3 ms·

Interesting read, but there is something a little odd about an article that describes Emperor Hirohito as "merely a figurehead" but later casually mentions that

Interesting read, but there is something a little odd about an article that describes Emperor Hirohito as "merely a figurehead" but later casually mentions that Hirohito had the power to surprise General Tojo by naming him prime minister and spends a good deal of time talking about how Hirohito could have potentially prevented the war due to how much influence he had.

powera 11y ago
The article appears to be of the belief that literally nothing the Japanese government could have said or done was a sign they wanted war.
- mcguire 11y ago
  The article appears to be of the belief that no one in the Japanese government wanted war but they were all bumbling fools who couldn't say they didn't want war.
  - rangibaby 11y ago
    The anti-war faction weren't bumbling fools, but the decision was made and that was that. Konoye killed himself rather than lie to exonerate the emperor in the post-war kangaroo court.
    - hga 11y ago
      The members of the anti-war faction knew bloody well that if they made too much of a fuss about it they would be assassinated. Perhaps the object lesson to learn from the Pacific War is that it's beyond insane to allow a culture of acceptable political assassination to develop in your system. See also how the Nazis were tacitly supported in their street battles etc. with the Communists et. al.
  - scurvy 11y ago
    They wanted to go to war, just not against the US. They very much thought that they were racially superior to other Asians and would easily dominate them in battle.
rangibaby 11y ago
The "merely a figurehead" part is post-war propaganda. Too bad that it's verboten to discuss in Japan.
hga 11y ago
It's really complicated. Many centuries before the Emperor had became a token, if you held him (I think it was all men by then), that helped your case for legitimacy. The Emperor got a bit of a rehabilitation in the downfall of the Tokugawa Shogunate ("military government"), the other side rallied around the name of the Emperor, and I guess he was given something of a position in the following fatally flawed constitution; things were so fluid then any strong man could make a difference. Fatally flawed in that you couldn't form a government without a member each from the Army and Navy, and the Army abused this. Plus in the 20s or so a culture of acceptable political assassination developed. In this context, I'm sure Hirohito, who would have much rather focused on marine biology, knew very well something unpleasant would happen to him if he didn't go along with the ultranationalists, there's way too much old and new Japanese history telling him exactly that. I seriously doubt he could have prevented the war, especially since the genesis was so long in forming, e.g. without their depredations in China stretching back years, and of course the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, it's very unlikely things would have come to a head like they did. And why not go back to their turn of the century war with Russia and occupation of Korea? Not all that many people are upset with the former, even today, although it helped set the stage for the Bolsheviks and most of the bloodletting of the 20th Century. Repeating a bit about what I've read especially in Hell to Pay (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685585), while we can debate his being able to influence things earlier, we, the peoples of East Asia, etc. can be very thankful that he was able to throw his weight behind surrender after the two bombs and the Soviet entry in the war, in a situation where the cabinet was still bloody minded enough to stay the course. And I'm not so sure they wouldn't have "won", they were quite willing to sacrifice 20 million of their own people in the process, a mere 1/5-1/4th. Counterfactuals to that could include Hirohito trying earlier and being replaced by a pliable Emperor who wouldn't have dared try or have had the stature to make that utterly critical move when it most counted.

powera 11y ago

The article appears to be of the belief that literally nothing the Japanese government could have said or done was a sign they wanted war.

mcguire 11y ago
The article appears to be of the belief that no one in the Japanese government wanted war but they were all bumbling fools who couldn't say they didn't want war.
- rangibaby 11y ago
  The anti-war faction weren't bumbling fools, but the decision was made and that was that. Konoye killed himself rather than lie to exonerate the emperor in the post-war kangaroo court.
  - hga 11y ago
    The members of the anti-war faction knew bloody well that if they made too much of a fuss about it they would be assassinated. Perhaps the object lesson to learn from the Pacific War is that it's beyond insane to allow a culture of acceptable political assassination to develop in your system. See also how the Nazis were tacitly supported in their street battles etc. with the Communists et. al.
- scurvy 11y ago
  They wanted to go to war, just not against the US. They very much thought that they were racially superior to other Asians and would easily dominate them in battle.

rangibaby 11y ago

The "merely a figurehead" part is post-war propaganda. Too bad that it's verboten to discuss in Japan.

hga 11y ago

It's really complicated. Many centuries before the Emperor had became a token, if you held him (I think it was all men by then), that helped your case for legitimacy. The Emperor got a bit of a rehabilitation in the downfall of the Tokugawa Shogunate ("military government"), the other side rallied around the name of the Emperor, and I guess he was given something of a position in the following fatally flawed constitution; things were so fluid then any strong man could make a difference. Fatally flawed in that you couldn't form a government without a member each from the Army and Navy, and the Army abused this. Plus in the 20s or so a culture of acceptable political assassination developed. In this context, I'm sure Hirohito, who would have much rather focused on marine biology, knew very well something unpleasant would happen to him if he didn't go along with the ultranationalists, there's way too much old and new Japanese history telling him exactly that. I seriously doubt he could have prevented the war, especially since the genesis was so long in forming, e.g. without their depredations in China stretching back years, and of course the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, it's very unlikely things would have come to a head like they did. And why not go back to their turn of the century war with Russia and occupation of Korea? Not all that many people are upset with the former, even today, although it helped set the stage for the Bolsheviks and most of the bloodletting of the 20th Century. Repeating a bit about what I've read especially in Hell to Pay (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10685585), while we can debate his being able to influence things earlier, we, the peoples of East Asia, etc. can be very thankful that he was able to throw his weight behind surrender after the two bombs and the Soviet entry in the war, in a situation where the cabinet was still bloody minded enough to stay the course. And I'm not so sure they wouldn't have "won", they were quite willing to sacrifice 20 million of their own people in the process, a mere 1/5-1/4th. Counterfactuals to that could include Hirohito trying earlier and being replaced by a pliable Emperor who wouldn't have dared try or have had the stature to make that utterly critical move when it most counted.