5 ms·

His father, Emperor Hirohito was also a marine biologist. How much better would the 21st century have been if he indulged that career rather then emperor of Jap

His father, Emperor Hirohito was also a marine biologist. How much better would the 21st century have been if he indulged that career rather then emperor of Japan during Japan's actions in China and world war 2... At best, he failed to reign in the military, at worst, he was the warlord of the worst butchers of the modern era. Members who served him talked about how Biology was his real passion.

dreamcompiler 8y ago
Attacking Pearl Harbor wasn't his idea. His generals were power-mad assholes and his ability to check them was limited.
- InTheArena 8y ago
  But they were the action of his government that supposedly valued fidelity to the emperor above all. He also choose Tojo for his prime minister. The post war story that this was to keep him in check, by making him in charge of everything seems... convenient. There is no doubt that the military is out of control, but he was the one individual that could have , but did not, bring them back under control.
  - khuey 8y ago
    He could have tried harder. It's less clear that he could have succeeded. Remember that there was a coup attempt after he ordered the surrender when the war was completely lost.
  - vertline3 8y ago
    I think Japan's emperor is a lot different than an emperor in traditional usage. I think they are descendants of the Sun God and they are not involved in day to day affairs of men.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      That has been a standard model of kingship for all of recorded history. I'll quote at length from the excellent https://www.amazon.com/dp/1780747411/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1780747411/ : > As mentioned before, the king was widely regarded as a link between the divine and the human worlds. He might be a god himself, or descended from one, or simply appointed by the deity, but at all events he was expected to use his 'divine effulgence' (as the Persians called it) or his Heil (as the Germanic barbarians called it) for the benefit of the community: this was the crucial manner in which he promoted welfare. He was expected to maintain and embody the law in the sense of cosmic, natural and human order, partly by acting as the symbolic head of the community and partly by observing the right ways and setting a good example. If he did so, happiness and prosperity would ensue. > Such ideas are widely attested for primitive societies, but they displayed an amazing tenacity under civilized conditions, being attested for ancient Egypt, China, Japan, South-East Asia (where some kings had no other functions), India, Iran, the Islamic world (in both the concept of the caliphate and that of kingship), as well as the Hellenistic world and Europe. If the king was just, rain would fall; if he was not, famine, flood and other natural disasters would ensue. Natural disasters were thus blamed on the king: they proved that he had misbehaved. Under a good king, 'vices decrease and virtues increase... the world becomes prosperous and joyous', as the Zoroastrians explained; but 'when kings are unjust, even sugar and salt lose their flavour', as the Indians put it. If no king existed, both the natural and the human order would dissolve and chaos would prevail: a country without a king enjoyed 'neither rain nor seed, neither wealth nor wife, neither sacrifices nor festivals', according to the Ramayana; people suffered illness, customs ceased to exist and all was nothingness according to Malay literature. It is for this reason that the sixteenth-century Burmese king laughed at the idea of a kingless Venice; and it is for the same reason that the British abolition of the Burmese monarchy in 1886 was a catastrophic shock to the Burmese which the British had not anticipated. > Ritual kingship (as this role is commonly called) might require no action at all: the Japanese emperors performed it for over a thousand years by simply existing, being kept in such ceremonious inactivity that when one of them made a bid for real power he could scarcely even walk. Most rulers, however, combined their ritual role with co-ordinating and warlike functions which tended to transform or eclipse it, while at the same time the development of specialized religious institutions changed their standing vis-à-vis the divine. (Posted as three quotes to mirror the two paragraph breaks within the section I wanted to quote. I have not omitted or altered any text within the quoted section.) Note also that this is the current function of the Queen of England.
- Animats 8y ago
  Read "Japan's Longest Day" (the book, not the movie) [1] which is a serious attempt to reconstruct in detail the events leading up to the decision to surrender. Nobody was really in charge. The civilian government didn't control the military. (See "May 15 Incident" for why.) The army and navy didn't get along and had no unified command. The Emperor was respected but mostly an isolated figurehead. The decision making process, which the book describes in detail, makes the current US administration look well-organized. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Japans-Longest-Pacific-Research-Society/dp/4770028873 https://www.amazon.com/Japans-Longest-Pacific-Research-Socie...
  - dreamcompiler 8y ago
    Don't know that book but will read it. "The Fall of Japan" by William Craig is also excellent, and it confirms everything you wrote above. One of the strangest episodes was that the generals didn't want to surrender even after the atomic bombs fell. Only the Emperor's personal intervention caused the surrender to happen.
  - Aeolun 8y ago
    If it’s anything like the culture here now, once the Emperor made his proclamation everyone else breathed a collective sign of relief that it wasn’t on them anymore.
vkou 8y ago
The pre-WW2 world was firmly colonial, and Japan's imperialistic ambitions in the first half of the 20th century were not particularly out of place, or unusual. Why was he expected to 'reign in the military', while other colonial nations got a free pass on this account? Was it because his country came out on the losing side in the conflict?
- Aeolun 8y ago
  I guess it might be because Japan started it’s colonialism relatively late. By the time Japan started, the British Raj was already on it’s way out.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  > Was it because his country came out on the losing side in the conflict? Essentially, yes. Once it became clear that Japan was a strong regional power the UK and (especially) US began treating it poorly, which was a major cause of the civilian government losing prestige and power to the military.
bachbach 8y ago
I hope you're not an American.
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN into flamewars by re-fighting WWII. Of all things. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dreamcompiler 8y ago

Attacking Pearl Harbor wasn't his idea. His generals were power-mad assholes and his ability to check them was limited.

InTheArena 8y ago
But they were the action of his government that supposedly valued fidelity to the emperor above all. He also choose Tojo for his prime minister. The post war story that this was to keep him in check, by making him in charge of everything seems... convenient. There is no doubt that the military is out of control, but he was the one individual that could have , but did not, bring them back under control.
- khuey 8y ago
  He could have tried harder. It's less clear that he could have succeeded. Remember that there was a coup attempt after he ordered the surrender when the war was completely lost.
- vertline3 8y ago
  I think Japan's emperor is a lot different than an emperor in traditional usage. I think they are descendants of the Sun God and they are not involved in day to day affairs of men.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    That has been a standard model of kingship for all of recorded history. I'll quote at length from the excellent https://www.amazon.com/dp/1780747411/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1780747411/ : > As mentioned before, the king was widely regarded as a link between the divine and the human worlds. He might be a god himself, or descended from one, or simply appointed by the deity, but at all events he was expected to use his 'divine effulgence' (as the Persians called it) or his Heil (as the Germanic barbarians called it) for the benefit of the community: this was the crucial manner in which he promoted welfare. He was expected to maintain and embody the law in the sense of cosmic, natural and human order, partly by acting as the symbolic head of the community and partly by observing the right ways and setting a good example. If he did so, happiness and prosperity would ensue. > Such ideas are widely attested for primitive societies, but they displayed an amazing tenacity under civilized conditions, being attested for ancient Egypt, China, Japan, South-East Asia (where some kings had no other functions), India, Iran, the Islamic world (in both the concept of the caliphate and that of kingship), as well as the Hellenistic world and Europe. If the king was just, rain would fall; if he was not, famine, flood and other natural disasters would ensue. Natural disasters were thus blamed on the king: they proved that he had misbehaved. Under a good king, 'vices decrease and virtues increase... the world becomes prosperous and joyous', as the Zoroastrians explained; but 'when kings are unjust, even sugar and salt lose their flavour', as the Indians put it. If no king existed, both the natural and the human order would dissolve and chaos would prevail: a country without a king enjoyed 'neither rain nor seed, neither wealth nor wife, neither sacrifices nor festivals', according to the Ramayana; people suffered illness, customs ceased to exist and all was nothingness according to Malay literature. It is for this reason that the sixteenth-century Burmese king laughed at the idea of a kingless Venice; and it is for the same reason that the British abolition of the Burmese monarchy in 1886 was a catastrophic shock to the Burmese which the British had not anticipated. > Ritual kingship (as this role is commonly called) might require no action at all: the Japanese emperors performed it for over a thousand years by simply existing, being kept in such ceremonious inactivity that when one of them made a bid for real power he could scarcely even walk. Most rulers, however, combined their ritual role with co-ordinating and warlike functions which tended to transform or eclipse it, while at the same time the development of specialized religious institutions changed their standing vis-à-vis the divine. (Posted as three quotes to mirror the two paragraph breaks within the section I wanted to quote. I have not omitted or altered any text within the quoted section.) Note also that this is the current function of the Queen of England.
Animats 8y ago
Read "Japan's Longest Day" (the book, not the movie) [1] which is a serious attempt to reconstruct in detail the events leading up to the decision to surrender. Nobody was really in charge. The civilian government didn't control the military. (See "May 15 Incident" for why.) The army and navy didn't get along and had no unified command. The Emperor was respected but mostly an isolated figurehead. The decision making process, which the book describes in detail, makes the current US administration look well-organized. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Japans-Longest-Pacific-Research-Society/dp/4770028873 https://www.amazon.com/Japans-Longest-Pacific-Research-Socie...
- dreamcompiler 8y ago
  Don't know that book but will read it. "The Fall of Japan" by William Craig is also excellent, and it confirms everything you wrote above. One of the strangest episodes was that the generals didn't want to surrender even after the atomic bombs fell. Only the Emperor's personal intervention caused the surrender to happen.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  If it’s anything like the culture here now, once the Emperor made his proclamation everyone else breathed a collective sign of relief that it wasn’t on them anymore.

vkou 8y ago

The pre-WW2 world was firmly colonial, and Japan's imperialistic ambitions in the first half of the 20th century were not particularly out of place, or unusual. Why was he expected to 'reign in the military', while other colonial nations got a free pass on this account? Was it because his country came out on the losing side in the conflict?

Aeolun 8y ago
I guess it might be because Japan started it’s colonialism relatively late. By the time Japan started, the British Raj was already on it’s way out.
rangibaby 8y ago
> Was it because his country came out on the losing side in the conflict? Essentially, yes. Once it became clear that Japan was a strong regional power the UK and (especially) US began treating it poorly, which was a major cause of the civilian government losing prestige and power to the military.

bachbach 8y ago

I hope you're not an American.

dang 8y ago

Please don't take HN into flamewars by re-fighting WWII. Of all things. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html