End of WW II hypothetical

1,908 Views | 12 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by coupland boy
coupland boy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you're FDR and could get a surrender out of Japan, with the stipilatuon the Emporer keeps his position, do you take that deal and avoid Okinawa and everything beyond?

It's a hypothetical.....not saying it woulda happened. Although it would appear some think it could have.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well it is what happened (the emporer part), so yes.
coupland boy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

Well it is what happened (the emporer part), so yes.


I tend to agree with you. However, was wondering if there was any value in acheiving total victory over the "yellow monkeys" and then being magnanimous enough to let them keep the Emporer. We'd have been partly doing so to offset casualties and inflicting heavy casualties was Japan's goal towards the end. Would there have been some empowerment of the warmongers had things played out that way?

Note - i use yellow monkeys to recognize how much the US apparently hated the Japanese whether it be justified due to the ruthlessness of combat in the Pacific or based on racism.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
coupland boy said:

BQ78 said:

Well it is what happened (the emporer part), so yes.



Note - i use yellow monkeys to recognize how much the US apparently hated the Japanese whether it be justified due to the ruthlessness of combat in the Pacific or based on racism.
I also agree. It is basically what happened anyway.

In regards to your second statement - both.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the US desire to end the war in 1945 was greater than any desire for revenge.
BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ78 said:

I think the US desire to end the war in 1945 was greater than any desire for revenge.
You cannot believe how tired EVERYBODY was of the war ! That's why the crowds went wild after the Abombs were dropped and the war ended !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
coupland boy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can only imagine bigjim. My grandmother sewed a blanket for her little country church back in the day. It had stars for each service member from the congregation and i think 2 or 3 gold stars. To lose so many young people had to have been incredibly difficult. One of my aunts also lost her first husband in the European theater and he was from the same area (Thrall).

Some historians have suggested that a negotiated peace may have been available. My oroginal post was picking around the edge of whether it was just an absolute necessity to achieve total victory.
RGV AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Allies, led first and foremost by FDR, repeatedly reinforced the "unconditional surrender" mantra throughout the war and the Japanese took this as the sterling gospel. The Japanese military also used the unpalatability, to them, of the possible consequences to Japan under these conditions for continued galvanization of both their war effort and de facto control over Japan.

I just finished reading a book, can't remember the name, about politics in the White House under FDR during WWII. It was very interesting and very critical of the "unconditional surrender" policy that FDR was basically uncompromising on. The details about overtures from well placed Germans that could have likely toppled Hitler basically fell on deaf ears. In regards to the conditions of and after victory the book delved more with Germany but there were, I believe, two fairly legitimate indirect approaches to the Allies by factions in Japan about surrender arrangements and both were ignored. I want to say that there were others as well, but not as many as with Germany.

In terms of the Japanese psyche the ignoring of discreet indirect overtures and the forceful reiteration of the "unconditional" portion of the surrender terms frightened them beyond reason in seeking a way out of the war.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Note - i use yellow monkeys to recognize how much the US apparently hated the Japanese whether it be justified due to the ruthlessness of combat in the Pacific or based on racism.

The last conversation I had with my maternal grandfather came in 1991 or thereabouts. I had just graduated from A&M and had purchased a new car. Did not even think about the fact that it was a Toyota when I parked it in his driveway in Lake Jackson. He told me that I needed to park it in the street and never again in his driveway. It was not a mean statement, at least to my perception. I was not one to ever intentionally disrespect my grandparents, or even my parents for the most part, so I moved the Toyota. When I was done we sat on the porch talking for a while. I don't really remember everything we talked about, but I recall asking him if his wartime experiences had taken him to Europe rather than the Pacific, would he have had the same feelings over anything German? He said he thought he would have, and our family is of German heritage.

The story I had always been told about my papa was this. My mom was born on 9/21/41, just a bit before Pearl Harbor. The Japs were hated for that. They were viewed at cowards and savages. Yellow monkeys sounds appropriate for the time. I do not know if my grandfather volunteered or was drafted, but I do know he was pulled from his family by the actions of a nation that was viewed in a very negative light after December 7. Clearly he had some shore leave in the next couple of years, perhaps between his basic training period and deployment, as I have an aunt who was born in 1944. He was not present for that birth, instead boarding a ship in San Diego and receiving a telegram with the birth announcement.

A decade later at his funeral, the pastor made mention of my papa having survived two ships being torpedoed and sunk while he was on board.

Now this is just one family's experience, but I have to think it is not unique. I don't believe you intended anything negative with your disclaimer, but I find it troubling to apply current thinking to events that no longer exist. I don't believe my papa was racist for hating the Japs, rather it was a hatred born out of what they cost him personally.

I don't know if he ever softened his views on the Japanese, as it was not too long after this conversation that he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I never got a chance to have another conversation with him. He passed in 2002 at the age of 89. His name was Charles J Noblitt.
coupland boy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for sharing your grandfather's story. You're correct in that i didn't mean anything negative towards any individual veteran. I also don't throw the word racism around flippantly as many seem to do nowadays. But as a country i do believe we treated the Japanese differently than the Germans. Kamikazes, Pearl Harbor, treatment of our POW's..... justified (different treatment) IMHO. At the very least if i use the word racism in the context of WWII it is from a position of 'hey, i get it'.

I had an uncle that passed away a little over a year ago that was in the Navy in the Pacific during the war. He was a very kind, humble, decent, and Christian man. But despite how i believe he would have treated any individual Japanese person, I've no doubt he had a deep hatred of Japanese that surpassed any feelings towards the Germans during the war and after.

The caricatures of the Japanese seemed to be directed towards them as a whole. On the other hand I'm not sure all Germans were considered Nazis. Now, my dad had to stop speaking German as a child in school but going to an internment camp was never seriously considered.

