What if the Emperor Had Been Dethroned after WWII?

[Prince of Chota]

I think it's safe to say that there was very bad blood between the Chinese and Japanese at the end of the war; the sentiment is still felt around China to this day. So it's rather difficult to imagine a situation where Japan would have been swept up in the wave of Maoism that swept the warlords out of mainland China, I doubt that the communists in China could have accomplished it. They had enough trouble getting all of the mainland under the same banner, let alone the massive Japanese population. And having lived in China for a time, I can't say that the Maoist form of communism is the worst government one could be stuck with.
I do think that people today don't understand how unifying a monarchy actually is. It's something I always heard from my grandparents' generation, who remember the war and how powerful the royal family (in our case George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) were in maintaining national unity and morale.
We also should decide if we're talking about a general abolition of the Japanese monarchy, or physically removing the imperial family from the country (in which case they'd probably just be living in exile in Europe--maybe Belgium like the Korean Shin de Pyongsans?)
Yes, President Carter didn't do much for the Shah (is Carter little?), but I don't see how Maximilian of Habsburg (or Mexico if you recognize that) is relevant. The Mexican people and their elected government were hardly happy with the idea of a foreign-imposed monarch, even if he was supported by the ethnically-European (Criollo) aristocracy of the country. The scenario is completely different: the monarch in question isn't indigenous (Maximilian wasn't a Tlatoani or Caltzontzin as Hirohito was a Tenno), and the reason for his removal wasn't an invading foreign power (instead, the foreign support that was his powerbase had disappeared). For the sake of fairness, Maximilian wasn't the puppet that Napoleon III had hoped he'd be. But, unfortunately for him, Maximilian wasn't Mexican.
I agree completely with Bones about the issue of State Shinto. Every culture is entitled to its own beliefs, and one could easily make the argument that the concept of the "American Dream" is their own form of state religion. It isn't appropriate to say that Japan isn't a religious nation today, just that Japanese and other Eastern religions do not manifest themselves the same way that the Western religions do. My experience in East Asia is that these are in fact very religiously faithful cultures. However, there isn't the need that Westerners have to maintain ties and identify with one religion alone. Japanese often use Christianity for (western style) weddings, Buddhism for funerals, and Shintoism for the major markers of life (first day of school, birth of children, etc). The attempt by the United States to stomp out State Shintoism made sense at the time, but from some distance appears to conform to a larger trend of cultural misunderstanding and colonialist tendencies.

 

[Lunawalk]

Because the emperor was highly revered in Japan, the USA kept Hirohito as a figurehead to control the masses and prevent anarchy. I doubt very much that Japan would be just another country minus one monarch. As you see, Britain demanded that Hiroito be tried for war crimes, but the USA refused knowing full well the dangers involved in prosecuting an emperor since emperors had been revered like gods for centuries. It would have ensured the occupation's failure.

Why can't Hiroito be charged with war crime but the Japanese Monarchy be perserved. The Allies could remove him and Put his son of brother on the throne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why can't Hiroito be charged with war crime but the Japanese Monarchy be perserved. The Allies could remove him and Put his son of brother on the throne.

I seem to recall reading (though I cannot remember the source) that those suggestions were also put forth, before General MacArthur made the choice to retain Hirohito believing the revered emperor would be a key figure in winning over the Japanese people.

 

[Addapalla]

Best book on subject is Herbert Bix's "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan." The author made use of documents that had been previously inaccessible. Not an easy read for "history lite" afficionados. The emperor does not at all come off as the petite sweet-faced man with a high-pitched voice that was presented to the world after 1945, but as an unrelenting warmongerer right up to the time of Japan's surrender.

 

[Muhler]

I seem to recall reading (though I cannot remember the source) that those suggestions were also put forth, before General MacArthur made the choice to retain Hirohito believing the revered emperor would be a key figure in winning over the Japanese people.

Agree, an emperor put in by the Allies would be seen as a puppet figure and that would undermine the whole institution of the monarchy.
Certainly at the time the Japanese culture (basically since for ever!) was authoritarian. The Japanese were used to and instilled with the notion of there would always be someone to tell them what to do. (And think!) - Or just as importantly had the authority to tell them what to do by someone acting on behalf of a semi-divine person, the emperor. Provided that person was (is) Japanese of course.
There was always the fear that the Japanese in the tumultuous times after the monarchy being abolished or undermined "by foreign barbarians" would start to do what Stalin wanted them to do! - Stalin also being - in the right light - a semi-divine figure.

It is fascinating to speculate how warlike Emperor Hirorito really was. But after the war it was certainly in everyone's interest to portray him as a peaceful, compromise-seeking person, regardless as to whether that was true or not.
That applied to the vanquished Japanese in general and the Japanese nationalists and general McArthur in particular.

McArthur was Japan's last Shogun. - Replacing the previous one, Tojo, who was toppled and put under arrest by the Allies in 1945.
So Hirohito, who no doubt also knew his history, would not have been that unfamiliar with the political circumstances post August 1945.

