Give Honorable Surrender instead of Unconditional?

[fbs]

Do you guys think that the Potsdam terms were a blunder? That Japan could have surrendered ealier?

Some argue that there were factions in Japan trying to surrender as early as 1944, so consider this: assume these two words are not in Potsdam Declaration, and give Honorable Surrender by mid-1944 or early 1945 as an option to the Jap player, provided he accumulated enough PP, VP, soy oil or whatever else that reflects prestige.

The rationale for that is this.. no way Japan could win the war. The game has artifacts that amount to a victory, but that's a victory based on accumulation of tactical points (ships sunk, bases conquered, etc..). Japan could win all the battles until 1943, and still it would lose the war by 1945/46, so any Japanese victory is game is a hollow one.

So an honorable surrender by 1944, is the best option the Japanese player can hope for on a game that anything to do with reality. It's not unrealistic that such proposal would be received with sympathetic ears in Washington, given that would free resources to fight the most dangerous enemy (Germany). That can be reflected by adding a little button on the Intel screen, that is enabled when proper conditions are met.

What do you guys think?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

[Marty A]

Japan surrender because emperor say make it so. he say that because of civil death not from war. war he probably did not know what was real but civil he could look out window and see. terms has nothing to do with it. no different.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

Japan surrender because emperor say make it so. he say that because of civil death not from war. war he probably did not know what was real but civil he could look out window and see. terms has nothing to do with it. no different.

Well, the military governed in the name of the Emperor. So the rationale for this approach is a military leader (i.e the player) that accumulates enough prestige and has enough foresight to see the war was lost by 1944 could influence the government to reach for peace early on.

If a peace clique managed to replace the war clique in the government by 1944, I find it dubious the emperor alone would push for war.

Cheers [:D]
fbs

[Tomcat]

I'm not an expert on Japanese history but from the few books I've read recently two things emerge: 1) the emperor was behind much of what happened in the war, including some of the atrocities. The Japanese refused to make peace unless guaranteed that he would still keep his position. 2) the military leaders were out of control. Even if some wanted to make peace other groups might have sabotaged their efforts. Certain aspects of the war were initiated by "renegade" commanders who took it upon themselves to initiate hostilties, and even at the time of surrender many leaders still wanted to fight on.

So, the will of the Japanese had to be broken across the board. Things had to get bad enough that the desire for cessation of hostilities was overwhelming. As long as the Japanese were holding out for "conditions" there was no reason to believe that they had been broken enough. Unconditional surrender was the gauge of whether or not the will of the Japanese was sufficiently broken. This is my take.

[Sardaukar]

Max Hasting's "Nemesis" gives good overview of this issue.

[Q-Ball]

A better question is: If they had agreed to withdraw from China in 1941, and not signed a pact with the Axis, would the Empire have survived WWII? Probably, though it would have been an unacceptable loss of face to many to voluntarily withdraw from China.

But had they, the Japanese could have kept Taiwan, Korea, and a puppet Manchukuo.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Marty A

Japan surrender because emperor say make it so. he say that because of civil death not from war. war he probably did not know what was real but civil he could look out window and see. terms has nothing to do with it. no different.

Well, the military governed in the name of the Emperor. So the rationale for this approach is a military leader (i.e the player) that accumulates enough prestige and has enough foresight to see the war was lost by 1944 could influence the government to reach for peace early on.

If a peace clique managed to replace the war clique in the government by 1944, I find it dubious the emperor alone would push for war.

Cheers [:D]
fbs

Not unlike the 500 years under Shogunate rule at all really.

[spence]

Most of what there is to read on the subject strongly suggests that to the military (player) leadership "Honorable Surrender" is THE perfect example of a non-sequitur.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: fbs
So an honorable surrender by 1944, is the best option the Japanese player can hope for on a game that anything to do with reality. It's not unrealistic that such proposal would be received with sympathetic ears in Washington, given that would free resources to fight the most dangerous enemy (Germany). That can be reflected by adding a little button on the Intel screen, that is enabled when proper conditions are met.

What do you guys think?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

The term 'honorable surrender' is an oxymoron in the language of militant Bushido. There's no such thing. The military junta would not have entertained the notion of surrender no matter how sugar coated the language.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: spence

Most of what there is to read on the subject strongly suggests that to the military (player) leadership "Honorable Surrender" is THE perfect example of a non-sequitur.

D'oh! Beat me to it by a few seconds! [:@]

[Swenslim]

From what I read from books word Surrender was unknown among the military. The way of warrior had one end - death.

Russia by the way in juridicial terms are still at state of war with Japan, they only have ceasefire.

[Czert]

IIRC japanese war goal wasnt to deaft US, but to annex/conquer as much as you can, make unperentable defence, that US recognizet it will be coostly to reteake all previously lost - and with australia out of war, as was planed by estabishing outter defence perimeter, war in pacific will be much harder for US. Dont know if US ever consider peace with japan in case of australia efectively out of war. Japanese goal was to have honorable PEACE after they conquer all they originaly want (and mayby more if war permit). It was honorable peace or uncodninationar surrender, nothing between them.
ASnd when game speaking - japanese WIN is honorable peace if I decode it correctly.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: spence

Most of what there is to read on the subject strongly suggests that to the military (player) leadership "Honorable Surrender" is THE perfect example of a non-sequitur.

