WI: Japan sues for peace after Midway

[McPherson]

What happened to all the other places like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand etc? Cannot see them keeping anything except on an occupied for a time basis ( trust will be a little low to say the least on the allied side given Japan has shown a tendency to be less than truthful )

1. It would be presumptuous of the US to dictate British terms. (See 2.)
2. The US is not interested in those territories as it knows that with the USN astride Japan's SLOCs to those nations and territories, there is no way the Japanese can maintain presence. They, the Japanese occupiers would have to withdraw or be destroyed in place.
3. Why should the US restore the British position in east Asia?
4. Why should the British want the US to meddle in their position in east Asia? Because if the US is the power forcing the liberation of those territories, the British ARE NOT going to be allowed to come in and tell the Americans what is what. Not after the Americans are the ones to force the issue. Besides, from the situation on the ground after the Japanese are forced out (RTL), colonialism is a dead letter. It was anyway by 1935, but the local nationalist movements use the Pacific War to really organize and assert themselves.

 

[McPherson]

I'd just add to this that IMHO if the U.S. Victory at midway in this time line is complete enough then the U.S. Govt may be able to make the case that by smashing the surface and carrier elements of the IJN in battle that pearl harbour has been avenged.

IOTL I have also read arguments that imply to me that the lack of a comprehensive defeat of the surface elements of the IJN during the battle of midway may have contributed to the Japanese willingness to fight on.

To a certain extent, this is true. The Battle of Savo Island did much to reinforce the IJN's "battleship mania" and the setbacks of Santa Cruz, and Rennell Island also engendered a false renewal of Japanese confidence that somehow the IJN still could pull out a win or at least a stalemate. I will have something to say about it in the ATL timeline to which I contribute.

 

[Simon]

Probably nothing. The timing of a delivery of a piece of paper doesn't really impact on the consciousness as much as a suddenly burning naval base and 3,000 coffins.

Sorry I wasn't thinking in PR terms so much as legal ones post-surrender, although thinking about things since we got the Germans with waging wars of aggression it probably wouldn't cause too many problems.

 

[pjmidd]

1. It would be presumptuous of the US to dictate British terms. (See 2.)
2. The US is not interested in those territories as it knows that with the USN astride Japan's SLOCs to those nations and territories, there is no way the Japanese can maintain presence. They, the Japanese occupiers would have to withdraw or be destroyed in place.
3. Why should the US restore the British position in east Asia?
4. Why should the British want the US to meddle in their position in east Asia? Because if the US is the power forcing the liberation of those territories, the British ARE NOT going to be allowed to come in and tell the Americans what is what. Not after the Americans are the ones to force the issue. Besides, from the situation on the ground after the Japanese are forced out (RTL), colonialism is a dead letter. It was anyway by 1935, but the local nationalist movements use the Pacific War to really organize and assert themselves.

You got a bit of Brit hate going haven't you. Stabbing your allies in the back in the middle of a war, especially after what the Japanese have done to prisoners etc, is not the sort of thing that is ever forgotten/forgiven. US may gain in the short term but no country on the planet would ever trust them again, hard to trade when people are looking for excuses to screw you. Not a good move period.

 

[McPherson]

You got a bit of Brit hate going haven't you. Stabbing your allies in the back in the middle of a war, especially after what the Japanese have done to prisoners etc, is not the sort of thing that is ever forgotten/forgiven. US may gain in the short term but no country on the planet would ever trust them again, hard to trade when people are looking for excuses to screw you. Not a good move period.

Don't ascribe to me what the Roosevelt administration policy was. I have to deal with the RTL facts as they were and are. Perhaps it is not nice for me to be so blunt in stating the obvious matter, but the American government was set to remove the British system as a first matter of principle and as a goal of their post war policy. And realistically, where was Britain to go for help? They were stuck.

Not a question of emotion, but realpolitik.

 

[longsword14]

Stabbing your allies in the back in the middle of a war,

Helping Britain, the island, was never the same as helping the Empire. This is what contemporary Britons also knew, so I doubt they would feel so badly hurt.

 

[Antiochus V]

Don't ascribe to me what the Roosevelt administration policy was. I have to deal with the RTL facts as they were and are. Perhaps it is not nice for me to be so blunt in stating the obvious matter, but the American government was set to remove the British system as a first matter of principle and as a goal of their post war policy. And realistically, where was Britain to go for help? They were stuck.

Not a question of emotion, but realpolitik.

I agree that the US was not thrilled to be saving European Empires. However they would also have been able to make the realistic assessment that Britain had turned a number of its colonies into dominions and would probably continue to do so. Japan on the other hand appeared to have a more ruthless approach. I don’t think it would have been politically feasible to hand colonies of an ally to Japan, it both goes agains their dislike of Empires and the common sense need to co-operate with allies in a war.

Unrelated I don’t think Japan would be looking to make peace in 1942 unless they lost most of their fleet including the battleships and had been humiliated on the battlefield. Had Britain somehow won heavily in Malaya and Bataan was still holding out then Japan might consider peace.

 

[Jellico]

The US had all sorts of plans for screwing over the colonies. Eg Giving Hong Kong to the Nationalists. I think there was something with PNG.

On one hand they were definately thinking about it. But on the other they didn't do it.

 

[Seandineen]

If peanut is out, who takes charge in Nanking?, general sun?
I take it Sukarno and Hatta are the west’s new pals, in Indonesia.
Perhaps the Thai could do a trusteeship over indochina, as I don’t think we just want to hand everything over just yet to ho or bao dai.

 

[McPherson]

I agree that the US was not thrilled to be saving European Empires. However they would also have been able to make the realistic assessment that Britain had turned a number of its colonies into dominions and would probably continue to do so. Japan on the other hand appeared to have a more ruthless approach. I don’t think it would have been politically feasible to hand colonies of an ally to Japan, it both goes agains their dislike of Empires and the common sense need to co-operate with allies in a war.

a. The British were not so much turning colonies into dominions as forced to grant self-rule.
b. I don't think the Japanese had a clue as to how to administer "colonies". India has somewhat forgiven Britain. The Two Koreas have not forgiven Japan.

Unrelated I don’t think Japan would be looking to make peace in 1942 unless they lost most of their fleet including the battleships and had been humiliated on the battlefield. Had Britain somehow won heavily in Malaya and Bataan was still holding out then Japan might consider peace.

The opening post asked for American terms after a Midway disaster for them that ranks with Tsushima for Russia. Realistically, with their navy's primary punch wrecked those are the best terms Japan can expect. Otherwise...

 

[McPherson]

If peanut is out, who takes charge in Nanking?, general sun?

How about Zhang Xuelang? (張學良)

I take it Sukarno and Hatta are the west’s new pals, in Indonesia.

Ugh! I would not trust them to tell me the sky is blue.

Perhaps the Thai could do a trusteeship over indochina, as I don’t think we just want to hand everything over just yet to ho or bao dai.

Khuang Aphaiwong? That would go over not real well with the Cambodians. I think we need another option.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I also find myself thinking of the lengths the government went to to shift the public's loathing to Germany. The needs of Europe-First required it, and it seems to have mostly worked. By 1942 Hitler's the Big Bad (I mean it doesn't really take that much effort when it's Nazis, I guess, but still, it was an accomplishment). And in 1942 people are still being sold on Germany as a nigh invincible enemy...

I guess it all hinges on how much people have been converted to the cause of the European war by 1942 to the sublimation of the Pacific war. And possibly how much the US politicos feel they can get away with in terms of the exigencies of war.

As of 1941, Germany looked far more dangerous than Japan - having crushed France, conquered several other nations with trivial ease, routed the Soviet army, etc. The US buildup in 1940-1941 was largely about preparing for possible war with Germany. Lend-Lease was directed against Germany; the Destroyers-for-Bases deal as well.

Many (possibly most) Americans believed that Japan attacked the US at German direction. FDR tried to give that impression in his speeches about Pearl Harbor. And a Gallup poll taken immediately after the DoW on Japan showed over 90% of Americans thinking that the DoW should have included Germany.

