So emperor Hirohito died and lived to his 80s or 90s, why wasn’t he instantly killed or sent to jail after the war ended. Did he get punished at all?
In: 1701
Well the US wasnt going to do that after they surrendered, we would look like savages. As for why internally he didnt suffer, I am unsure
Because the japanese people would have lost their minds and we didn’t want to deal with that. Easier to use him to tell them what to do
There’s plenty of room for argument as to how much responsibility the Emperor had for the decisions of the Japanese government.
In the end, Hirohito was stripped of his power, and reduced to being a figurehead monarch, like European royals. Keeping him on as that was a pragmatic decision, because it greatly eased the occupation and nation-rebuilding of Japan.
There are people who argue that he should have been pushed to abdicate in favor of his son a few years after the war, but…. By then, with the Cold War on, the Americans had a strong interest in a stable Japan.
The allies were not out there to subjugate Japan. Their main goal was to bring order to East Asia and the Pacific, demilitarize Japan and begin a new era under a new constitution. The world was a broken mess, and whilst the allies wanted to bring the people responsible to justice, they did not want to be seen as taking acts of revenge on the nations they had triumphed against.
War criminals, whose participation in the atrocities of WW2 was known and proven were tried. Not only German officers, but also high ranking members of the Japanese Imperial Army.
The Emperor, however, did not fall into that category. Omitting the fact that he’s pretty much the most revered person in Japan, descendant of a 2000+ year old dynasty that claims lineage directly from the Shinto gods, he was also very much for the surrender of Japan whilst his most senior military commanders were not. Many committed ritual suicide in the days leading up to surrender and some tried to depose him.
Hirohito, in his later years, was invited by many western countries, including the US, in shows of goodwill where he expressed his regret for the atrocities committed by Japan and the unprovoked attacks against the United States. The US has done the same concerning the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for Japan, the US poured huge sums of money in the reconstruction of what was basically a leveled-out Tokyo as well as the rest of the country, similar to what they did in Germany. They were aware that the Japanese could rebuild for themselves if given the chance and, pursuing that, they ratified a peaceful constitution for Japan and built a strong foundation for a working economy. By 1952, the US had restored full sovereignty to Japan. Fast forward to the 60s and the nation was one of the fastest growing economies in the world, becoming the second largest economy in the world after the US in the 80s and 90s. That was referred to as the Japanese economic miracle, and many doubt any of that would have been possible had the US taken a different approach towards Japan that could have involved trying or sentencing the Emperor.
afaik, leaving the Emperor alone was basically the only condition Japan (edit: tried to? Maybe they didn’t insist on it in the end but got it anyway?) insist on in an otherwise unconditional surrender.
Indeed, I think the *implied threat* of execution was one of the things prolonging the war. The USA government wasn’t planning on executing the Emperor, but public opinion in the USA thought he should be executed, so the USA didn’t *admit* to not wanting to execute him, and so the Japanese government were worried they would!
Also, I think (but don’t quote me on this) it was the Emperor who (normally not voting) broke the tie in his war council on whether to surrender or not. Had the Emperor not intervened, the war would have continued due to internal gridlock and inertia of the Japanese government. That doesn’t really make the Emperor a huge hero or anything, but it counts for something.
Because he was too important as a symbolic figure and not that important power-wise.
The person in power is the prime Minister, not the Emperor. And at the time, the military generals were the one making decisions. But the Emperor is like a God to the Japanese people, so the smart way to manage things (and that’s exactly what the US did) is to keep the God in place so everybody stays happy, and change/prosecute the persons in power.
To add to what everyone else is saying, its also partially cause the US wanted to eventually ensure the loyalty of the Japanese, so that they wouldn’t grow closer to the Soviets and become communist, if they’d executed such a beloved national symbol, the Japanese would have been way harder to control and influence for the US
Hirohito never wanted to join the war in the first place, but he was a weak emperor beholden to his cabinet. The cabinet pushed for Nihon to join the war, and it’s that exact weakness that allowed the country to be able to reintegrate with the world stage so quickly compared to their allies in the aftermath.
Killing him after the war would have introduced any number of malicious actors into the power-gap; it was better to work with him than against him.
This short video from History Matters is really well done, but the short version (to quote the video) was pure expediency.
There were two main reasons.
The first is that this would have created significant political difficulties. While Japan was occupied, it was never occupied with sufficient force to continue a long guerrilla struggle against a resistant population. Hirohito’s continued involvement with the American occupation meant that it could be conducted peacefully.
The second is that Hirohito’s actual ‘guilt’ was a bit questionable. While he was inarguably aware of what was going on, there were sharp limits on what he could have done about it. While not quite the figurehead of the English monarchy, his power was primarily moral or social rather than direct. He didn’t directly control any major sector of the economy or military force. Almost all decisions of the government were made with his tacit acceptance rather than at his direction.
Latest Answers