View Poll Results: Showa Emperor was guilty or not ???

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Emperor was completely guilty as head of state

    27 61.36%
  • Emperor was not guilty as all

    6 13.64%
  • Emperor should have been prosecuted, but was up to the Court to decide the extent of his guilt

    12 27.27%
  • Emperor was blameless, but other member of Imperial Familly were guilty

    1 2.27%
  • General Matsui was wrongfully executed to coverup

    2 4.55%
  • Regardless both Matsui and the Prince were guilty

    2 4.55%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53

Thread: Imperial familly - crimes against Humanity

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587

    Imperial familly - crimes against Humanity

    Hello friends, in light of several threads regarding war crims, I like to dedicate this thread on a single subject. Wether, you think the Emperor of Japan was a war criminal, not a war criminal, should have been prosecuted, was partialy responsbile, or that Emperor was not guilty but other Imperial family members should have been prosecuted.

    As we all know the Tokyo trial were generally meant to seperate the Imperial familly and the Generals and Admirals.

  2. #2
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Hirehito was in on the war from the start. There were some key decisions that he've made, especially concerning China and Korea. He was guilty, no question, and not just because he was the Head of State.

  3. #3
    In Memoriam Military Professional dave lukins's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jan 07
    Location
    cheshire uk
    Posts
    11,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Hirehito was in on the war from the start. There were some key decisions that he've made, especially concerning China and Korea. He was guilty, no question, and not just because he was the Head of State.
    I have often wondered why only the losing side, in All Wars or Conflicts are charged with War crimes. In War"crimes" are commited on all sides. We fight in the best way to win...all's fair in love and war....Having said that the particular methods used by Japan and the brutality shown to civilians as well as servicemen goes beyond the call of Duty to the Emperor..GUILTY AS CHARGED

  4. #4
    HKHolic Senior Contributor leib10's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Feb 05
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Posts
    3,513
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    I have often wondered why only the losing side, in All Wars or Conflicts are charged with War crimes. In War"crimes" are commited on all sides. We fight in the best way to win...all's fair in love and war....
    Victor's justice is a biitch.
    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

  5. #5
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Mar 07
    Location
    New York City or Hainan, China
    Posts
    576
    Hirohito was guilty, he did killed Chinese, Koreans and others because he wanted to further Japan's power and wanted the whole of south pacific to Japan. Hirohito knew of everything that was going on and he didn't care. I asked someone this question and he said Hideki Tojo was in charge, but Hirohito said Tojo was his loyal servant. Hirohito was seen by some as a wise ruler, but he only stop the war when he heard the Imperial family would be protected. He would continue if they didn't agree to protect him and not execute him as a war criminal. If you say Hirohito is innocent then in my opinion, you might as well be saying that Hitler was innocent of killing and what he did was justified.
    Those who can't change become extinct.

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor Amled's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 04
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,461
    Guilty as hell!
    Take the Japanese surrender as a case in point. It was only when the Emperor went on the radio and pronounced a surrender that the fighting stopped.
    Every member of the armed forces swore an oath of allegiance to him as the embodiment of Japan.
    His word was law. The Fuehrer Principe with religious overtones.
    As a small addendum, take a look at his attire.
    From the time of the ascendancy of the militarists in Japan, he was always dressed in a uniform. Was he forced to wear it, I for one doubt it?
    It was an oblique; an unspoken but highly visible, reminder to all who saw him as to whom he favoured...the military and their agenda.
    When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Hirehito was in on the war from the start. There were some key decisions that he've made, especially concerning China and Korea. He was guilty, no question, and not just because he was the Head of State.
    Could you be a little more specific regarding key decisions concerning China and Korea. Because if I remember correctly Hiro-hito was not emperor when Korea was annexed prior to the Great War. and even if he was in power when Korea was annexed, the reduction of Empire of Korea into vassalage is no different then the outcome of American-Spanish War, which yielded Philippines.

    As far as him being head of state, I think in my opinion that is quite irrelvent, considering the fact that Emanuel III, the head of state and king of Italy was in on the war and the expansion of influence of Italy at the expense of others. and willingly he bore upon his head the crown of king of Albania and the crown of emperor of Ethiopia. So i dont agree with you ... If I remember correctly even the consitutional monarch Edward VII of Great Britian at one point in a discussion with Lord Fisher sanctioned as pre-emptive strike against the German High Seas Fleet, prior to 1914. I think even in a hypotethical German victory in WWI and/or WWII, the victorious German would have never dared to try the British monarchs (heads of state) as war criminals. Again, another example would be kingdom of Romania, ruled by a weak consititutional monarch while governed by iron hand Antoniscu as premier. and yes, I am aware that these monarchs are constitutional monarch compared to demi-god of Japan. but neverthelss Hiro-hito did not rule, because personallity wise, he was not a ruler but someone who reigned.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by wkllaw View Post
    Hirohito was guilty, he did killed Chinese, Koreans and others because he wanted to further Japan's power and wanted the whole of south pacific to Japan. Hirohito knew of everything that was going on and he didn't care. I asked someone this question and he said Hideki Tojo was in charge, but Hirohito said Tojo was his loyal servant. Hirohito was seen by some as a wise ruler, but he only stop the war when he heard the Imperial family would be protected. He would continue if they didn't agree to protect him and not execute him as a war criminal. If you say Hirohito is innocent then in my opinion, you might as well be saying that Hitler was innocent of killing and what he did was justified.

