@Imperious:
Not officially at the time, latter that fact kinda leaked out
What fact leaked out? That the US had promised, before the surrender, not to try the Emperor as a war criminal? I’m afraid I’m going to have to see source for that, as that doesn’t jive with what I know about that time period.
Yes, the US government, under the direction of MacArthur, didn’t try Hirohito for war crimes. Not only that, but the Occupation Government went above and beyond to protect the Emperor from even a hint of taint from the war crimes committed by the Japanese Government.
But I’ve seen or read absolutely nothing to suggest that the US gave a promise of any kind to the Japanese Government before the surrender took place.
In short, sauce please.
-Midnight_Reaper
The fact that the emperor was not to be charged was held from the American public, but leaked out that a deal was made for compliance with the surrender.
You want a link to that?
How do you not know this? There is a reason why Japan still has a Emperor and not a full Republic. The Emperor was spared from the outcome of WWII hence why he was never removed. This is common knowledge.
Caesar - We all know the Emperor was not tried for war crimes and the institution remains. The point at issue is whether Japan was promised in advance of surrender that he would not be tried. M_R has asked for evidence of that.
I am interested too, as I am also unaware of this having happened.
@Imperious:
… but leaked out that a deal was made for compliance with the surrender.
You want a link to that?
@Private:
… The point at issue is whether Japan was promised in advance of surrender that he would not be tried. M_R has asked for evidence of that.
I am interested too, as I am also unaware of this having happened.
IL,
You seem to be claiming that the United States made a deal, or some sort of promise, with Japan not to try the Emperor for war crimes. You seem to be claiming that this deal was made before Japan surrendered.
I do not think that this happened. I know that the Occupation Government, after Japan surrendered, worked to keep the Emperor from being tried as a war criminal. But I know of no reason for the Japanese Government to believe, before they surrendered, that this would happen the way it did.
If you have proof that, before Japan surrendered, the Emperor knew that he would not be tried for war crimes after surrender, I would like to see that proof. That is what I am asking you to produce.
-Midnight_Reaper
"On June 22, the Emperor met with his ministers, saying “I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them.”
The attempt to negotiate a peace via the Soviet Union came to nothing.
There was always the threat that extremists would carry out a coup or foment other violence.
On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the Emperor that it be accepted only if one to four conditions were agreed upon, including a guarantee of the Emperor’s continued position in Japanese society. The Emperor decided not to surrender."
An unconditional surrender is not a offer–it is a statement of what is going to happen. No conditions of retaining the emperor would be made.
The Japanese Junta then tried to assert conditions, which would not have been accepted, and a decision was made.
Unconditional surrender isn’t just florid language its an agreement about what you are going to do. No separate peaces. No retained kings. No amnesties or paroles. If the USA wanted to keep the emperor that would be at their fiat with no strings attached and for their own reasons.
The Kaiser was even more involved in that war and it wasn’t entirely clear that he’d be ejected and forced to abdicate either, despite his participation at the level of a field marshal/head of state/army. It was only after his support collapsed that he abdicated. Woodrow Wilson was influential in this by stating neither that he would be deposed or stay but that he would not be allowed at the negotiating table but that prosecuting him and extraditing him was not in the US interest. So the US removed his relevance by saying that any surrender would not involve him as a substantial party (ie by not recognizing him as the de jure or de facto head of state.)
In terms of official statements, the US / Allied position regarding the Emperor prior to the surrender of Japan was deliberately vague…and that vagueness led to a lot of interpretational debate within the Japanese government (as it was probably intended to do). The Potsdam Declaration of July 1945 didn’t mention the Emperor one way or the other. And the movie Japan’s Longest Day, which reconstructs in quasi-documentary style the hours leading up to Japan’s surrender, includes a scene in which the Japanese leadership tries to interpret the meaning of the phrase “subject to” in a reply they had received from the US Secretary of State, James Byrnes, which said that “the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers.”
Behind the scenes, Truman had proved receptive to the concept of Hirohito remaining Emperor in a purely ceremonial role. Truman had asked one of his advisors (I forget who; it may have been Byrnes, but if I’m not mistaken it was John Galbraith) what should be done about Japan post-war; the advisor outlined various points, one of which was that Hirohito should remain Emperor but that he should henceforth be a constitutional monarch with symbolic rather than actual authority. Truman responded that this outline was exactly the kind of thing he’d been looking for, and he asked the advisor to put this outline into writing. The incident is described in the 1970s British series The World at War.
further research indicates that it was MacArthur as the leader of the occupation who determined how Hirohito should be handled, which would indicate the outcome was at his discretion and lack of any promises or pre-figured intent before the war’s end.
The actual problem is that the Emperor in Japanese government does still have some power though I do believe he does not have the authority to committed Japan to war. I do know that if the civilian Japanese government some how is destroyed, the Emperor will directly rule again but for now, the Shogun rules the land.
@Caesar:
The actual problem is that the Emperor in Japanese government does still have some power though I do believe he does not have the authority to committed Japan to war. I do know that if the civilian Japanese government some how is destroyed, the Emperor will directly rule again but for now, the Shogun rules the land.
If I’m not mistaken, Japan hasn’t had a Shogun since the Tokugawa Shogunate was abolished as a result of the Meiji Restoration in 1867. As far as I know, the Japanese Emperor today is a constitutional monarch who, like similar constitutional monarchs (such as Queen Elizabeth II, the constitutional monarch of Canada, whose date of Confederation coincidentally also dates from 1867), “reigns but does not rule.” This usually means that the monarch has certain narrow constitutional powers, and is considered to be the head of state, but that these powers are largely symbolic and/or ceremonial and that they are supposed to be exercised in a non-political way, so that the monarch can function as a politically neutral symbol of the state. Political power in a constitutional monarchy is supposed to rest with the government (which has its own head) and, more broadly, with the elected legislature, and constitutional monarchs are expected to be very careful about not overstepping their (largely symbolic) authority. To give an example: a few years ago, as I recall, the current Japanese Emperor, Akihito, felt that it might be a good idea to abdicate because his advanced age was making it difficult for him to carry out his duties. He raised the issue in public, but he did so in extremely indirect and vague language. Why? Because the Japanese constitution (at least at the time) had no abdication mechanism, and therefore Akihito’s abdication would have required a constitutional amendment; Akihito could not come straight out and ask the legislature to amend the constitution, because that would have been seen as the Emperor inappropriately “meddling in politics”, so he had to express his wish in a very roundabout way and leave it to the politicians to interpret for themselves what he really meant.
This is why !
There is no actual Shogun in modern Japan but the title is equivalent to Prime Minister except a PM is voted by the people and not placed by clan rule. However Japanese media from time to time will joke that the Japanese PM is basically equal to a Shogun hence why I used the term Shogun.
@Caesar:
There is no actual Shogun in modern Japan but the title is equivalent to Prime Minister except a PM is voted by the people and not placed by clan rule. However Japanese media from time to time will joke that the Japanese PM is basically equal to a Shogun hence why I used the term Shogun.
Ah. Political commentary by the Japanese press notwithstanding, weren’t shoguns usually military officers rather than civilian politicians, and hence more equivalent to military dictators than prime ministers?
Well during the era of the Clan which by the way still technically exist, which ever clan controlled Kyoto, their Daimyō would then become Shogun if my knowledge is correct. So technically a Shogun is a military leader but I think Daimyo is technically a civilian who just happens to know how to fight like a Samurai.
