MacArthur puts Hirohito on trial for war crimes

In OTL, the prime concern of the Japanese leadership in Aug 1945 was preserving the Imperial Throne. So much so that even though they had already seen one city disappear in a mushroom cloud, they dithered until another city was vapourized and a Soviet offensive forced their hand.

MacArthur, perhaps fearing and a counter-insurgency against Allied occupation, gave Emperor Hirohito a "get out of jail free" card and proceeded to airbrush his involvement out of the war record. MacArthur hoped to use him as a figurehead to control the Japanese population and assist his rebuilding program. In a sense, that plan worked.

But it worked at the expense of justice being properly served and I wonder if another way was possible.

MacArthur should have insisted that Hirohito abdicate from the throne and pass it to another family member (one with clean or "cleaner" hands).
Hirohito should have been made to answer for his involvement in the crimes of his army/navy officers who answered to him, after all.

What would the likely impact of this ATL be?
 
In OTL, the prime concern of the Japanese leadership in Aug 1945 was preserving the Imperial Throne. So much so that even though they had already seen one city disappear in a mushroom cloud, they dithered until another city was vapourized and a Soviet offensive forced their hand.

MacArthur, perhaps fearing and a counter-insurgency against Allied occupation, gave Emperor Hirohito a "get out of jail free" card and proceeded to airbrush his involvement out of the war record. MacArthur hoped to use him as a figurehead to control the Japanese population and assist his rebuilding program. In a sense, that plan worked.

But it worked at the expense of justice being properly served and I wonder if another way was possible.

MacArthur should have insisted that Hirohito abdicate from the throne and pass it to another family member (one with clean or "cleaner" hands).
Hirohito should have been made to answer for his involvement in the crimes of his army/navy officers who answered to him, after all.

What would the likely impact of this ATL be?


Operation Downfall and over 200'000 extra american Dead and not including wounded
 

The Sandman

Banned
Minimal. I'd need to break out my copy of Embracing Defeat to be sure, but IIRC the Japanese actually expected that Hirohito was likely to be forced to abdicate at minimum, and possibly put on trial, as the price for retaining the rest of the Imperial system.
 

Cook

Banned
I wonder if another way was possible.
Absolutely; the entire regime including the Imperial household had been thoroughly discredited by the war, so much so that MacArthur’s administration had to work very hard to rehabilitate the Imperial image (including of course the supressing of evidence linking him to war the decisions made in the war and war crimes in particular, as you mentioned.) There was the very real possibility of a Japanese republic after the war.

MacArthur’s amnesty of the Emperor was done entirely without consultation with Washington or with America’s allies and is just a further example of the irresponsibility and insubordination that was a feature of his career. MacArthur believed from the Russo-Japanese War onwards that ‘only he knew the oriental mind’ and nothing ever persuaded him otherwise; not even having his command in the Philippines defeated by an inferior force did anything to shake his arrogance.

The Emperor fully expected to be put on trial and found guilty; following his radio broadcast accepting complete and unconditional surrender he considered committing seppuku to apologise to the Japanese nation but was talked out of it by his household; several members of his war council took on the duty instead.

With the trial and execution of the Emperor, and adoption of a republican constitution, a Japan that resembled West Germany would be more likely; one that accepted its responsibility for World War Two and whose relationship with its neighbours was better as a consequence.
 
With the trial and execution of the Emperor, and adoption of a republican constitution, a Japan that resembled West Germany would be more likely; one that accepted its responsibility for World War Two and whose relationship with its neighbours was better as a consequence.

It wouldn't even have been necessary to abolish the position of Emperor.
Hirohito could have abdicated in favor of a Regent for his son Akihito (who was 11 years old).
 
It wouldn't even have been necessary to abolish the position of Emperor.
Hirohito could have abdicated in favor of a Regent for his son Akihito (who was 11 years old).

True, but if the Emperor was tried and executed, then the Japanese may lose faith in the system of Monarchy.
 
True, but if the Emperor was tried and executed, then the Japanese may lose faith in the system of Monarchy.

Hence my point.
That he be asked to abdicate from the role BEFORE facing trial.

btw
It doesnt necessarily follow that conviction would lead to execution.
He might have been simply exiled to Okinawa or somewhere similar that
the Allies could keep an eye on him indefinitely.
 
Hence my point.
That he be asked to abdicate from the role BEFORE facing trial.

btw
It doesnt necessarily follow that conviction would lead to execution.
He might have been simply exiled to Okinawa or somewhere similar that
the Allies could keep an eye on him indefinitely.

1. The crimes that were committed during the Japanese Emperor's reign would most likely shaken the faith the Japanese had in the system (not as much as i previously thought, though).

2. Exile isn't exactly a punishment. I think it is a given that he is either executed or jailed if found guilty.
 
What could be very interesting with passing the royal family over could be tracing waaaaay back in history and passing between the northern and southern courts.
I recall reading a piece a few months ago about a normal Japanese guy who happens to be first in line according to the other court's line of succession.


Anyway. Should the emperor be put on trial it is likely he would be found innocent or at least only slightly responsible. Aside that he didn't actually have much to do with anything you would find a lot of people willing to step forward, truthfully or not, to say "This thing you say the emperor did- err....that was me".
 
1. The crimes that were committed during the Japanese Emperor's reign would most likely shaken the faith the Japanese had in the system (not as much as i previously thought, though).

So be it. I don't think that needs to even be a factor. The Japanese ultimately can decide what form of government they want.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a monarchical system of government. Lots of (peaceful) countries have had such systems for centuries
e.g. UK, Netherlands, Thailand.

