Why Was Hirohito Not Prosecuted After World War II?
After the Second World War, the Allied victorious powers intended to hold the Japanese leadership accountable for their actions. However, a key figure in the Japanese government, Emperor Hirohito, was not prosecuted. This article explores the reasons behind this decision and the broader context that influenced it.
The Context of Post-War Occupation
Following the war, the Emperor's role became pivotal for the stability of the occupied Japan. The American military government led by General Douglas MacArthur viewed Hirohito as a figurehead who could help maintain domestic tranquility.
There were several reasons for this approach:
To Prevent Another War: Maintaining a unified and peaceful Japan was crucial to prevent the country from again embarking on a militaristic path. Public Sentiment: Hirohito was deeply loved by the Japanese people, particularly among the lower and middle classes. Dismissing him would have risked widespread anger and unrest. Post-Colonial Support: Allowing the presence of American bases and the potential of nuclear deployments would have been easier if the Emperor was retained, as it maintained a sense of continuity and cooperation.The Lack of Precedent for Prosecuting the Emperor
Historically, there was no precedent for prosecuting a reigning monarch for war crimes. During World War I, neither Germany nor Japan saw their monarchs prosecuted for the conflict. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles therefore set a precedent that would influence the Allies' approach to Japan.
Here are some key points regarding the lack of precedent:
No Presidential Accountability in Germany: After World War I, there was no president to hold accountable for the actions of the German military, leading to the absence of war crime trials. Japan's Role During WWI: Japan's involvement in World War I was limited, and there were no significant acts of aggression that would have warranted prosecution of the Emperor. To Avoid Unrest in Japan: Prosecuting the Emperor could have led to widespread protests and unrest, making it a less desirable course of action.Historical Interpretation: A Misinterpretation of Double Negatives
The question posed, "Why wasnt the Japanese emperor and his high command not brought to trial and hung for Pearl Harbor and countless atrocities," contains a double negative, which can be confusing. Let's break it down:
The phrase "Why wasnt the Japanese emperor and his high command not brought to trial" is equivalent to saying "Why wasn't the Japanese emperor and his high command brought to trial," which is a positive statement. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the question is:
Why was the Japanese emperor and his high command not brought to trial for Pearl Harbor and countless atrocities?
The answer is that the Japanese emperor, specifically Hirohito, was not brought to trial for the attack on Pearl Harbor or any of the various atrocities committed during the war. The Allied victors focused on prosecuting key political and military leaders of the time, rather than the Emperor himself.
Conclusion: While other key figures were tried, the Emperor was spared from prosecution due to various strategic, political, and public considerations. This decision has been a subject of historical debate and continues to be an area of inquiry for scholars and historians.