![]() |
As a student of East Asia, I fully understand why the Allies (meaning the U.S.) decided to keep Emperor Hirohito on the Chrysanthemum Throne. It was the correct decision at the time. Had the U.S. not made it abundantly clear to Japan at the Potsdam conference and afterwards that the Emperor's position was secure, then Japan would not have surrendered. The entire country would have become what Donald Rumsfeld referred to in Iraq as "dead-enders". Atomic bombs, starvation and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Korea would have made no difference to the Japanese government. Preserving the monarchy was the fig leaf that gave Hirohito himself and the peace faction in the cabinet and the palace the ability to surrender. As it was, because of the Emperor's cooperation, the Japanese surrender and subsequent occupation were remarkably orderly.
Nevertheless, Hirohito's survival as Emperor into the 1980's warped Japanese perception of the war. Suspend disbelief a moment and imagine if the Allies in Europe had stopped short of unconditional surrender with the Germans. Imagine Karl Donitz staying on as Chancellor of West Germany. Let's suppose that a few token Nazis, say Herman Goering, were served-up to a war crimes tribunal, but Albert Speer and the rest were blacklisted for a couple of years and then rehabilitated. Would Germans today have any sense of responsibility for starting a war with the rest of the world? No. The German attitude would be that Germany was forced into war because of the machinations of the British, French and Soviets. (In private they would also blame the Jews). The war would be portrayed as a catastrophic mistake on the part of Germany. You know- a "poor choice" as we say today, not a crime. Death camps would be portrayed as anti-German propaganda. Sure there were German excesses, they would say, but terrible things happen in war. The new German state would hardly be expected to be forthright in educating young Germans about the war. In fact, they might not be taught about the war at all - except to highlight the suffering of the German people at the hands of the Allies. All because of a policy mistake, they would say. It could happen to anyone. Going through this counter-factual exercise will give you an idea of Japan's position today regarding the war and why they hold it.
The reality is that Germany and Italy were intellectually changed after the war. The results were apparent in the presentations of the international scholars from other former Axis powers at the forum - two Germans and an Italian. The German professors were uncompromising about the evil nature of what the Germans were trying to achieve - even apart from genocide. They also refused to let the Wehrmacht, the regular German army, off the hook and blame everything on the S.S. and the Nazi Party. They forcefully pointed out that the Wehrmacht had primary responsibility for governing most German-occupied territory and wholeheartedly implemented Hitler's policies. The Italian professor kept returning to the evil nature of the Fascist and Nazi regimes. He admonished us to remember the twisted logic and ideology of those who signed the Tripartite Pact ("the Axis" powers). The treaty fundamentally did not work as an effective alliance because the three governments involved were fascist dictatorships.
The last point is the most important. Most Japanese simply can not accept the fact that from 1931 or so onwards, Japan was essentially a fascist state. Japan was not an innocent who had fallen in with a bad crowd. Japan WAS the bad crowd! Adolf Hitler's Germany did not annex the Sudetenland until 1938 - seven years after Japan invaded Manchuria and one year after Japan invaded China proper. Mussolini's Italy didn't invade Ethiopia until 1935.
The Japanese scholars all gave excellent presentations, but missed this central point. The reason for joining the Tripartite Pact was to end the "China Incident" (their name for Japan's invasion of China) and prevent war with the U.S. by forcing America to worry about a two-front war. Of course the exact nature of the "China Incident" or the invasion of Manchuria was never discussed. Perhaps "them Chinese had it comin'" doesn't sound scholarly? Most ironic to my mind was the spectacle of Japanese scholars gravely referring to "German racists". To a Japanese, racism is something that happens in other people. I felt the urge to shout, "Dude, wake up! You were partners with ADOLF HITLER and BENITO MUSSOLINI!" The only regret Japanese delegates expressed was that the alliance with Germany and Italy hadn't worked.
The International War History Forum was a worthwhile event and I'm sure will be so in the future. However, apart from researching and unearthing new and interesting tidbits of information, Japan's academic community is missing the larger point. They should emulate their German and Italian counterparts and realize the nature of Japan's wartime regime.