In a similar vein as the above, would the Wallies consider conditional surrender if Japan was defeated earlier on, let's say in Malaya, or even in FIC?
It would depend on what the conditions were. There would be a pound or three of flesh demanded (Japan isn't going to get a pass on Pearl, the
PoW &
Repulse, etc.) but there really haven't been any noteworthy war crimes against the West (tons, of course, in China) so stepping things down will be much easier. As a possible acceptable set of terms reparations for damaged/destroyed materials, payments to the families of those Westerners KIA/WIA, maybe/maybe not turning part of the Mandates over to the UK or U.S. (depends on how bad the Empire's position is at the time of the end of hostilities), and some sort of bone to the Chinese (hand over some senior scapegoats for Nanking, a "commission" to discuss outstanding issues with the Chinese).
The important part is that this is prior to FDR's pronouncement of "Unconditional Surrender". That gives everyone the space to make a deal
so? the guy was a war criminal,keeping him as the head of state for 40 fucking years was the same kind of mistake the allied did with so many nazi criminals who were handes west germany on a tablet to lieve out the rest of their live in peace,comfort and position of authority. at least they didn't put doenitz in charge over here.
I actually don't entirely disagree, way too many War Criminals skated. But that has to be weighed against the reality that at least 100,000 civilians were dying every month in areas under Japanese occupation (it is sometimes forgotten that the IJA was still conducting OFFENSIVE operations against the Chinese when the Surrender was announced, and people were dying across SEA and the DEI). Tee Japanese don't surrender and that slaughter continues. Even if the WAllies don't invade Japan (which is something of an open question, by mid-August 1945 the bloom was off the orchid on Operation Downfall in DC, about the only place it was still popular was MacArthur's HQ) and simply decide to blockade and bomb that is going to mean at least half a million more Japanese civilians die.
There is also the very real possibility that Stalin decides to invade Hokkaido, something that the Americans were bound and determined to prevent after seeing the way that things were shaping up in Europe. The potential consequences of that little disagreement are fairly severe.
The fact is that the Japanese were entirely willing to stay the course and it was only the Emperor's direct intervention that allowed the Peace Party the space to end things; that intervention is vastly less likely if Hirohito thinks he is putting his head in a noose. There is also the reality that U.S. occupation of Japan was a piece of cake, something that could very easily have been a nightmare for all sides became an administrative exercise. Lastly the Japan of today, with all of its wealth, success, and liberal democracy, is 100% the result of a peaceful occupation and the Emperor's acceptance.
If the choice is between: A) an additional million+ dead civilians, a WAllied/Soviet conflict, a long term violent occupation of the Home Islands, and the possibility of Downfall, with casualties over all that could reach the mid seven figures,
Or
B)Hirohito getting to die of old age (which is what is on the table)
I take "B" every time.