WI: No unconditional surrender for Japan?

[Tripledot]

Simply, I ask the question, how much sooner (if at all) would the war in the Pacific have ended if the Allies promised to grant Hirohito amnesty? What would be the implications of Japan surrendering sooner?

 

[ivanotter]

It would be seen as a weakness and then... longer war. Now there is something to fight for - a negotiated peace

 

[ejpsan]

There was no acceptable conditions that either side would agree to.
Japan besides from wanting to keep the Emperor, also wanted No War Crimes trial, keep a lot of territory that it still controlled.

 

[Tripledot]

It would be seen as a weakness and then... longer war. Now there is something to fight for - a negotiated peace

Would Japan really think a negotiated peace was still on the table after an atomic bombing? Especially if the terms are presented in a take-it-or-leave it fashion, shouldn't that cause leadership to take the peace while they still can?

 

[Thors_Alumni]

This has already been talked about in other threads but Japan's attitude at the end of the war was still that they could still win even after being hit by the Nukes. Their idea of surrender had them keeping their territory that they still controlled and had lost, No war crimes trials and keeping their emperor. In short they were acting like they had still won even when the people were starving and preparing to fight with bamboo sticks for lack of metal for ammo and fuel.

 

[Johnrankins]

It may have ended a day or two sooner or a day or two later, but basically, Japan was finished and should have surrendered at least a year earlier.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Japan, in one set of terms offered to the Allies, did offer to have war crimes trials. The issue was that the Empire of Japan wanted to try their own war criminals, so the trials would have been perfunctory at best.