Granted, my view of how Germans were treated could be wrong. Perhaps being of German ancestry as well as Lutheran makes me see things differently.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
coupland boy said:

Granted, my view of how Germans were treated could be wrong. Perhaps being of German ancestry as well as Lutheran makes me see things differently.
My family lineage is German as well, and that side of my family is Lutheran. My great grandparents came to this country knowing not a lick of English and spoke German, and for that they were ostracized during the war years per my mom. From that I'd say there was some backlash against Germans in this country, although they were not rounded up and put into internment camps such as the Japs were.
OldArmy71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

there were, I believe, two fairly legitimate indirect approaches to the Allies by factions in Japan about surrender arrangements and both were ignored.

Since you can't remember the title of the book and are vague on the details, please don't feel I am attacking you in this response.

I am certainly no scholar or expert on the topic, but I have read quite a bit about the end of the war with Japan. The notion that the war with Japan was essentially over and that Japan was trying to surrender is often cited as "fact" by those who are opposed to the use of atomic weapons on Japan. (I do not mean to imply that you are doing that.)

It is true that Japan made overtures of surrender....to the Soviets. The USSR had not yet declared war on Japan and thus was "neutral" regarding Japan. The Japanese believed they could cut a deal with Stalin and offered to surrender, but with these conditions:

1. The emperor would stay in charge.
2. The fascist military system would not change.
3. Japan would not be occupied.
4. Japan would conduct its own war crimes trials.
5. Japan would keep some of the territory it had captured in China and Korea.

Obviously the Soviets knew that the US and Britain would never agree to these conditions, and the Soviets would not either. They simply played for time by pretending to consider the offer, meanwhile preparing to enter the war against Japan.

It is just not true that Japan ever made any true offer of surrender on any terms that the Allies would accept.
RGV AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OldArmy71 said:


Quote:

there were, I believe, two fairly legitimate indirect approaches to the Allies by factions in Japan about surrender arrangements and both were ignored.

Since you can't remember the title of the book and are vague on the details, please don't feel I am attacking you in this response.

I am certainly no scholar or expert on the topic, but I have read quite a bit about the end of the war with Japan. The notion that the war with Japan was essentially over and that Japan was trying to surrender is often cited as "fact" by those who are opposed to the use of atomic weapons on Japan. (I do not mean to imply that you are doing that.)

It is true that Japan made overtures of surrender....to the Soviets. The USSR had not yet declared war on Japan and thus was "neutral" regarding Japan. The Japanese believed they could cut a deal with Stalin and offered to surrender, but with these conditions:

1. The emperor would stay in charge.
2. The fascist military system would not change.
3. Japan would not be occupied.
4. Japan would conduct its own war crimes trials.
5. Japan would keep some of the territory it had captured in China and Korea.

Obviously the Soviets knew that the US and Britain would never agree to these conditions, and the Soviets would not either. They simply played for time by pretending to consider the offer, meanwhile preparing to enter the war against Japan.

It is just not true that Japan ever made any true offer of surrender on any terms that the Allies would accept.
Good post and good content, no attack felt. I do need to remember the title of the book, I took it back to Texas to keep as I am working out of the country right now and read it last summer, thus the info void.

Please note, that I did not say that Japan tried to surrender, what I did say was that there were inquiries about surrender arrangements made. One of these was the Swedish overture and the other was the Russian one. What the book I read mentions, interestingly, is that the US was reading most MAGIC traffic so they had knowledge of the situations, and thus these were not novel to the influential powers. One of the points of the book was that the unwavering stance of the "unconditional surrender" mandated by FDR steeled the Japanese and the Hawks among them used this as leverage to cow the small group of moderates and others that might be open to Japanese capitulation. Truman, being new to the office and taking the place of a cherished president, the book relates was uncertain and uncomfortable with publicly and overtly backing of the unconditional portion of the surrender.

The scenario that you mention above was in the approach to the Soviets, who had no interest in the war ending without their joining the fun out east. But I do not remember reading about the approach through the USSR stating a condition to keep conquests in China nor Manchuria, but I could be wrong. The one communicated via the Swedes, while not official and which I believe contained no particulars, was basically ruled out as not worth considering. The criticism of the "unconditional surrender" in the book is obviously "Monday morning QB'ing", but there are many valid and logical points made in the book about how if there had been some backing off of this condition it might have enabled peace factions in both Germany and Japan to have maybe ended the war earlier, or at least given them the impetus to cause doubt and turmoil within the enemy.

Absolutely I believe the A-Bomb should have been dropped on Japan as things were playing out. I agree, as a cohesive country or group, the Japanese were not at any time trying to surrender, but there were factions in the Japanese government and upper society, and even in the military wings, that were for lack of a better phrase, possibly open to consider something.

Equally, this particular book made harsh criticism, and much of it was accurate and some of the points confounded Truman, of how much latitude and consideration FDR gave Stalin. As events unfolded in both China and Japan it might have been better to have a subdued and controlled Japan as a vassal state than to have it be a country that was completely crushed via the prolonging of WWII and use of the bombs on the country, at least that is what I understood the position of the book to be. I am not educated enough to truly have an opinion of that, but I can see the logic in it.

Below are two quick links about the Swedish approach and some other information, one if paraphrasing from Toland, but very informative:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/14/page/1/article/ignored-japanese-peace-bids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been
http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/1137/Japanese-Peace-Feelers-in-1945#.WK0MvfJlwoY
[url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/14/page/1/article/ignored-japanese-peace-bids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been][/url]
coupland boy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great posts guys. This is the 1995 program i watched that led me to pose the question.

Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.