The Japanese had many internal wars before WW1/WW2 and at some point the losing faction surrendered. Surrendering was nothing new to them: the leaders would kill themselves, but people would settle down.

Now, Koiso was prime-minister from July-44 and he was trying to find an option for peace, and even more Suzuki on Apr-45. They couldn't because they were opposed by the military; this "alternative history" option would represent the player, being a very prestigious general/admiral/whatever (a "promising officer best suited for the command of a surface group") that foresees the disaster looming over Japan after the 1944 defeats, comes to rescue of the Emperor from stubborn hawks, and brings the best of a losing situation.

So, yeah, bit of romantic optimism there, but Rommel almost did it. Nothing like that would be possible (even if the promising officer existed) with the Potsdam declaration, because it makes it explicit that there would be no protection for the Emperor, so there is no point for such a figure to attempt a military coup -- he would just be delivering the Emperor to the enemies.


Cheers [:D]
fbs

[pad152]

Surrender was considered worse then death. Many of the Japanese that did surrender pre-1945 who returned after the war were shunned by family for causing dishonor. Just look at what happened after the fall of Okinawa, most of the civilians went home, put on their Sunday best then jumped off cliffs after throwing the children off.
Peace with Japan, was never considered not after Pearl Harbor, peace would come only after the Japanese language was only spoken only in hell, was voiced by many political and miltary leaders of the day.

[wdolson]

I have read that after the Marianas, the Japanese contacted the US through their embassy in Switzerland and tried to sue for peace.  They were willing to surrender with only one condition, that Japan keep the emperor.  The US was unwilling to make such a deal, though ironically that's what happened in the end when McArthur figured out that keeping the emperor was very useful.

From what I understand of the Japanese system, the emperor has always been more of a figurehead than an absolute monarch.  Traditionally, whatever faction controlled the emperor controlled Japan.  From what I understand, Hirohito was told what was going on, but had little direct power.  Much like the monarch in England is today.

The Allies did not really understand Japanese culture very well.  If they had understood the emperor system better, they might have taken the deal to leave the emperor but have him reign under an appointed Allied governor as what happened during the reconstruction.  It may have cut a year off the war.

It is an interesting "what if" with a surrender of Japan in late 1944 freeing up US assets in the Pacific for Europe.  Task Force 58 in the North Sea?  During the Ardennes offensive, Marines from the Pacific being fed into the battle.  The 20th AF transferred to England.  Me-262 vs B-29.

Bill

[Tone]

Japan lost face by the suprise attack on Pearl Harbour. by this attack japan went to war with only country on earth that could destroy it.

The countcil took this action when already was one hundred percent mobilized at war in China. There was no going back japan had too much to lose.

I can not talk about emperor. but the men of the countcil thought more of army or navy view than good for country view.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Tone

Japan lost face by the suprise attack on Pearl Harbour. by this attack japan went to war with only country on earth that could destroy it.

Precisely.

I doubt that the US would accept any sort of compromise after Pearl Harbor. When was writing that post, I thought of giving that option only if the Japanese waived Pearl Harbor (that is, no Historical First Turn, no Dec 7 Surprise, and let the Allied player give orders on Dec 7).

Then I thought I was going into too many details of the option, so I didn't write it. But it might be an interesting alternative -- give the option of a conditional surrendered only if the Jap didn't go for Pearl Harbor (plus having so many PP/VP/soy oil/etc...).


Cheers
fbs

[bklooste]

Versailles was tougher than the WWII conditions on Japan and was a negotiated settlement. I think any plan for unconditional is a mistake , it backs the opponent into a fight to the death and it allowed no dialogue , if you cant come to terms you can always keep bombing them . In WWI the 14 points had a major influence on German Morale and led to the Naval revolt and German Revolution and even though France and Brittan didn't follow them it certainly accelerated the fall.

[Rainer79]

I wouldn't call the various treaties that ended WW I a negotiated settlement when basically the only choice the Central Powers had been given was which pen to use to sign.

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Versailles was tougher than the WWII conditions on Japan and was a negotiated settlement. I think any plan for unconditional is a mistake , it backs the opponent into a fight to the death and it allowed no dialogue , if you cant come to terms you can always keep bombing them . In WWI the 14 points had a major influence on German Morale and led to the Naval revolt and German Revolution and even though France and Brittan didn't follow them it certainly accelerated the fall.

I think people sometimes place more faith in negotiated settlements than history teaches us we should. From your example, Germany broke the agreements in the "negotiated settlement" of Versailles. Is that a good example of a negotiated settlement working? Prior to Pearl Harbor Japan had a history of breaking agreements. Why should they be trusted prior to complete capitulation? In more recent times a former US president gave nuclear technology to Korea because they promised to only use it to generate electricity and would NEVER (Scout's honor) use it to make nuclear weapons. How well are they sticking to that agreement? There are times when a negotiated agreement does work, but history also teaches us that in many cases they aren't worth the paper they are written on.