Why wasn't Hirohito tried at the end of WWII?

Question

At the end of the Second World War many Japanese generals such as Tojo and Yamashita were tried and executed, but Hirohito wasn't tried and even continued as emperor. Why wasn't he tried while he was involved in WWII and also in the second Sino-Japanese war?

I would expect motivation based on "what happens if we do ?" Any action that leaves a country in out-of-control chaos, encourages it to ally with another enemy or motivates a large percentage of its population to make suicidal attacks on the Allied nations would be a questionable choice. — Technophile, Jan 04 '21 at 22:28
If memory serves it was the one "condition" on the otherwise unconditional surrender of Japan. MacArthur approved. — Jyrki Lahtonen, Jan 05 '21 at 15:29
@JyrkiLahtonen If I understand correctly, Japan's condition was entirely rejected by the allies. Instead, the allies said, "From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers [General Douglas MacArthur] who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.". While some politicians back in the USA publicly demanded the Emperor's trial and execution (like Nuremburg trials of Nazis) because of Pearl Harbor, MacAuthur made the call. — Jamin Grey, Jan 05 '21 at 17:26
His reasoning is his own, but likely included using Japan and Korea as a Democratic/Capitalist bulwark against Russia and China, and the realization that how he treated the Emperor will directly influence the Japanese people's willingness to tolerate or rebel against occupation. — Jamin Grey, Jan 05 '21 at 17:26
For a fictional dramatized version of this, the movie Emperor (2012) is really good (despite reviews), starring Tommy Lee Jones as MacAuthor. It's not a historic documentary though, so inaccuracies exist and fabrications abound to drive the plot. — Jamin Grey, Jan 05 '21 at 17:29
@JaminGrey While we are also discussing fiction The Emperor's General by James Webb springs to mind. I cannot say how much of my "recollection" is influenced by that and how much by from what I had absorbed from books dedicated to the history of WWII. Bits and pieces from what the narrator in that story said are also in line with what you and others have said. MacArthur's call. Actually the theme of this thread is somewhat central in that novel. — Jyrki Lahtonen, Jan 05 '21 at 18:23
I’m voting to close this question because it's off topic here, see https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5839/27084 — Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica, Mar 16 '22 at 20:07
@EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica I’m not sure that applies, since Imperial Japan’s war crimes, and the denial of them, are still active issues in Japanese politics. — divibisan, Mar 17 '22 at 02:08

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica · Accepted Answer · 2021-01-02T20:36:39.307

It was partially MacArthur's idea. I suspect that, aside from considerations regarding internal Japanese stability the swiftly developing Cold War (things soured as soon as Germany surrendered) motivated the idea to not rock the boat overmuch. Remember that there was a sizable Japanese Communist Party in the 30s.

Also Japan really has had, as odd as it may seem to us, the notion of absolute-power, divine, figurehead emperors. Prior to the Tokugawas, the emperor would not really rule until he abdicated to let his son take over. At that point he would assume real power, over a decentralized feudal system, while his son performed rituals.

From wikipedia:

The role of the Emperor of Japan has historically alternated between a largely ceremonial symbolic role and that of an actual imperial ruler. Since the establishment of the first shogunate in 1199, the Emperors of Japan have rarely taken on a role as supreme battlefield commander, unlike many Western monarchs. Japanese emperors have nearly always been controlled by external political forces, to varying degrees.

Later on, the Shogunate took over and put the emperor even more on the back burner while he was nominally in charge. If I recall correctly, in later Shogunate, the Shogun himself became a figurehead while there was another influential group doing the real work.

Not sure how the 1868 Meiji Restoration modified things, but certainly the military ruled the governmental roost, having a defacto veto over cabinets.

So while it was a convenient and calculated whitewash not to get rid of Hirohito, the idea of him not totally having been in charge isn't merely a fiction and the extent of his actual decision and control is still being debated.

score 20 · Answer 2 · answered Jan 02 '21 at 19:21

Because of fears of instability and communism spreading to the area. Treaties ended up being signed to turn it into more of a democracy which was more in line with what the US wanted.

https://www.historynet.com/ask-mhq-hirohito.htm

American policy toward Japan from August 1945 was dominated by fears of the communist strategic threat to Asia. It is sometimes suggested that Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as the Allies’ supreme commander, imposed his personal will to spare Hirohito. MacArthur certainly acted autocratically, but the contemporary documentation shows that Washington’s view marched with his own in rating the stabilization of Japan above all other considerations.

If every man guilty of war crimes had been punished in strict accordance with law—in Germany as well as Japan—hundreds of thousands of executions would have been carried out. Nobody had the stomach for these. With the Red Army in Manchuria and America’s protégé, Chiang Kai-shek, struggling for control of China, the United States was concerned about the overall volatility of the region and opted for a light-touch occupation of Japan.