 

[Ista]

Best book on subject is Herbert Bix's "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan." The author made use of documents that had been previously inaccessible. Not an easy read for "history lite" afficionados. The emperor does not at all come off as the petite sweet-faced man with a high-pitched voice that was presented to the world after 1945, but as an unrelenting warmongerer right up to the time of Japan's surrender.

The Bix book was certainly a fascinating read, and presents, as you said, a very different view of Hirohito than the propaganda tinged history we've been presented with over the last 70 years. However, like all histories, the author has a certain viewpoint, and is best read with a little bit of skepticism. It is a wonderful book, though.

 

[Lunawalk]

Agree, an emperor put in by the Allies would be seen as a puppet figure and that would undermine the whole institution of the monarchy.
Certainly at the time the Japanese culture (basically since for ever!) was authoritarian. The Japanese were used to and instilled with the notion of there would always be someone to tell them what to do. (And think!) - Or just as importantly had the authority to tell them what to do by someone acting on behalf of a semi-divine person, the emperor. Provided that person was (is) Japanese of course.
There was always the fear that the Japanese in the tumultuous times after the monarchy being abolished or undermined "by foreign barbarians" would start to do what Stalin wanted them to do! - Stalin also being - in the right light - a semi-divine figure.

It is fascinating to speculate how warlike Emperor Hirorito really was. But after the war it was certainly in everyone's interest to portray him as a peaceful, compromise-seeking person, regardless as to whether that was true or not.
That applied to the vanquished Japanese in general and the Japanese nationalists and general McArthur in particular.

McArthur was Japan's last Shogun. - Replacing the previous one, Tojo, who was toppled and put under arrest by the Allies in 1945.
So Hirohito, who no doubt also knew his history, would not have been that unfamiliar with the political circumstances post August 1945.

Demanding the Emperor renounce his divinity the allies were showing he was a puppet. Japan lost it's sovernity with the surrender. I sure he know and approved of the Japanese war crimes. They could have removed and put him on trial. But keeping the monarchy.

 

[Denville]

How could they keep the Monarchy if they interfered to that extent and put the Emperor on trial for war crimes? It would have alienated the Japanese people...

 

[Lunawalk]

How could they keep the Monarchy if they interfered to that extent and put the Emperor on trial for war crimes? It would have alienated the Japanese people...

They interfered to make the Emperor give his divinity. That upset some Japanese. Those crimes were horrible and demanded justice.

 

[Muhler]

Political necessity often trumps justice.
Very often actually.

And we must keep in mind that since there has been no judiciary investigation that I know of about Emperor Hirohito's role prior to and during WWII, we don't know if he was:
A) Pro nationalism, including expansion of the Japanese Empire.
B) Maintained the traditionalist political neutral role of the post 1857 emperors.
C) Was kept out of influence, and only exercised what direct influence he had, towards the very end. (The shogunate emperor.)
D) Was politically naive, like so many of his subjects, and hailed the Japanese accomplishments while willfully closing his eyes, for atrocities.
Until he, like his people, began to feel the consequences by late 1943.

 

[Lunawalk]

Political necessity often trumps justice.
Very often actually.

And we must keep in mind that since there has been no judiciary investigation that I know of about Emperor Hirohito's role prior to and during WWII, we don't know if he was:
A) Pro nationalism, including expansion of the Japanese Empire.
B) Maintained the traditionalist political neutral role of the post 1857 emperors.
C) Was kept out of influence, and only exercised what direct influence he had, towards the very end. (The shogunate emperor.)
D) Was politically naive, like so many of his subjects, and hailed the Japanese accomplishments while willfully closing his eyes, for atrocities.
Until he, like his people, began to feel the consequences by late 1943.

That the purpose of a trial to determine his guilt or innocence. He was one man ,the new Emperor carry on and unify the nation . He.could have abdicated and turn the throne to his son. So some justice could be served. If Hitler survived he would put on trial.

 

[Muhler]

That the purpose of a trial to determine his guilt or innocence. He was one man ,the new Emperor carry on and unify the nation . He.could have abdicated and turn the throne to his son. So some justice could be served. If Hitler survived he would put on trial.

Well, not so sure.
Stalin would have had no qualms about dragging Hitler through the streets of Moscow in a cage and then shot publicly. Perhaps that would have been the best solution had he been taken alive. I actually think so.

As you know towards the end Hitler was rambling and suffering from Parkinson. He would have been perfect on the stand!
But Hitler in a mode resembling anything from when he was in his prime?
I think Churchill, the old cynic, would have preferred to have had him killed off before that.
Keep in mind that Göring managed to disturb the proceedings pretty well and thrived big time in the last limelight.

The main purpose of the Nürenberg trials was IMO provide a moral high ground for exposing and eventually executing the main leaders - rather than just placing them up against the nearest wall and shooting them. - There was never any question of guilt. They were guilty.

However, and I know I will offend some by mentioning this, so be it:
Göring laughingly pointed out the irony of the Soviet Union being on the prosecuting side in regards to concentration camps.
Britain in regards to Germany's war of conquest.
And USA in regards to genocide - vis a vis the native Americans.

As for establishing the truth. Well, who on the Allied side were interested in implicating Vichy France' treatment of Jews?
Switzerlands role in regards to both Jewish and Nazi fortunes?
The deep rooted antisemitism in large parts of Eastern Europe. The Einsatz Kommandos got enthusiastic local help in rounding up and killing Jews - and Communists too for that matter.
As one death-camp commandant remarked when he told about the civilians outside the camps writing letters requesting clothes and prams, among other things from the camps - the Jews didn't need them... - "At least they didn't specify the colors of the prams they wanted..."

The purpose of such trials is not to ascertain the truth, but to ensure the right ones are sentenced.

After all after some de-Nazification, the next layer of Nazi-civil servants were pretty much left in place - just as in Japan. They were needed for administrating Germany and Japan.

 

[Lunawalk]

Well, not so sure.
Stalin would have had no qualms about dragging Hitler through the streets of Moscow in a cage and then shot publicly. Perhaps that would have been the best solution had he been taken alive. I actually think so.

As you know towards the end Hitler was rambling and suffering from Parkinson. He would have been perfect on the stand!
But Hitler in a mode resembling anything from when he was in his prime?
I think Churchill, the old cynic, would have preferred to have had him killed off before that.
Keep in mind that Göring managed to disturb the proceedings pretty well and thrived big time in the last limelight.

The main purpose of the Nürenberg trials was IMO provide a moral high ground for exposing and eventually executing the main leaders - rather than just placing them up against the nearest wall and shooting them. - There was never any question of guilt. They were guilty.

However, and I know I will offend some by mentioning this, so be it:
Göring laughingly pointed out the irony of the Soviet Union being on the prosecuting side in regards to concentration camps.
Britain in regards to Germany's war of conquest.
And USA in regards to genocide - vis a vis the native Americans.

As for establishing the truth. Well, who on the Allied side were interested in implicating Vichy France' treatment of Jews?
Switzerlands role in regards to both Jewish and Nazi fortunes?
The deep rooted antisemitism in large parts of Eastern Europe. The Einsatz Kommandos got enthusiastic local help in rounding up and killing Jews - and Communists too for that matter.
As one death-camp commandant remarked when he told about the civilians outside the camps writing letters requesting clothes and prams, among other things from the camps - the Jews didn't need them... - "At least they didn't specify the colors of the prams they wanted..."

The purpose of such trials is not to ascertain the truth, but to ensure the right ones are sentenced.

After all after some de-Nazification, the next layer of Nazi-civil servants were pretty much left in place - just as in Japan. They were needed for administrating Germany and Japan.

Yes I know the Allies commited their share of war crimes and the holocaust was the result of centuries of Antisemitism. Hitler had plenty of help killing the jews. But the holocaust more worse than crime committed by the allies. Trials are better than vengeance. In regards to the Japanese they committed their crimes in the name of the Emperor. Doesn't mean he guilty but a trial should determine his guilt or innocence. Since he's dead now it's a mystery. I know that sometimes the guilty get away with their crimes.

 

[Muhler]

Yes I know the Allies commited their share of war crimes and the holocaust was the result of centuries of Antisemitism. Hitler had plenty of help killing the jews. But the holocaust more worse than crime committed by the allies. Trials are better than vengeance. In regards to the Japanese they committed their crimes in the name of the Emperor. Doesn't mean he guilty but a trial should determine his guilt or innocence. Since he's dead now it's a mystery. I know that sometimes the guilty get away with their crimes.

Oh, I'm not trying to compare war-crimes.

I'm merely pointing out that Göring found it hypocritical for the main adversaries of in his case Germany being:
The largest colonial empire the world has ever seen.
A regime that put I don't know how many millions in gulags.
An expanding country that steamrolled the indigenous people.

There is no question that Japan committed many systematic atrocities, especially in China, the question still remains to what extent the Emperor knew.
Keep in mind that Japanese army already by the late 20's operates as a state within the state.
And the Kwantung army (The Japanese army in China) operated outside the social norms of Japan. (It's a horrific but most fascinating study in mass psychology by a homogeneous group of people no longer adhering to the social norms of their own society.)
Everything official in Japan was in the name emperor.
Every Japanese owned absolute allegiance to the Emperor for being so fortunate to be Japanese.
Just as every Japanese owed (and still do) their parents for giving them life.

 

[Durham]

This is a very interesting thread covering many controversial topics.

Both Japanese state visits to the UK in 1971 & 1998 were not universally welcomed. Neither was the visit by Hirohito to the Netherlands in 1971.

Earl Mountbatten did not attend the 1971 state banquet & both visits were protested by former British prisoners of war. Some of them turned their backs on the carriage procession in the mall & held a candle lit vigil outside the Japanese embassy.

Hirohito was booed & jeered at when he went to the Netherlands. One man even lunched towards the car carrying the emperor & Japanese flags were publicly burnt. Many Dutch had suffered terribly after the fall of the Dutch East Indies.

Clearly they did not think that justice had ever been done for them. Sadly most of them have now passed on. The greatest generation.