WI/AHC: Unsuccessful post-WWII Japanese Occupation

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if there was no address by the Emperor, triggering the duty to obey him? With no impetus fromtheir leader to surrender, more resistance to the occupation would be feasible.

Mentions of food bring me to think: couldn't the resistance steal the delivered food when it is in Japan? I don't think any guerilla force in history was all that well fed, anyway.
No Emperor address means the U.S. has either invaded, which would have killed at least 1,000,000 Japanese civilians, devastated half of Kyushu and a good third of Honshu (maybe more, depending on how long the IJA can hang on) or the U.S. decided on the blockade and burn campaign that was gaining traction in the summer of 1945, that would literally have called for starving and firebombing Japan until whatever was left of the government collapsed and surrendered unconditionally.

Stealing the food would mean stealing it from heavily armed combat veterans with orders to shoot first and never bother to ask questions at any point in the future. Men who have had it drilled into them, possibly on Okinawa or in the Philippines, that "the &^%$% Japanese can't be trusted".

There is no scenario where the U.S. allows the Japanese to do anything but submit (same as the Allies did to Germany). If you submit and change your ways you get helped along with rebuilding the country. Resist and ever increasing portions of the country get wiped out. It is worth keeping in mind that this is the same U.S. Army that hounded the Native Americans across 2/3 of the continent within living memory and suppressed a pretty solid independence movement in the Philippines (and a Marine Corps that kept itself occupied during the interwar years defeating popular uprisings across Central America).

The U.S. was relatively gentle as a victor in 1945 because Germany and Japan submitted and accepted that they had been defeated. That allowed the U.S. to be the "shining light on the Hill" and install democracy while feeling really good about itself. Doesn't mean the U.S. couldn't have been very, very different, especially when the resisters were the same folks who attacked Pearl Harbor and committed the Bataan Death March.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Was MacArthur already picked by FDR as the one to send after Japan surrendered or did Truman decide that on his own?
It was more a matter of Marshall selecting him and Truman signing off on it. MacArthur was already in place as Supreme Allied Commander once the invasion began (although the lines between him and Nimitz were, at best, blurry), something that had been decided by FDR before his death. In addition to all the political considerations he was the logical man to put in charge.
 
It was more a matter of Marshall selecting him and Truman signing off on it. MacArthur was already in place as Supreme Allied Commander once the invasion began (although the lines between him and Nimitz were, at best, blurry), something that had been decided by FDR before his death. In addition to all the political considerations he was the logical man to put in charge.

OK, that makes sense.
 
Was MacArthur already picked by FDR as the one to send after Japan surrendered or did Truman decide that on his own?

Truman decided. And the reason he picked MacArthur for the role of SCAP was that the President never thought too highly of the Navy, and thought FDR had shown them more than a little favoritism . Thus, Mac got the nod.
 
What happens with a Japanese leader who is extremely pacifist, and prevents the rearming of Japan, despite American insistence to form an army to protect from the Soviets? Add in general support of this by the populace. Do Americans quietly bear all the expenses of Japan's defense?
 
What happens with a Japanese leader who is extremely pacifist, and prevents the rearming of Japan, despite American insistence to form an army to protect from the Soviets? Add in general support of this by the populace. Do Americans quietly bear all the expenses of Japan's defense?

That is far more difficult for US authorities. Violent reactions against violent resistance is much easier to swallow than violent reactions to peaceful protests. If the Japanese try violent uprisings they get crushed, if they use non-violent means it gets real tricky.
 
What happens with a Japanese leader who is extremely pacifist, and prevents the rearming of Japan, despite American insistence to form an army to protect from the Soviets? Add in general support of this by the populace. Do Americans quietly bear all the expenses of Japan's defense?

America did bear the responsibility until the early 1950s, by which point the Korean War, the communist victory in China and poor relations with the Soviet Union all made some sort of self defence capability a necessity. I think an assumption that Japan would resort to Pacifism in the face of a series of countries all of whom have very serious historical grieviences against Japan belongs in the ASB forum.
 
America did bear the responsibility until the early 1950s, by which point the Korean War, the communist victory in China and poor relations with the Soviet Union all made some sort of self defence capability a necessity. I think an assumption that Japan would resort to Pacifism in the face of a series of countries all of whom have very serious historical grieviences against Japan belongs in the ASB forum.

I think a totally disarmed and pacifist Japan would be just dandy for most Americans until the 1970s when the kids of the WWII generation start seeing 100% defense responsibilities as excessively expensive.

As for the POD, simply have MacArthur die or be forced to retire due to some health issue unrelated to the occupation.

The other way to make it a hellhole is to give most of Japan as reparations of war to Nationalist China, say with South Korea getting Hokkaido. The US keeps basing rights.
 
Top