The Japanese showed themselves almost slavishly eager to conform to their conqueror’s wishes, and indeed displayed an amazing enthusiasm for all things American. The emperor and the nation’s political leaders swiftly accepted a draft for a new Japanese democratic constitution produced by MacArthur’s staff. On January 1, 1946, Hirohito issued a proclamation denying his own divinity and denouncing “radical tendencies” among his people.

MacArthur publicly applauded, commending the emperor’s brave decision to take a “stand for the future along liberal lines.” After that, it became implausible for the emperor to face war crimes charges. Only a few hundred Japanese were tried, to satisfy American public opinion. Most notably Gen. Hideki Tojo, prime minister when the Pearl Harbor attack was launched, was hanged, along with Tomoyuki Yamashita, who commanded in Malaya and later in the Philippines. Gen. Masaharu Homma was shot by firing squad, after being convicted of responsibility for the 1942 Bataan Death March.

score 15 · Answer 3 · answered Jan 03 '21 at 05:40

15

Remember Hirohito was regarded as "divine" so keeping him around to instruct the Japanese civilian and military population was seen as critical in retaining control without an enormous military occupation force.

Hypothetically, his execution, trial, or even his arrest could have triggered an unstoppable wave of rioting, where nothing short of genocide could have stopped the attacks.

It took the God Emperor to say "stop fighting" to stop the war and then he was more useful as an ally than as a martyr.

answered Jan 03 '21 at 05:40

Criggie

267
2
8

6

I don't think America cared whether the Japanese "rioted" at that point. They didn't want them to fight to the last man. But Japan was such a special case where if you could take control of that one lever of power - the emperor - you could do anything, that it was probably discussed infinitely and concluded that this was tactically the right decision. – joshstrike Jan 04 '21 at 12:40

joshstrike · Answer 4 · 2021-01-04T12:35:06.990

7

This is not an "answer" exactly, but consider it American folklore... it's how I understood it from my family who lived through and fought in WWII -

Hirohito was considered an actual god, not a man, by the Japanese. When he surrendered on the radio it was the first time the Japanese had ever heard the voice of their living god. They capitulated immediately. Although he hadn't made the decision to bomb Pearl Harbor or even go to war with America, he had been used by the Japanese generals as a divine cause. It was necessary for America to not kill him or martyr him, but to flip him and use him to un-brainwash the Japanese who would have fought to the last man.

The same kind of thing happened with the "de-nazification" of Germany. At that time, America had the money and was willing to spend what would now be billions of dollars to rebuild foreign countries we had just demolished as long as they "agreed" to accept the world order we were trying to build. (No particular judgment there -- the world order would have been worse under the nazis). And since we had just conquered them and were sending tons of money, they had no reason not to agree. The same people in Germany and many in Japan remained in power, but they were now America's tools. And this worked out pretty well for the Japanese and the Germans. Not as great for the Americans, but the impulse to buy out the remaining leaders, rather than martyr them, was probably the right move.

In contrast, we won the official war in Iraq back in 2002-3 but failed to give them their local figureheads back, and we ended up with a 20 year guerrilla war and with ISIS, and withdrawing from there and letting Iran and Russia handle it. So basically, we were smarter at the end of WWII about how to use former leaders to redistribute power, under our auspices and control, and with the help of our money.

edited Jan 04 '21 at 12:35

answered Jan 04 '21 at 12:29

joshstrike

217
1
5

9

‘The same people in Germany […] remained in power’—I don’t know how you intended this to be understood. The top level of Nazi leaders and politicians was definitely razed (or razed themselves), so ‘the same’ feels wrong. At the same time, the lower levels of bureaucracy remained mostly intact and many former Nazis (albeit not leading Nazis) would hold positions of varying levels of power in the FRG. Furthermore, sometimes pre-Nazi figures returned to power as was famously the case with Adenauer. So I feel the sentence is a mixed bag: not really correct but not all too wrong. – Jan Jan 04 '21 at 12:50
1

@Jan I think at least in the case of Germany the sentence is still a lot more wrong than right. Certainly not all Nazis have been removed (and, as unpopular as this sounds, I think it's practically impossible to completely strip away the political class in a regime on all levels and expect that you still end up with a working country), but saying that "the same people remained in power" really paints a very different picture than what actually happened. – xLeitix Jan 04 '21 at 15:22
In Germany, the people who wanted to further the cause of Nazism did not stay in power. They were investigated in the Nuremberg trials (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals). Lower members of the government were mostly forced to support the Nazi system - they did not need to be coerced to understand that it was wrong. – Volker Siegel Jan 04 '21 at 21:33
just regarding your last comment: You assume the US was smarter. It might be that the purpose of the war was entirely different. You assume a 20-year occupation and a country in shambles was not intended. – Tom Jan 05 '21 at 06:03
1

