Do you think Hirohito The Showa Emperor of the Japanese Empire should have been executed as a war criminal?

Question

I think so.

Answer 1

Favorite Answer

Yes but the allies didn't want Japan to go commie.

Answer 2

There was strong information that Japan would not have surrendered if that was to be his fate.  Also, it may have allied to the U.S.S.R., giving rise to a new kettle of fish to deal with.

Answer 3

It's not really a case of whether or not he ought to have been brought up on charges of having committed crimes against humanity, it's more about what the repercussions might have been if the Allies had decided to prosecute him for war crimes. Obviously the Japanese did some unspeakable things on his orders - they raped and ravaged their way through China and Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and their treatment of Allied Far East Prisoners of War was deplorable, but although the fighting was over, there was still a lot left to be done. The Japanese surrender was dependent on the agreement that the institution of the Emperor remained intact. Had the Allies taken the stance that the moral thing to do superseded the sensible course of action, it's likely that the invasion of Japan would have been necessary and the war would have dragged on longer resulting in many more casualties on both sides. Not to mention that the occupation of Japan would have been a nightmare for the Allies afterwards. And it's practically a given that the Soviets would have gone in for a land grab - calling the British and the Americans on their bluff to use atomic weapons to prevent them from doing so. 

Is it moral or ethical that we cut deals with criminals who did horrible things if they're willing to assist with the capture and conviction of more serious offenders? It's a grey area. If a murderer agrees to grass on people who have done far worse in exchange for a reduced sentence or even to have the charges against them dismissed, is it worth it? Sometimes it is. And while it's not a perfect system and it's not fair, occasionally we need to make tough choices like that for the greater good. 

Look at Japan today. It's one of the wealthiest, safest, and least corrupt countries in Asia - and in the world. That was achieved because forward thinking people were willing to put their personal beliefs aside and accept the reality of the situation. The Japanese did surrender. No full scale invasion was necessary. Reconstruction began almost immediately and today Japan is a strong and reliable ally - the Japanese never forgot the mercy shown to them. 

From a moral and ethical perspective it was indeed wrong to forgo charging and prosecuting him, but from a logical, logistical, strategic and tactical standpoint, it was the right - and humane decision. There had been enough suffering and death. The time for healing and rebuilding had arrived. In the end one more death - especially the death of that one person, wouldn't have been worth it. 

Answer 4

the allies decided to drop 2 Nukes on japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki

i would have Used from the other 7 one on the Imperial palace two on Tokyo Kyoto Kokura  Yokohama Niigata  Kamakura

because these Savages Ate Australian Troops  they beheaded POWS turned POW.s into slaves had 8 year old Little Girls in their Officers Brothels and for the Massacre of Nanking