships than the IJN during the campaign, but Japan fed her forces piecemeal into the fight rather than massing for a truly damaging blow and the man responsible for that decision was Yamamoto.

When you look at the man's career after Pearl, there are no successes whatsoever. He isn't responsible for the "Lunge to the South", that was planned years beforehand. He isn't responsible for the Indian Ocean raid either. The operation and campaign he is responsible for, Midway and Guadacanal, are disasters however.

If he wasn't killed in April of 1943 and if he retained command, he simply would have lost the fleet sooner than Philippine Sea and Leyte.


Bill

 

[Strategos' Risk]

The moral fiber of commanding men such as Yamamoto, Rommel, Zhukov, and Patton is greatly overrated.

 

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

If Yamamoto isn't killed in the April 1943 attack all I see happening is Japan losing it's fleet faster. Seriously. And that's assuming he isn't simply removed from command. He only kept his job after Midway due to morale concerns and there were increasing efforts as Guadacanal dragged on to remove him from that post.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those 'Yamamoto was the greatest Ever' people, yes he fucked up bad after Pearl, yes he was a Moral Booster which is probably the only/major reason he was kept in command.

I wasn't expecting some 'He turns everything around and defeats the US.' shtick.

(Please note, I didn't say losing the war faster, just losing the fleet faster.)

hm.
so even with the entire Fleet gone, you think the war will last just as long/longer?
makes sense. Perhapse we see an Operation Olympic-type of plan put into effect by 1944?

 

[The Red]

When you look at the man's career after Pearl, there are no successes whatsoever.


Bill

Couldn't you say that for Japan as a whole as in after Mid 1942.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Couldn't you say that for Japan as a whole as in after Mid 1942.

The Red,

Only if your view of the Pacific War is entirely Ameri-centric.

The Japanese did very well against China up through early 1945 and held Burma until squandering a large amount of their forces and resources in an invasion of India in early 1944.

In the oceanic portion of the Pacific War, the portion that the IJN and Yamamoto were primarily responsible for, Japan experienced no real success from Midway onwards.


Bill

 

[Bill Cameron]

I wasn't expecting some 'He turns everything around and defeats the US.' shtick.

Fenrir,

I didn't think you were suggesting he'd turn the war around.

However, I do think you were wondering whether or not he'd preside over a substantial naval victory, one that might delay the US advance by a few months. I pointed out that there is nothing in his actual war performance that suggests he could achieve such a thing.

Midway is one thing. It's a single battle over three days with abysmal luck for Japan and mind-boggling luck for the US. Yamamoto's plan was flawed, so flawed that the IJN didn't use numerical superiority when it actually had it, but those flaws only added to the defeat they weren't the primary cause of it.

Guadacanal is something else entirely. It was a campaign for one thing and over the weeks and months of a campaign luck evens out. Most damning, it also was exactly the attritive campaign for which the IJN had been planning for decades and had been designed to win.

Guadacanal was a point of their defense perimeter which the USN was trying to force, there were land-based aircraft in the area, the the Combined Fleet was relatively nearby, and there was troops on the ground but Yamamoto and the IJN General Staff not only failed to take advantage of that fact, they failed to even realize that the Guadacanal campaign was the battle they'd been planning for their entire professional lives.

so even with the entire Fleet gone, you think the war will last just as long/longer?

No. The US still needs to seize airbases and anchorages to support Downfall. You still need Iwo and Okinawa to hit Kyushu and still need Kyushu to hit Honshu.

Perhapse we see an Operation Olympic-type of plan put into effect by 1944?

Only if Yamamoto destroys the IJN earlier than occurred in the OTL and the Philippines are skipped. I can easily see the former happening, but the latter is more troubling.


Bill

 

[Readman]

Would Yamamoto really end up in a War Crimes Tribunal? I'm not an expert on the man, or even on the PTO for that matter, but from what I know at least his actions were no more or less severe than his contemporaries. Or I could be entirely incorrect, just my input however.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Would Yamamoto really end up in a War Crimes Tribunal?

Readman,

He'll end up in front of the War Crimes Tribunal for essentially the same reasons Donitz did; he's on the losing side and he's a big name. Appearing in front of the tribunal does not mean death or even life imprisonment however. Donitz saw the several of the charges against him associated with unrestricted submarine warfare dropped when Nimitz wrote the the US had engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from 7 Dec 41 onwards. (There were similar RN actions too.)

The only real trouble I can see Yamamoto facing at trial has to do with the actions of IJN sub crews machinegunning survivors of the ships they sank. However, seeing as Dudley Morton aboard Wahoo did the same thing, as with Donitz and unrestricted submarine warfare, I can't see Yamamoto being charged or convicted on those counts. He'd most likely draw some "waging offensive war" charge, serve a decade or so, and emerge from prison to a radically different Japan in which he is proscribed politically and shunned officially much like the many jailed and released German officers were.


Bill

 

[Typo]

What about the conspiring against existing treaties thing?

 

[Bill Cameron]

What about the conspiring against existing treaties thing?

Typo,

That's what they got Donitz on. He "violated" the 1936 Anglo-German Treaty, was convicted, did a dime, got out, and lived until 1980.

Yamamoto could very well see the same sort of "prosecution". Japan, and this the IJN and it's planners, knowingly violated the Washington Naval Treaty and 1st London Naval Teaty. Yamamoto was one of the IJN higher-ups and thius in on the violation. So he gets convicted and does his time too, then gets out and lives in relative obscurity like Donitz.


Bill

 

[adam888]

I would think planning and executing Pearl Harbor would get Yammamoto
death by hanging. He would be found guilty on Counts 1,2,4 which are
crimes against Peace, Conspiracy and Humanities.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Adam888,

Pearl was supposed to occur after a declaration of war by the Japanese. Granted, it was supposed to be immediately after the declaration of war, but still after one. The incompetence of the Japanese embassy staff in Washington was no fault of Yamamoto's.

Halsey may have wanted to kick Yamamoto's ass up Pennsylvania Avenue during the victory parade, but I think the actions of Nimitz among others during Donitz's trial is telling. Despite the Battle of the Atlantic, they interceded to remove the USW charges against that admiral and I really can't see them ignoring the various charges brought against Yamamoto during the Pacific tribunals.

Yamshita was executed, controversially, for, among other things, massacres that occurred primarily in the Manila during the 1944 liberation. He was also the first Japanese commander tried by the war crimes tribunal and one whose execution deeply divided the US military of the period. After Yamashita, it proved harder to sentence and execute Japanese officers who had more control over troops involved in massacres than Yamashita did.

Keeping Donitz and Yamashita that in mind, I can't see Yamamoto executed for Pearl alone, although I can see him jailed for it and other "crimes".


Bill

 

[Derek Jackson]

I suspect that the great Japanese admiral would have ended up at the end of a rope. I think that it highly arguable that he was concerned in starting an aggressive war.

In relation to Doenitz I have heard the claim that he was more complicit in the genocides than people thought at Nuremberg.

He should have got life without parole

 

[Kome]

I think that it highly arguable that he was concerned in starting an aggressive war.

You mean like almost all other people that didnt went to trial and didnt get hanged? This is ww2 all the axis leaders had some connection to starting an aggressive war.

Hell technically people can charge Churchill of plotting aggressive war if you wanted too. Might actually have been a good way for the new party to get support after the war.