Who determined the terms of Japanese surrender / occupation?

World War II Japanese Military
#1

Due to my pre-internet (actually pre-televison) habit of reading a book now and again and contrary to the overriding influence I, and MacArthur, thought MacArthur had on the terms of the Japanese surrender and especially preservation of the Emperor, it appears that MacArthur didn’t pay much attention to the occupation of Japan until about August 1944 as he was still focused on the Philippines as the centre of his, and therefore the, universe, control of which, as the grand strategist and old Asia hand he asserted he was, would force Japan to surrender.

Retaining the Emperor was considered at various levels in Washington, independently of MacArthur, and notably in some papers by the State - War - Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC) http://www.crl.edu/node/4013 which appear, contrary to my previous understanding that it was MacArthur who championed preservation of the Emperor, to argue for preservation of the Emperor to assist governing occupied Japan. Alas, I can’t find any internet sources for relevant original SWNCC documents.

I did, however, find this interesting Japanese source which includes some Allied papers of interest. http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo/01shiryo.html

#2

@Rising Sun, Some very interesting objectives, but IMHO very logical. That’s a good find. Thanks for posting it. :slight_smile:

#3

…Retaining the Emperor was considered …

The link is linking to a library of documents…
Can you not highlight the lines that explicitly tell of this decision, and hopefully too, who and why were for or against retaining Hirohito (as opposed to his first born child ?) as emperor, instead of putting him on trials.

I never heard of the british or greek victims in the Mediterranean cursing the King of Italy, or of Mussolini idolising his King…yet wrt Japan in ww2 , on the battle fields and in the pow camps…it was a lot different…

So how come this incredible difference between what the US footsoldier felt and these US policy makers ??

(uh oh conspiracy, business makers…)

PS note worthy: it was with disbelief that I learned about, but was confirmed that the CEO of PHILIPS electronics in Eindhoven (being just liberated by the americans / Market Garden sept 1944) clamped one of the US officers and told him “why do you hit the japanese so hard ? they are really fine businessmen/people”.

#4

And where is it that you found this confirmation concerning the CEO of Philips Electronics. C’mon now, share the wealth.

#5

The essential differences are that the Emperor in Japan was a god descended from a long line of god emperors and re-created in greater force by the militarist / zaibatsu / imperialists from the 1920s onwards, and that Japan’s conduct was all in the service and name of the Emperor, while the Italian king was a figurehead sidelined by the Fascists who, unlike the Japanese Emperor, had the good sense to come to terms with the Allies before his nation was destroyed.

A further, and critical, difference is that the Italians never engaged in the consistently barbarous and pointlessly murderous conduct which typified the Japanese in their service of their Emperor everywhere they went, so the Italians never engendered in the Allies the well-founded contempt, disgust and hatred for the primitive and sadistic viciousness typical of the Japanese.

#6

Not sure what you mean.

The link is but one of many sources on this issue.

#7

Exactly, as much as that pleads for the italian King, you show how much Hirohito was at least to be trialed for his involvement directly and indirectly in all planned (and/or not interrupted) crimes against humanity by the Japanese.
Ergo, how come the Americans (me too , I thought it came from MacArthur principally) in washington decided to leave him off the hook ?

I have no time to roam through all those studies in your link, so I was hoping you have a fixed answer as to who was for keeping Hirohito and why…(already in 1944?).

I can only guess it is business interests more than anything else.
Hence my only link to that of Philips.

Wrt Philips…turns out not the CEO of Philips (fled to USA in 1940) but his representative and family member: Frits Philips. Who managed to keep some jews out of the hands of the germans (on one hand), yet seemed to be oblivious to the atrocities of the Japanese in the east.
I found it a year ago on a link about Market Garden about the memoirs of a American service man liberating Eindhoven in sept 1944.
But I can’t find it anymore…I had the link on a message on a ww2 british forum (ww2talk) where I am kicked out (because of a feud with someone, I guess).

#8

The decision to leave the Emperor on his throne was, presumably, a pragmatic one, designed to facilitate the orderly reconstruction of Japan, particularly in the occupation period. Unfortunately, perhaps, it had implications for Japan in the longer term - the sort of political reconstruction that occurred, for example, in West Germany did not happen in Japan, which emerged as a demilitarized state retaining many of the structures and values of prewar Japan. In this context, it is not surprising that the new Japan has difficulties in dealing with the negative aspects of its wartime record. Nor is it particularly surprising that militarism, at least in a small way, is re-emerging as a political issue. Hard at this stage to say whether the road taken in 1945 was the right one. We are stuck with the consequences, now. Best regards, JR.

#9

Terribly sorry, old chap, bit short of time myself, especially trying to produce a fixed answer to an unclear history.

#10

Basically what JR said is what I have read. Keeping the Emperor just helped the reconstruction of Japan to a democratic country go much smoother. As far as I could see it went smoother for MaCarthur keeping the Emperor but I believe the Emperor did know he was not the top dog as Macarthur was. Ron