LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteHirehito 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.
Emperor was completely guilty as head of state
Emperor was not guilty as all
Emperor should have been prosecuted, but was up to the Court to decide the extent of his guilt
Emperor was blameless, but other member of Imperial Familly were guilty
General Matsui was wrongfully executed to coverup
Regardless both Matsui and the Prince were guilty
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.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
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.
Chimo
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 CHARGEDOriginally Posted by Officer of Engineers
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
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.
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
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.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
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.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
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.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
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.
Chimo
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.
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."
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.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
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.
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: