What if the Emperor Had Been Dethroned after WWII?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

KathyMoore

Commoner
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
30
City
Irvine
Country
United States
what would have happened if the emperor was kicked out after WWII?

were there ever any debates about keeping or abolishing the emperor?
(either among the Japanese people or the US military/govt)

thanks!
 
I think it might have been much easier for Japan to follow so many of the other countries of southeast Asia into Communism. I gather the Chinese were trying to orchestrate a Communist takeover of the Japanese government; the strong feelings of many Japanese in favour of their Emperor may have been part of why the takeover wasn't successful.
 
Hirohito was not tried for war crimes, and the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor but there were conditions the most significant of which was a declaration that he was no longer divine. Even that drove some Japanese to suicide.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth Gray Vining's book about her time as tutor to the current emperor when he was a boy talks about the conditions in Japan in the immediate postwar period, and it sounded absolutely dire. That sort of deprivation and societal breakdown are often precursors to anarchy or revolution. I'm sure the existence of the imperial family was a stabilising influence even with the occupation-imposed changes to their scope and size.
 
That sounds like a great topic for one of those alternate history fiction books. My wild guess is that life would be just like it is now...minus one monarch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
This is an interesting topic. Gotta love the "what if" questions in life. :)

Mandy said:
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.

Its good to see that they thought ahead & knew something like that could possibly happen. I guess in a way they thought it might cause another Hitler- like figure to rise to power if they had removed the Emperor?
 
I, for one, doesn't like the words "kicked out" for a serious history thread. And of course, you know that I'm against Republics in general , so I think that the best of all things is always conserve the Monarchs, who are the symbol of the historical and cultural roots of a Nation.

I agree that without an Emperor, Japan could have been quite easily pushed to Communism, or at least to a social war, which is always dangerous.

But again...Only Japanese could decide which kind og governement they wants to have and which rules should rule them. I think that no country (nor coalition of countries) must have any right to decide any political internal issue of a foreign State. "Progress" and "correct political ways" spread too much blood in our poor little world. :sad:

Vanesa.
 
It was the Supreme allied Commander General Douglas MacArther that saved the emperor,that way he knew he would get better cooperation from there people.
 
How old was The Emperors son if he had Abdicated
 
Prince Akihito was born in 1933, so he would have been around 13.
 
Very interesting question. I agree with Elspeth, I think the removal of the Emperor could have led to Japan becoming a communist ruled country. If that had happened it makes one think about how different our entire global economy could have been.

How seriously was his removal considered by the U.S. government...this is outside my area of knowledge. I'm sure many of the documents surrounding that conversation are still under lock & key and may never be released to be studied. I wonder if Truman decided that it would serve no purpose for an outside government (the U.S.) to remove a monarch from his throne, that it was up to the country in question to decide. Very interesting topic!
 
Well, dear members, if my memory serves me, the matter was quite hotly debated inside the highest levels of the US government as well. However there is one point which the noble members have not considered. Germany. I think a decisive factor was what happened to Germany after the abolition of the monarchy. Kaiser Bill fled to Holland and all the rest of it. The socialist dominated republic that took the place of the monarchy was profoundly hated by the right in Germany. Which led to thugs like Hitler and company be able to manuver their way into power, with the acquiescence at a crucial moment of a senile Paul von Hindenburg.

So how much more sensible would have been a Germany without all of the humiliations of the Treaty of Versailles with a Kaiser Bill or one of his grandsons on the throne as a ceremonial head of state and very limited political powers as a reminder of the risks of taking on the whole world on the battlefield. It took the good Germans to make the mistake twice to hopefully learn the lesson of the follies of milirarism and the glorification of war. How much better would the world have been without a WWII???
 
The results of what happened in Germany were taken into serious consideration when the US decided the future of Japan. They truelly had learnt from the past at that stage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
allowing the Japanese emperor to remain probably ensured the succesful
occupation of Japan after WWII.

on the other hand, I wonder how this affected the Korean war...
 
Looking at Japan today it makes you wonder who won the war.
 
Lok what is happening in Afghanistan. The majority of of Loya Jirga appearently wanted to restore the king but the Americans would not have it. A symbol and connection with a saner and happier past was not restored, to, I believe the countries great cost. Cheers.
 
Having monarchies(even constitutional) don't always make countries a more stable place.
 
The only thing holding up the earlier surrender of Japan was their concern that the Emperor be protected and the US was adamant that the surrender be "unconditional" however they did finally say that the fate of the emperor would be in the hands of the Japanese. Because of that, if they had removed Hirohito, I think the Japanese, with justification, would have taken it as a betrayal and would have fought the US occupation tooth and nail which would have meant a terrible death toll for everyone.

Personally, I even have a problem with the US insisting that the Emperor renounce his divinity. Regardless of the circumstances it does not seem right for one country to forcefully change the religion of another country; which seems to be basically what happened. I have heard that Japan is largely non-religious today and I have sometimes wondered if their previous belief-system being so abruptly upset might have had something to do with this.

And I also agree too (sadly) that the US has shown a great deal of prejudice against monarchies in foreign policy over many years. It was evident in the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii, both Mexican Emperors, rigging the overthrow of the last Vietnamese Emperor, demanding the removal of the Kaiser to make peace with Germany and when the East European countries were considering the issue in the aftermath of their restored independence I remember Clinton's Secretary of State (I think talking about Romania or Bulgaria) saying, "we don't do kings" and effectively killing the debate. The US (well, President Carter anyway) also refused to help the Shah of Iran who had been our ally which led to his overthrow. Anyway, I won't go on, if I've strayed off on an inappropriate rant I do apologize.
 
Well, I read once that (in The Times, but I don't have the link), when the Persian Shah was kicked out of his throne, Emperor Akihito was so scared that he learned to type, so he could "work as a typist", as he said. This mean that the Emperor wouldn't have left Japan, but get integrated in the Japanese society, as families from nobility have done since the postwar.
 
Japanese emperor has never had an interst's conflict against ppls like western kings
Tenno has never had a power from ancient.
 
Japan is still officially Shinto. The Emperor is still the High Priest of that religion and does rituals and offers prayers on behalf of the nation.

Personally, I even have a problem with the US insisting that the Emperor renounce his divinity. Regardless of the circumstances it does not seem right for one country to forcefully change the religion of another country; which seems to be basically what happened. I have heard that Japan is largely non-religious today and I have sometimes wondered if their previous belief-system being so abruptly upset might have had something to do with this.
 
Nothing much, I believe. Times evolve and who would have continued to believe that he was a god? Too much easy info now. General MacArthur was smart in leaving him as a titular head. It did no harm. Bones, your lack of correct information on some of the other things is great. The Kaiser was not dethroned by the U.S. alone. It was the wish if the victorious powers. The emperors of Mexico were puppets to European interests. As for the Shah, it was a political hassle not because he was a monarch, but because of political situations.
 
Japan is still officially Shinto. The Emperor is still the High Priest of that religion and does rituals and offers prayers on behalf of the nation.

Japan is not "officially" anything. Shintoism still exists of course in its earlier form but "State Shinto" was was the official religion before WW2 was abolished by order of the US occupation forces. I know the Emperor still performs Shinto ceremonies on certain occasions but he is no longer considered divine nor is that an indication of Japan having an official state religion. King Juan Carlos is Catholic but Catholicism is not the official state religion of Spain.

Nothing much, I believe. Times evolve and who would have continued to believe that he was a god? Too much easy info now. General MacArthur was smart in leaving him as a titular head. It did no harm. Bones, your lack of correct information on some of the other things is great. The Kaiser was not dethroned by the U.S. alone. It was the wish if the victorious powers. The emperors of Mexico were puppets to European interests. As for the Shah, it was a political hassle not because he was a monarch, but because of political situations.

Por favor, double check wikipedia or something before being critical of others. Of course the US was not alone but the US did make the removal of the Kaiser a condition of ending the war -that is a fact. Many in the US also wanted the Kaiser executed as a war criminal but the Dutch Queen showed better judgement and would not give him up. Even King George V intervened to stop that issue.

Please to tell me which foreign power the first Mexican Emperor was a puppet of? He had no foreign troops backing him, in fact it was he who finally succeeded in getting the Spanish troops out of the country. Whose puppet was he (I'm talking about Iturbide not Maximilian) please explain? Even Emperor Maximilian was hardly a puppet. He was constantly at odds with the French because he would not simply bend to their will. To the extent that he was he was no more a European puppet than Juarez was a puppet of US interests. He sold out considerable tracts of Mexican sovereignty to the US in return for their support, his forces were clothed, armed and equipped by the US and thousands of US troops fought on his behalf. As for the Shah of Iran, you can say it was this, that or the other but he was a monarch and he was basically sold out by the US which refused him the support he needed and kept telling him to take no action when things could have been stopped. Read some of Empress Farah's writings, she makes it clear that had President Carter kept faith with her husband the Ayatollah would never have taken over.

And also, I am not saying the Japanese Emperor should still be considered a god, all I was trying to say was that whether the Japanese believe him to be a god or not should be their decision and not that of any other foreign power. No foreign power should be able to tell any country who or what they can consider a god.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All I said is that the U.S. did not act alone against the Kaiser. Secondly, Iturbide in his Plan of Iguala wanted Mexico to be autonomous, but ruled by a member of the Bourbon family and still under the authority of Spain. And Maximaillian was a French puppet, mostly.

As for the Shah, do you think that Farah's account is accurate or biased. That was her husband and she loved him. He was a liability, but in 1979 President Carter allowed him to get treatment in New York. The Iranians demanded we turn him over and we didn't and so they took 52 American Hostages and held them, in miserable conditions, for 444 days.

As for whether the we should have had Hirohito renounce his divinity, it is just talk. He was never divine. Those who wished to think of him as divine could have still done so. It was a nonsensical belief, but, as you say, their right to believe it. It they wished to, they still could. So, perhaps, we liberated them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Plan of Iguala called for independence, not continued Spanish rule. If that there the case there would have been no point to it. He did at first want to remain under the Spanish crown but the country would have been no less independent that Canada or Australia is today. But that is beside the point; that didn't happen. Iturbide became Emperor and he was nobody's puppet, he was not supported by any European powers and the King of Spain was adamantly opposed to the whole enterprise. If Maximilian was a French puppet why didn't he run away when the French left? Why didn't he turn over Sonora when the French wanted it? Why did he adopt a Mexican as his heir and not a French prince or aristocrat?

What little Carter did for the Shah after his overthrow is neither here nor there. Yes I'm sure the Empress is biased but don't you think American accounts might be too? The fact remains that while he was still in power he asked for American help to deal with the Islamic fundamentalists and it was refused and when he wanted to take action against them the US told him not to and promised to work something out.

You say the Japanese Emperor was never divine, fine, I don't think so either but that is not your call or my call to make. Frankly it seems a little insulting imho. I wouldn't like someone to say that about Jesus even though they have every right to believe as they choose. And it is not so simple as the Japanese choosing what they want to believe. The US forced Hirohito to publically renounce his divinity -which would make it rather hard for any Japanese traditionalists to go in believing in him in that way. Call it liberation if you like, if you don't believe in State Shinto it certainly would be, but I don't think it was any business of the USA. If a foreign power invaded my country and said Christianity was banned they might think they liberating the people but that still wouldn't make it right.
 
It is rather entertaining to read a discussion. Japan lost the World War II. It was victors, who wrote the history, established rules, and carried out punishments. Americans attempted to modify Emperor Hirohitos's image and role to suit their immediate agenda. I dare to say that Americans did not have many viable options to replace the Emperor with because he was a more spiritual nucleus that held the nation together and a personification of stability in the trying times. Japan proved capable of reinventing itself and claiming far more important victories in the socio-economic sphere in the long run.
 
ppl stopped to fighting because tenno said to stop.
in the chinese continental, some of Imperial family were sent with Emperor's massages to stop.
in Sakhalin, The tragedy occurred for that because Epmperor said to surrender.
History News Network
anyway It might be the same situation as Iraq if there was no emperor.
Shumshu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW、Who could kick out hirohito?
Allied Forces did ugly propagandas to Japanese citizen to abolish Tenno system. however no one was moved..
if someone did so, it would be called an enemy of the court..
nobody wants to be an enemy of the court, Choteki
It is the most disgrace for the Japanese.
 
Back
Top Bottom