Hirohito - war criminal?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Marcel1975
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 Oct 2002 21:43

Hirohito - war criminal?

Post by Marcel1975 » 09 Nov 2002 01:02

[Moved from the Polls section]


One question which I still do not understand is that the allies had a great chance to put the one remaining Axis head of state responsible for millions of deaths on trial, and they didn't. Emperor Hirohito was 'pardoned' by Truman and his cronies.

Now some people say Hirohito as emperor was not directly responsible for starting the war. But it is no secret that Hirohito approved of the military's desire to establish an 'Empire of the Sun' in Asia. When Japan surrendered the emperor said the only reason for the impending surrender was that the war had not developed in their favor.

I believe Hirohito should have been tried and convicted as a war criminal. He may not have killed anyone himself but all atrocities committed by the Japanese army were committed in his name. He could have stopped them but didn't, instead he approved many war declarations including one from 1941 because he believed American demands were humiliating to Japan.

For 5 years the emperor had to 'answer to' the supreme commander of the allied forces, general Douglas MacArthur who ruled Japan as an enlightened despot.

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

Post by Miss Nimitz » 23 Dec 2002 02:37

No way was Hirohito a war criminal, a king of a country would have no idea what the soldiers on the ground are doing in war time, let alone the politicians, sometines even the commanders dont even know what the soldiers were doing.. Keeping Hirohito alive proved about the only good thing Truman did.

Lord Styphon
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 16 May 2002 04:09
Location: Houston, Texas, USA

Post by Lord Styphon » 23 Dec 2002 03:29

Political leaders aren't war criminals because of the actions of their troops; they are war criminals because of the policies they set that lead to criminal activities. Japan's political leaders set policy that allowed crimes, such as the Rape of Nanking, to be committed by Japanese troops.

The emperor had to know, in a general sense, what his soldiers were doing in his name. His advisors told him what they were doing. He supposedly had the power, as both an absolute monarch and a living god, to overrule them, but he never did.

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

Post by Miss Nimitz » 23 Dec 2002 04:32

Lord Styphin

''The emperor had to know, in a general sense,''

Well thats always the $64,000 question, I doubt Hitler knew what was going on in those camps as well, I have yet to see a picture of him near one.. SS did stuff that Hitler never knew, Just as the CIA do stuff the President has no idea about..

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

Post by Miss Nimitz » 23 Dec 2002 05:08

Same as was reported yesterday, that 3000 Afghani/Taliban were murdered by Northern Alliance troops as American soldiers just watched on...Does that make Bush a War Criminal? In Vietnam at Me Lai Captain Kelly killed hundreds of Vietnames civilians, was Nixon held accountable?
In war this stuff goes on..Same in the Balkans..Milosovich had nothing to do with war crimes..But the west will still find him guilty anyway even without evidence. Same in Iraq, day 24 and they still found nothing...still they cant wait to make war on him...

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 23 Dec 2002 07:59

Lord Styphon wrote:Political leaders aren't war criminals because of the actions of their troops; they are war criminals because of the policies they set that lead to criminal activities. Japan's political leaders set policy that allowed crimes, such as the Rape of Nanking, to be committed by Japanese troops.

The emperor had to know, in a general sense, what his soldiers were doing in his name. His advisors told him what they were doing. He supposedly had the power, as both an absolute monarch and a living god, to overrule them, but he never did.


His cousin was in charge of the army at Nanking. He knew everything that was going on.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 23 Dec 2002 20:14

There was a good documentary on the History Channel proving his involvement as well as multiple books on the subject.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Gyles
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 02 Dec 2002 16:01
Location: Surrey, UK

Post by Gyles » 24 Dec 2002 00:41

There are good grounds for convicting the man, but the guy like a Japanese Kaiser. He allowed his Generals to basically run the war for him as he became more and more inept as the time went by. Not too sure as to how much he actually knew and saw of his troops actions. IMO he's a war-criminal for making his people fight a hopeless unwinnable war and then extending their suffering in his name.

User avatar
Angelo
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 04:11
Location: Italy

Post by Angelo » 12 Jan 2003 09:33

If he knew of the atrocities committed by his "samurais" and he either
ordered them, or didn't do anything to stop them, why should he not be
considered a war criminal ?

Regards.

Angelo

User avatar
marauder4155
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 16:23
Location: India

Clash of Civs

Post by marauder4155 » 02 Mar 2003 19:32

Firstly I really think it is not right to try a leader of any nation as a war criminal however cruel they have been. Such a thing never happened in the earlier centuries. I think the Nazi leaders should heve been sent on exile on some island just like Nepolean Bonaparte.
Secondly Westerners have this view that the entire world views the world with the same liberal ideology as they do so. Being a non Westerner I must say that this is completely naive and dangerous (Especially with regards to the present conflict between Islam and the West). Firstly the Japanese had their own codes of conduct in wars which has evovled from their unique culture. The west has no right to dump their liberal Anglo-Saxon 'univerasalist humanist' feminist culture and ethics on other peoples. Thus Hiroshima might have had done his duty as an emprorer as he was supposed to as per as his civilization's ethics.