So there was no great need for a propaganda effort to direct Americans against Germany.

 

[Expat]

As of 1941, Germany looked far more dangerous than Japan - having crushed France, conquered several other nations with trivial ease, routed the Soviet army, etc. The US buildup in 1940-1941 was largely about preparing for possible war with Germany. Lend-Lease was directed against Germany; the Destroyers-for-Bases deal as well.

Many (possibly most) Americans believed that Japan attacked the US at German direction. FDR tried to give that impression in his speeches about Pearl Harbor. And a Gallup poll taken immediately after the DoW on Japan showed over 90% of Americans thinking that the DoW should have included Germany.

So there was no great need for a propaganda effort to direct Americans against Germany.

Heh, well you mentioned some propaganda in your evidence but the bigger point would be that the US was ready to fight Germany. I still don’t know if this proves that, after the psychic shock of Pearl Harbor, people would be ready to let Japan off with a treaty (one also acceptable to Japan). But I think I’ve seen enough from others to say that that’s the case.

 

[Antiochus V]

a. The British were not so much turning colonies into dominions as forced to grant self-rule.
b. I don't think the Japanese had a clue as to how to administer "colonies". India has somewhat forgiven Britain. The Two Koreas have not forgiven Japan.



The opening post asked for American terms after a Midway disaster for them that ranks with Tsushima for Russia. Realistically, with their navy's primary punch wrecked those are the best terms Japan can expect. Otherwise...

I guess the problem I see is that in 1942 when Midway happened Japan could argue that it had achieved all its invasion goals and was now on the defensive. Losing much of the fleet was unfortunate, but Air Power could in theory offset that and the construction program would leave them with a force that could harass any invaders and ambush small enemy task forces. They could in their opinion create a workable plan that would make it too costly for the Allies to retake all the territories whilst fighting Germany, and in the meantime the war in China could be won.

I think it is wishful thinking to assume that Japan would have surrendered after even a catastrophic naval defeat when they had in theory invaded everything they wanted.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The premise is highly improbable, as after Pearl Harbor there was no possibility of Japan or the US even considering any peace agreement the other would accept.

But... let's go with this:

Midway, by a series of near-miracles, ends with the complete destruction of not only the Striking Force (the carriers) but also the Main Body. There is nothing left to defend the Home Islands (and the Emperor!) from American carrier raids. The disaster is so bad that it cannot be concealed.

So... Japan decides to make peace immediately and save what they can. This is the offer:

All Japanese forces will be withdrawn to the territory of the Empire. That is, Japan will evacuate Burma, Thailand, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, North Borneo, Indochina, the Philippines, New Guinea, the Bismarck, Solomon, and Gilbert Islands, Wake, Guam, and China. (This includes Manchuria; however Japan plans to keep control through several thousand officers and NCOs "seconded" to the army of Manchukuo as its commanders.)

As a token of good faith, all artillery and military vehicles will be left behind. All Allied military and civilian prisoners in Japanese custody will be released immediately.

In addition, Japan agrees to dismantle all military and naval installations in the Trust Territory of the Pacific, and that the Marshall Islands shall be a US mandate and the Caroline Islands will be Australian.

As to war criminals: Japan states that the decision to go to war was imposed on the Emperor by irresponsible military and naval leaders. These men started the war, and having led Japan to defeat, have atoned appropriately for their failure, IYKWIMAITYD. A list of 50 names, or it may be 300, is attached.

This is not what the US wants (e.g. "the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell"), but it is a huge win for the Allies, allowing them to concentrate on Europe. They can get more, but only at the cost of thousands of men KIA and billions of $, plus massive civilian suffering in Japanese-occupied territory.

Could the Allies possibly settle for it?

 

[wcv215]

I thought that it was accepted that the message had actually arrived before the attack...

Completely irrelevant since the message despite the stupid myths was NOT a DOW.

 

[Blue cat]

The premise is highly improbable, as after Pearl Harbor there was no possibility of Japan or the US even considering any peace agreement the other would accept.