2. Exile isn't exactly a punishment.
Agreed.
I'm just saying that rather than letting Hirohito walk completely, its an option on the table.
Could have been used as a diminished sentence if he plea bargained AND testified against all the Japanese top brass etc.
 
Last edited:
Without getting in to whether or not Hirohito ought to have been executed as war criminal, had he even been tried it would have caused some serious problems. In 1945 most Japanese still deeply believed in the divine origins of the Emperor. Only he could say the word that would cause the military to give up, which is why those who tried to prevent this had to get the surrender recording and the emperor - they worked on the basis that he had been poorly advised/deceived.

Seeing the emperor in the dock as a criminal would have been much more disturbing to the Japanese psyche and social order than the actual surrender. Also don't forget that the Japanese were extremely cooperative with Mac & the occupation authorities because it was the "emperor's will".

The evolution of Japanese society from the sort of veneration of the emperor in 1945 to what we see today as a constitutional monarchy (still probably the one most respecting the person of the monarch) took time - and could not happen overnight.

A potential "win-win" scenario would be Hirohito being informed he'd be tried, and probably convicted/executed or jailed etc. HOWEVER committing honorable seppuku to apologize to the Japanese people and seek forgiveness from the Gods will be allowed - and this will give legitimacy to Akihito and allow for time for the transition outlined above. Another consideration was that Mac and others feared if the Japanese social system was overturned too quickly and with that sort of shock you'd see the communists take over...
 
As a Chinese receiving education on history in Hong Kong, but with one eighth of Japanese blood, I would still argue that it remains difficult to prove the responsibilities of Emperor Hirohito during the war. I have never been an apologist of war crimes committed by the Imperial Army, but to say that the Emperor should be held responsible would've doubtful. The Japanese Emperor was given so-called strong power and authority since the 1868 restoration, but his power was exercised by the Meiji oligarchy, later the genro. The emperor, after all, was just a symbolic figurehead.

Before the death of Kinmochi Saionji in 1940, as the remaining genro in a new era, Emperor Hirohito indeed appointed every Prime Minister on the advice of Saionji. From 1928 to 1932, Saionji would recommend the majority party leader or the one who could command a House of Representatives majority to become Prime Minister. In case the party government fell, he would invite the opposition party leader to become Prime Minister, and advise the Emperor to call for an early election as soon as possible (every government fell apart from 1928 to 1932). Then, it was Saionji's decision that parties and civilian control no longer worked after the infamous May 15th Incident, so that the Emperor should no longer appoint the majority party leader, leading to outrage and backfire from the traditionally reliable Seiyukai establishment.

Saionji himself would be targeted in the February 26th coup attempt, the emperor's opposition to the coup was also a direct result of Saionji's strong dislike of the totally insane Imperial Way Faction that would have led Japan to the path of destructions. Did the Emperor have power to stay no? Technically yes, but he had never said no to a genro ever since the late 19th century. Unrelated to the war, since many would agree that for one day Saionji was alive, Japan would never try to bomb thr Pearl Harbor, this is to show that the Emperor did not really have a say.

After the death of Saionji, the last check of the Emperor's power was gone, but it was indeed just a check of army and navy power, because power did not exist at all on the hands of the Emperor. When you look at historical documents like the Emperor's journal or diaries, as late as in 1940, the Emperor had doubts if Japan could really win such a war, though he would at one time become a little bit more optimistic.

Who was in charge from 1940 until 1945? It was not the rule of a single person. You cannot even possibly say Hideki Tojo was behind, because the Army and the Navy as a whole ruled as a joint leadership, where the Emperor would just have been informed. To say Hirohito should be held responsible for war crimes, would be like accusing King Victor Emmanuel III to be a war criminal. Japan was under the rule of a junta ruling in the name of the Emperor. A monarch normally should not intervene no matter who's in power, what he had to do was to accept the decision made by the ruling junta - that he was Head of State did not mean that he should be held responsible.

As for the monarchy question, if the monarchy was to be abolished and Hirohito tried, expect Japan to become a failed state that would not ever rebound even with the Korean War. Open revolt or even assassination attemp against the collaborators or SCAP leaders including General MacArthur would likely have taken place. If anyone at the time believed that the Imperial Household has lost credibility, it would be easy to have a referendum on this topic, and the monarchy would be kept by comfortable margins, if not a landslide. Without the Emperor's symbolic existence, the SCAP would have been a total failure. Competent civilian leaders like Shigeru Yoshida may have been assassinated in a wave of assassinations much serious than what we saw in the early 1930s.

So how about the abdication of Emperor Hirohito? It would not work at all. A new Emperor would not have given MacArthur the cooperation and support of the Japanese people. If Hirohito was to be tried, the trial itself would create extreme reactions from nationalists to reactionaries across Japan. That means, what we see now is already the best possible way to deal with issues, like it or not.

The Emperor committing suicide would not work as well. You may well have prevented a wave of assassinations, but many in the elite class would feel bounded to commit suicide likewise, or to lose all hope instead of wanting to cooperate with the Americans. The transition process would be equally painful. Expect the suicide of a fifteenth of the population, and a deeply divided society impossible to be governed.
 
Last edited:
Japan was under the rule of a junta ruling in the name of the Emperor. A monarch normally should not intervene no matter who's in power, what he had to do was to accept the decision made by the ruling junta - that he was Head of State did not mean that he should be held responsible.

Totally disagree.

Every major decision of the war (indeed the decision to end the war) was made as part of a "war cabinet" which included Hirohito.
All decisions were made in his name and he could have refused to accept the advice of the war cabinet at any time.
There are plenty of documented examples were he did in fact do that, so to say that Hirohito was a mere rubber stamp
is factually wrong.

At the very least, he had a case to answer.
 
Top