@Tom You could be right, of course. I just don't credit Bush/Cheney with that much foresight or intelligence. I think simple greed in starting the war, incompetence in the aftermath ("Mission Accomplished!") and ignorance of history are a more likely explanation than that those clowns were playing 6-dimensional chess and had some diabolical plan for the next 20 years. In the same way, Obama royally screwed up the remaining "stable" parts of region with the Arab Spring, another huge blunder, more likely out of a misguided belief that it would improve things than out of malice. – joshstrike Jan 05 '21 at 07:00
@VolkerSiegel It is true that when the cause of Nazism was removed, most of the 8.5 million party members were happy to leave the war behind and move on with life. But I don't think "coercion" is the right word. They may not have been zealots but they joined for opportunity, and at the very least, did not reject racist violence as a matter of conscience. And what about Austria? Kurt Waldheim may not have been interested in advancing the Nazi cause in the 1980s, any more than Putin could be called a Soviet now, but what does it say for a country to elect such a man? – joshstrike Jan 05 '21 at 07:08
@joshstrike Yes, I used "coerced" somehow ambiguously - I meant to say that it did not take a lot of effort to explain that the American way is superior, it was just obvious. So there was "no coercion needed". I think the number of people who did not stand trial in the Nuremberg Tribunals, but were interested in Nazism by firm conviction were few if not none. I'm aware that my view of history may be biased. Part of this makes sense with the background how the Nazi hierarchy worked. – Volker Siegel Jan 05 '21 at 08:31
@joshstrike I think for a member of the Nazi party, rejecting something was much harder than it would seem. The psychological/sociological structure made it systematically difficult. Of course, there is the decision to become member of the party, but that may be a very small step, influenced by peer pressure, or growing up in a school system basically run by the Nazis. – Volker Siegel Jan 05 '21 at 08:40
@VolkerSiegel Some years ago I read a fascinating book called "They Thought They Were Free" - https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928 which examines the wartime and post-war years of a dozen quite average, very unimportant Nazi party members, from a human and personal perspective. Having spent the past 4 years in a rural part of the US among rabid Trump supporters it is hard for me not to see the parallels. These are not the people who devised the ruthless evil, but were simply attracted to it while others are repelled by it. They were sufficient to enable it. – joshstrike Jan 05 '21 at 09:16
German belief was that the top level was tried, mid and low level had a few scapegoat trials ("Siegerjustiz"). Which most were okay with if they were offered an opportunity to rebuild, and the dyed-in-the-wool Nazis were forced to keep a low public profile to avoid becoming scapegoats, which removed most of their public influence (but they still kept a lot of power in secret service and some of the political parties). I believe the key point was Nazism being forced out of the political discource, post-War generations mostly considered Nazism absurd. – toolforger Jan 05 '21 at 09:26
@joshstrike again, I challenge your assumptions, namely that it was Bush or Cheney who made the decision to invade Iraq. – Tom Jan 05 '21 at 17:57
@Tom Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and sold it to Congress. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone held a gun to his head to make him do it. Most reasonable people would assume that the President and Vice President were in control of their own words and actions, not under the influence of drugs when they sold the war and lied to Congress and the people about Saddam having WMDs which they knew did not exist. You seem to have a habit of positing alternatives without describing what they are. That's a conspiratorial mode of thought. The most obvious answer is usually the right one. – joshstrike Jan 06 '21 at 08:34
@joshstrike The president doesn't act alone. He has advisors, people supplying him with information, and is especially reliant on briefings from the military and intelligence community. It is highly unlikely that Bush acted entirely on his own, and much more reasonable to see him as the figurehead of a large administration. – Tom Jan 06 '21 at 12:25
@VolkerSiegel "I think for a member of the Nazi party, rejecting something was much harder than it would seem" ...you wrote this on 1/5. The point is very relevant, and pertains to the original question about Hirohito. In America on 1/6 we had a politician's faction storm the Capitol, most of whom were willing to show their faces and give their names, because they truly think they are historically in the right even if their actions violate basic principles of law. Their way of thinking is hierarchical, conspiratorial and based on historicity and emotion - and as you say, very hard to uproot. – joshstrike Jan 15 '21 at 07:16
@VolkerSiegel 2/ So you're correct that it's difficult for average people to evaluate and possibly reject increasingly extreme ideology from their leaders. Per America's response in dealing with various death cults, and/or cults of personality, it may be that the best response is to not martyr the figurehead but simply to neuter them. That's why we didn't try Hirohito; it's why Biden will probably not pursue charges against Trump. – joshstrike Jan 15 '21 at 07:23

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Jan 05 '21 at 14:27

MacArthur understood that if he put the emperor on trial he'd risk starting another war. The Japanese at the time regarded the emperor as divine, and would literally fight to defend the concept of "emperor as divine leader of the nation". MacArthur was sufficiently pragmatic to accept that leaving the emperor in place as a symbol of Japan was necessary to keep the Japanese people from revolting violently against the outnumbered US occupation forces, who I suspect were virulently hated by the Japanese.

Why wasn't Hirohito tried at the end of WWII?

5 Answers5

Linked