But... let's go with this:

Midway, by a series of near-miracles, ends with the complete destruction of not only the Striking Force (the carriers) but also the Main Body. There is nothing left to defend the Home Islands (and the Emperor!) from American carrier raids. The disaster is so bad that it cannot be concealed.

So... Japan decides to make peace immediately and save what they can. This is the offer:

All Japanese forces will be withdrawn to the territory of the Empire. That is, Japan will evacuate Burma, Thailand, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, North Borneo, Indochina, the Philippines, New Guinea, the Bismarck, Solomon, and Gilbert Islands, Wake, Guam, and China. (This includes Manchuria; however Japan plans to keep control through several thousand officers and NCOs "seconded" to the army of Manchukuo as its commanders.)

As a token of good faith, all artillery and military vehicles will be left behind. All Allied military and civilian prisoners in Japanese custody will be released immediately.

In addition, Japan agrees to dismantle all military and naval installations in the Trust Territory of the Pacific, and that the Marshall Islands shall be a US mandate and the Caroline Islands will be Australian.

As to war criminals: Japan states that the decision to go to war was imposed on the Emperor by irresponsible military and naval leaders. These men started the war, and having led Japan to defeat, have atoned appropriately for their failure, IYKWIMAITYD. A list of 50 names, or it may be 300, is attached.

This is not what the US wants (e.g. "the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell"), but it is a huge win for the Allies, allowing them to concentrate on Europe. They can get more, but only at the cost of thousands of men KIA and billions of $, plus massive civilian suffering in Japanese-occupied territory.

Could the Allies possibly settle for it?

I doubt the Allies would settle for this but I could see them agreeing to further talks to get better terms.

I'm also thinking the Japanese would want some form of commitment from the Allies to permit essential non military trade to take place between Japan and the Allies.

 

[Blue cat]

I guess the problem I see is that in 1942 when Midway happened Japan could argue that it had achieved all its invasion goals and was now on the defensive. Losing much of the fleet was unfortunate, but Air Power could in theory offset that and the construction program would leave them with a force that could harass any invaders and ambush small enemy task forces. They could in their opinion create a workable plan that would make it too costly for the Allies to retake all the territories whilst fighting Germany, and in the meantime the war in China could be won.

I think it is wishful thinking to assume that Japan would have surrendered after even a catastrophic naval defeat when they had in theory invaded everything they wanted.

Without a viable Navy the Japanese might conclude that transferring resources between their conquests and their home land isn't feasible during war time, and they might seek to end the war.

 

[DougM]

The 1948 Chicago headline becomes correct in 1944. Dewey Wins!
Because the Citizens were realy pissed off with Japan and would not be happy with this level of deal. Basically anything short of a full change in Government and the complete elimination of Japan as a military power and obvious “punishment “. Something to take the place of the babes cities. Would not be viewed as harsh enough. And to accept this after the US Navy earned a huge victory at Midway would be vied as just shy of an act of treason by most in the US at that same time,
And while FDR may not get impeached he is NOT going to win re-election and his reputation will be forever tarnished.
The average American want Japan crushed, defeated and punished and only put up with what we got because we had bombed the heck out of most the country.
So I can’t see anyway that Japan would accept anything that the US would. And I think that in most cases Congress would not accept it. And while FDR had a lot of room to maneuver and a lot of authority if he pushed this through against the wishes of both the People and Congress he may as well pack it in an retire early.

 

[McPherson]

I guess the problem I see is that in 1942 when Midway happened Japan could argue that it had achieved all its invasion goals and was now on the defensive. Losing much of the fleet was unfortunate, but Air Power could in theory offset that and the construction program would leave them with a force that could harass any invaders and ambush small enemy task forces. They could in their opinion create a workable plan that would make it too costly for the Allies to retake all the territories whilst fighting Germany, and in the meantime the war in China could be won.

I think it is wishful thinking to assume that Japan would have surrendered after even a catastrophic naval defeat when they had in theory invaded everything they wanted.

They actually tried what you described RTL, as their revised defense plan. I do not think it worked.