User avatar
marauder4155
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 16:23
Location: India

mistake in the last sentence

Post by marauder4155 » 02 Mar 2003 19:36

I meant his Imperial Majesty Emprorer of all Japan and its empire Hirohito instead of Hiroshima.

Emerson Begolly
Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 19:26
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Hirohito

Post by Emerson Begolly » 08 Mar 2003 04:38

I do not believe that Hirohito was a war criminal, there for I am glad he was not put on trial. His only job was to control Japan, not command the military or para-military groups. The soldiers who committed the alleged crimes should be the ones put on trial, not the generals and political officials. They were the people who chose to make the decisions that would get them put on trial.

Em.

CHRISCHA
Financial supporter
Posts: 2461
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 18:21
Location: England, Kent

Post by CHRISCHA » 09 Mar 2003 12:15

Undoubtably he should have been tried and then executed. To argue that he was unaware or not in the position to affect any aspect of Japans involvement in WW2 is pure nonsense. As head of state he had an obligation to repremand those responsible for actions unbecoming a supposedly honourable nation (the Japanese culture of honour is pure myth, and cannot be used to white wash the warcrimes of WW2). If he didn't act then he should equally have been tried for weakness and incompetence that led to the nations downfall. The people of Japan viewed Hirohito as a god of sorts, so he would have been heard and to not act is pure neglect. I am sure he was well aware of what was going on and condoned it. At least a trial would have perhaps had the effect of a representitive of Japan offering an apology to the victims of its regime. Consider the comparison to have found Keital and Jodl guilty and then hanged at Nremburg, for their part in making war.

User avatar
Achtung Panzer Buff
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 02 Mar 2003 06:38
Location: United States of America

Depends of if he had authority to influnced events.

Post by Achtung Panzer Buff » 10 Mar 2003 02:27

Hirohito was more or less a figure head as I understand it with the military, mainly the Army in control of the Japanese government. While Hirohito may have approved of an Empire of the Rising Sun, he may have had little or no power to influence the Army.

Based on what I know of I wouldn't favor a trial Hirohito because he seems to be nothing more than a spectator. Additional info could change my mind.

User avatar
Achtung Panzer Buff
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 02 Mar 2003 06:38
Location: United States of America

Re: Clash of Civs

Post by Achtung Panzer Buff » 10 Mar 2003 03:40

marauder4155 wrote:Firstly I really think it is not right to try a leader of any nation as a war criminal however cruel they have been. Such a thing never happened in the earlier centuries.


True in many cases the leaders were killed outright, held as slaves etc without benefit of a trial.

I think the Nazi leaders should heve been sent on exile on some island just like Nepolean Bonaparte.


I don't agree but we all have our opinion. I think the worst of the Nazi leaders deserved exactly what they had inflicted on the rest of the world.

Secondly Westerners have this view that the entire world views the world with the same liberal ideology as they do so.


Not all Westerners have a desire to inflict their view of the world on everyone else. Your stereotyping by making that statement/implying that all westerners wish this, which is unfair and untrue. If Westerners did want to do that the world would have become a very different place than it is today. For the most part for the last twenty years US policy has been to deal with the government of a country regardless of how horrific the government is toward it's own people. Clearly your statement is without merit.

Being a non Westerner I must say that this is completely naive and dangerous (Especially with regards to the present conflict between Islam and the West). .


Many see to want to turn this into a West vs Islam conflict but that's not what it is. I view the current conflict as civilization vs terrorist. My definition of civilization includes the all decent nations regardless of their religious flavor. As for Islam, I think people should be free to choose and worship as they wish regardless of religion. All people should have that choice. Currently, much of the world lacks this freedom. But that is another thread a not related to the topic at hand.

Firstly the Japanese had their own codes of conduct in wars which has evovled from their unique culture. .


Based on the reaction of the people the Japanese 'liberated' in WW2, the codes of conduct were most wanting when it human treatment of people. The Japanese were so horrible they turned Asia against them. This speaks well for their code of conduct. Ask the Chinese if you like...


The west has no right to dump their liberal Anglo-Saxon 'univerasalist humanist' feminist culture and ethics on other peoples.


I agree in spirit if that the west (nor anyone else) has no right to force it's values on others nations, provided the nation in question conducts itself in a civilized fashion. If a the government of a country activity massacres it's own people, commits genocide, or supports terror, then the government of that country has forfeit the some of it's right. In those cases, the West should meddle. Somalia and the former Yugoslavia comes to mind. The Ethnic Cleansing should have been stopped by the West with as much force as required. People deserve the right to choose their own fate, a mad dictator that murders and terrorizes his own people doesn't not deserve the right do decide their fate.

Thus Hiroshima might have had done his duty as an emprorer as he was supposed to as per as his civilization's ethics.


I think you mean Hirohito rather than Hiroshima. I don't think Hirohito should have been tried from what I've read. I think he did do his duty to Japan in WW2.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”