    Then why, the king of Italy was not tried as war criminal as well. I have yet to meet someone who is WWII enthiaist, but that is aware that Italy was monarchy ruled by a king. In case of Japan, we could say that there was no one-guy like Mussoulini, but rather a shadow expansionist government with Tojo as its helm.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Amled View Post
    From the time of the ascendancy of the militarists in Japan, he was always dressed in a uniform. Was he forced to wear it, I for one doubt it?
    It was an oblique; an unspoken but highly visible, reminder to all who saw him as to whom he favoured...the military and their agenda.
    This is true in most monarchies, even the constitional ones. Again, i will bring up the example of king of Italy who willingly sat on the throne of Ethiopia and Albania, both conquered nations by force of arms. Why he was not tried as a criminal.

  10. #10
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Oh please! He had the power to surrender. He had power to declare war. He knew exactly what he was doing in both cases. And in neither case was a gun pointed to his head.

  11. #11
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    I have often wondered why only the losing side, in All Wars or Conflicts are charged with War crimes.
    See, there's a very important lesson to be learned here.

    DON'T LOSE THE WAR!!!

    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  12. #12
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Mar 07
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Hello friends, in light of several threads regarding war crims, I like to dedicate this thread on a single subject. Wether, you think the Emperor of Japan was a war criminal, not a war criminal, should have been prosecuted, was partialy responsbile, or that Emperor was not guilty but other Imperial family members should have been prosecuted.

    As we all know the Tokyo trial were generally meant to seperate the Imperial familly and the Generals and Admirals.
    War criminal? The term is relative. Was "Bomber" Harris a war criminal? Truman? Churchill wanted to use poison gas in WW2 but was overruled.

    Prosecuted? No, it was the price of keeping the peace and obtaining the cooperation of the Japanese people.

    Was he partially responsible? Yes. What does he have in his defence? A few couplets from a supposedly pacifist haiku questioning <why are the seas are so trubulent> ? In fact it was haiku from the meiji period condoning the march to war.
    "Just another brick in the wall."

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Oh please! He had the power to surrender. He had power to declare war. He knew exactly what he was doing in both cases. And in neither case was a gun pointed to his head.
    Comeon man, I am just being a fair judge pointing out the facts in a neutral way. There are some similiarties between Emanual III and Hiro-hito, and i just pointed them out, just for the sake of discussion.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    I have often wondered why only the losing side, in All Wars or Conflicts are charged with War crimes. In War"crimes" are commited on all sides. We fight in the best way to win...all's fair in love and war....Having said that the particular methods used by Japan and the brutality shown to civilians as well as servicemen goes beyond the call of Duty to the Emperor..GUILTY AS CHARGED
    The Japanese were extremely brutal, but if you are talking about Nanjing and Shanghai during their military strikes ... I will point out the fire-bombing of Tokyo and many other cities, that consumed and burned people alive .. they were both part of terror campaign aimed at terrorizing the population.

    The major difference is that, while the Japanese soldiers got their hands dirty by having games of whose going to be the first to cut open 100 Chinese open with their swords. The American airmen were harmfully just dropping without knowing the inferno that was unleashed beneath of them. Therefore, not getting their hands dirty.

    Ofcourse, I, as a human being, consider Japanese act in Nanging and Shanghai to be extremely barbaric then the US flame-war. But, if you step back and have a look in a fiar way, you will see that the barbarity and the ruthlessness of the two are the same. Now should Harry Truman/FDR be tried for unleashing hell upon Japan?? ... NO they should not. Therefore, Hiro-hito should not tried as well for the atrocities in China, no more than Harry Truman/FDR should be tried for the atrocities in Japan.

    Who should be tried?? .... the commanding officer of the Shangai Expeditionary Force. The person-in-charge who let that happen.

    Needless to say, a Chinese or an American will probably be extremely offended by my view. But that is to be fair. Had the Japanese won the war and had they tried Harry Truman as war criminal, then I would have offended them by telling them the samething in a Japanese forum, by letting them to know that their holy emperor is no less guilty as any US president. and yes they would be offended.

  15. #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Mar 07
    Location
    New York City or Hainan, China
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Then why, the king of Italy was not tried as war criminal as well. I have yet to meet someone who is WWII enthiaist, but that is aware that Italy was monarchy ruled by a king. In case of Japan, we could say that there was no one-guy like Mussoulini, but rather a shadow expansionist government with Tojo as its helm.
    The Japanese leadership in the military were incredibly loyal to Hirohito, they would not do anything that angers him. The Japanese saw Hirohito as their god and how would they do anything that displeases their god. You can't say the samthing about the Italian leadership.
    Those who can't change become extinct.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Could genocide happen again?
    By truhottgirl in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 16 Jan 08,, 16:27
  2. FBI: Violent crimes jump in first half of 2006
    By Julie in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19 Dec 06,, 02:22
  3. A War Crimes Tribunal May be the Only Deterrent to a Global War
    By SolveEtCoagula in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09 Aug 06,, 20:21
  4. Human rights group sues Rumsfeld for war crimes
    By Parihaka in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 23 Dec 04,, 01:07
  5. Bush, A War Criminal?
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17 Dec 04,, 19:45

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •