'Emperor' stirs deep emotions in Japan and U.S.

[TotallyOz]

Emotions have been running high at screenings of the historical drama "Emperor."

 

The Japanese American coproduction, which opens Friday, revolves around the dilemma Gen. Douglas MacArthur faced as he tried to restore order in post-World War II Japan: Should the country's divine leader, Emperor Hirohito, stand trial and face certain death on war crimes charges?

 

When the producers screened "Emperor" recently in Japan, producer Gary Foster said, many men were in tears as they left the theater.

 

"It was almost a cathartic moment," he said.

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-emperor-20130307,0,1871867.story

 

I want to see this and hope it will be playing when I am back in USA. Has anyone heard anything about this?

[kokopelli]

The reviews I read were that this film was a total bore but have not seen it myself.

[KhorTose]

Any film that portrays Hirohito as just a pawn is a fraud to begin with,. In spite of the best efforts of the Japanese to hide the fact, the emperor was an integral part of the militancy of Japan and was far more guilty then many of the generals we did execute.

[Guest fountainhall]

This is a huge subject, one which I think requires a lot more background rather than summary judgements. (I hasten to add, though, that I do not in any way suggest KhorTose has made a summary judgement, as I know he has a deep knowledge of this period of history).

 

I'd agree up to a point with KhorTose that the Emperor was guilty - but to what extent, I and many others really don't know. I haven't seen the movie, but will do so. What I find fascinating about the militarisation of Japan is that when you go back through history, the seeds were undoubtedly sown with the forced opening up of what had been a country all but totally closed to the outside world for 250 or so years. The reason of course was to facilitate trade, but in the process the Japanese finally realised they had to take on the west at its own game if Japan as a country was to survive. The fast industrialisation of the country and the envy induced by the western powers' carving up of much of Asia through colonisation were the initial results. Wars then followed. 

 

Ironically it was the British in the early 1920s who helped Japan develop its aircraft carriers. And unfortunately for the west, it was an aristocratic British spy, Lord Sempill, who fed them the secrets needed to build aircraft capable of landing on carriers. The Brits decided to cover the incident up to protect the fact they had broken Japanese codes. But Sempill continued his activities and the Japanese were able to construct their fleet faster than expected. Without Sempill’ s participation, could Pearl Harbour have happened?

 

Yet the sad irony is that the country which forced Japan to open up to the west in 1853 was - the USA.

 

As for the Emperor, we ought not to forget that his was far from the last word when it came to the country taking military action. Ever since the country’s surprise victory in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, the right-wing militarists had been in the ascendancy. Then Hirohito’s father, the Emperor Taisho, weak and sickly partly from a bout of cerebral meningitis when he was 3 weeks old, was to rule for 16 ineffective years. During the first decade of his reign, the Imperial Household took a rapidly increasing strange-hold on policy and decision-making and relations with the government. So ineffective was Taisho that he ceased taking any part in Imperial duties for much of his reign. Finally, Hirohito was named regent in 1921 until his own accession in 1926.

 

So, despite the Emperor’s God-like status in society, that had all been massively undermined by those in the Royal household and the military by the time Hirohito came to power. Add to that his character. In his meticulously researched Pulitzer Prize-winning biography “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan” *, Herbert Bix spends much time on Hirohito’s nervous indisposition.

 

(Those around him were mainly) concerned about his health, and because he exhibited a level of personal insecurity and social awkwardness that they found worrisome in a monarch

 

Later in the book, he talks about the contradictions Hirohito felt about his own position.

In due time he would gain some degree of insight into his predicament, and with that would come a worsening of his nervousness, for Hirohito’s chronic psychological stress had its root in the institution of sacred monarchy itself, and the ingrained but never acknowledged friction between himself and the Japanese people.

 

But as Hirohito grew older, Bix makes clear he did show genuine vacillation over what to do in many situations. He spoke out about the country not acting in “Machiavellian ways”, adding it should always bear in mind its history of bakko ichi’u – benevolent rule. Yet, as Bix continues –

Avowing “benevolent rule” and disavowing Machiavellianism, while simultaneously sanctioning the use of poison gas against the Chinese – these contradictory acts reveal Hirohito’s divided nature 

 

Bix, though, adopts a very clear anti-Hirohito stance and presents basically one side of the story. Yet, the vacuum left by his father’s illness and wholly ineffective rule undeniably had a massive effect on reducing the future Emperor’s actual power. And many historians now agree that with the forced opening up of Japan in 1853 and the vast increase in the influence of the military and those around the Emperor in the Taisho era, a major Pacific war was almost inevitable – Hirohito or no Hirohito.

 

* "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert Bix, originally published by Harper Collins

[KhorTose]

I am very familiar with Brix's book and in no way does he excuse Hirohito fro his role in the rise of militarism. Brix has written a summation of his book here----http://japanfocus.org/-herbert_p_-bix/2741 where he clearly states, "But in no fundamental way have these scholarly efforts altered the picture of Hirohito as the activist, dynamic, politically empowered emperor who played a central role in Japan’s undeclared wars" I would suggest you also read the writings of Hirohito's aide de camp Honjo who wrote a diary detailing Hirohito's contempt for the civilian rule in Japan and his support of the military. These writing are summarized in both Brix's book and in John Tolands excellent two volumn work "the rise and fall of Japan" Finally the definitive work on Hirohito's role in the war which came out one week before his US visit. David Bergamini's "Japans imperial conspiracy" which minces no words and put a lot of the blame on the man himself. You can buy this book here http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10997603-japan-s-imperial-conspiracy or on kindle.

[Guest fountainhall]

I agree, and was trying to stress that Herbert Bix, whilst pointing out Hirohito's flaws, was very much in the camp of those who believe he was politically involved and at the very least worked alongside the military in Japan's overseas adventures. Personally I am not in total agreement with that viewpoint, but whichever views one takes it really matters little now. Hirohito was not charged, he was permitted by his conquerors to remain on the throne, and now he is dead. The real politik of 21st century alliances is not going to change that, unless that change were to come from within the country. And that certainly won't happen in our lifetimes - if at all.

 

War criminal or not, I don't think MacArthur had much choice. As he himself said, trying Hirohito and then presumably hanging him would have led to mass suicide of many in the general population who still considered him a God. Like it or not, you cannot expect a nation to abandon millennia of belief just because a country loses a war. Nor do protagonists always get their just desserts. Nixon should have been jailed. I think most of us agree that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair and their cohorts should be up before the War Crimes Commission. Come to think of it, the first to appear there should be Kissinger - and not only on account of his age, but for his active participation in various major crimes involving genocide in East Timor, what is now Bangladesh, Cambodia and Chile (for starters).

 

In the end, selfish political considerations seem always to win out.

[TotallyOz]

Great discussion gentlemen. Thank you. You have peaked my interest and I've ordered the Bix book from Amazon.

[Guest fountainhall]

In support of some of my argument, I’ll add a few comments from the New York Times review of Bix’ book written on 19 November 2000 by Ronald Spector who taught history at George Washington University.

 

After summarizing the book and Bix’ views, he adds

 

Bix's Hirohito is neither a Hitler nor a pacifist but a deeply flawed statesman. Above all, he was no passive symbolic monarch but a behind-the-scenes wheeler-dealer whose words could make or break cabinets.

 

The Meiji Constitution gave broad powers to the monarch, but even beyond that, Hirohito saw himself as above all political parties, constitutions or laws, responsible only to his imperial ancestors. He was in fact as well as in name the commander in chief of the armed forces. Bix, a professor at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo, argues that the emperor was fully informed about the military's aggressive moves in Manchuria and China, and approved them. He gave formal sanction to the army's murderous pacification campaigns in northern China and supported the use of chemical weapons there. As for Pearl Harbor and the decision to go to war with the United States, Hirohito was completely briefed on the deliberations and planning about the operation. At first wary, by October 1941 he had come to accept the military's argument that war with the United States was unavoidable.

 

Spector also makes what I believe are important points.

 

Bix insists that he could have reined in the military, limited the war in Manchuria, curbed Japanese excesses in China and blocked the Axis alliance. Had he taken such actions, however, it is not hard to imagine the reaction of the officers in the army and navy. There were other imperial princes to replace him. Even after Japan was utterly devastated by American conventional and atomic attacks in August 1945, middle-level officers tried to overthrow Hirohito in order to prevent a surrender proclamation. These coup attempts, Bix assures us, ''did not amount to much.'' That may have been the case in 1945, when Japan was already defeated, but one can only speculate about what the response of the military leaders would have been had the emperor made an effort to change their course of action in, say, 1937, when the army was flush with victories in China, or in 1940, when Japan's generals and admirals were enthralled with Hitler's conquests in Europe.

 

In his concluding paragraph, Spector adds that “there are, and probably always will be, differing views of this era.” And that, I am certain, is true.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/11/19/reviews/001119.19spectot.html

[KhorTose]

Actually, i disagree with Spector's and Brix's assumption---tacit or otherwise---that he could not have stopped the military. They go to great lengths to personify Hirohito's value as a symbol and leader of the Japanese people, and wax eloquently about how important it was that he not be tried as a criminal as he is essential to the Japanese psyche, but then dismiss that he could have stopped the military if he had wanted too. The truth was he did not want too, in fact he encouraged them in their path.

 

Michael, i would read the Brix book. I agree with David Bergamini assessment of the emperor, but his books are very difficult to read.

 

Here is a long summary of what is covered in Bergamini's book. The summary is good---I read the books---but this source is quite a surprise.

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/hirohito.htm

[Guest fountainhall]

I have not read all the other books, but have immersed myself in Japanese history over the years. Chinese history at this time is also relevant, as I am sure KhorTose will agree. I just don't agree with KhorTose's assumption. I do not think the Emperor - any Emperor - could have stopped the military from their adventures. By the time Hirohito came to the throne, it was too late. 

 

In 1981, I did have the pleasure of meeting and getting to know well an American who had lived in Japan almost all his life, apart from the war years. His parents were missionaries in Japan, and he was part of MacArthur's team after the war. He then worked for the American Embassy till his retirement around 1980. Even then, he started up a small company and stayed on in Tokyo, having married a Japanese and started a second family with her. He always told me it was his view that Hirohito was all but controlled by the militarists. Had he not given the nod to their wishes, he would have been forced off the throne in favour of one of several other members of the Imperial family, people who were certainly pro-military.

 

That's not to say I think Hirohito was as innocent as a lamb. He certainly knew what was going on and in the language of the court almost certainly never disagreed with it. But it is an error to think that any Japanese Emperor was in the same sort of position as an elected President Bush - even though Bush may have believed he was descended from a God! No Japanese Emperor at that time, even one stronger in constitution than Hirohito, could have stopped the right-wing militarists. Even today, elected politicians are terrified of the small group of highly vocal hard core right-wing activists. Japanese politics is a strange beast!

[kokopelli]

I think most of us agree that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair and their cohorts should be up before the War Crimes Commission. Come to think of it, the first to appear there should be Kissinger - and not only on account of his age, but for his active participation in various major crimes involving genocide in East Timor, what is now Bangladesh, Cambodia and Chile (for starters).

The dropping of two atom bombs on Japan might also qualify as a War Crime.

[Guest fountainhall]

It might, as could the deliberate fire bombing of Dresden . . . but there is, I think, a difference. These events took place when nations were formally at war. The US was not at war with Iraq. It manufactured a war. The US was not at war with Cambodia. It illegally started a war. In Indonesia, Bangladesh and Chile, it was either covertly engaged or gave advance nods of approval and a promise not to intervene.

[kokopelli]

Chemical weapons and biological weapons are banned even in formally declared wars so why not nuclear weapons? Are nuclear weapons more humane?

And yes, the fire bombing of Dresden, as was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just indiscriminate extermination of civilians with no military value other than terror. I do recognize that the A Bomb did bring a quick end to the war in Japan and perhaps did save more lives than it took at least American lives.

[Guest fountainhall]

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely to engender terror. There are countless more examples, like the indiscriminate V1 and V2 bombings on London. Prior to World War II, the 'Rape of Nanjing' was hideous and appalling, killing more than 250,000 - mostly civilians. It was a senseless act of brutality on the part of the Japanese. But it happened at a time after Japan had declared war on China.

 

In a state of real or supposed war, no matter what the Geneva Convention states, is there really any line beyond which countries/regimes will not go to ensure victory and avoid defeat? Can war be governed by rules? Surely avoidance of defeat becomes the overarching principle? And even without a declaration, regimes and countries deliberately make use of banned materials - like what we see happening now in Syria. Going back to the example of Japan, much of the horrific use of biological and chemical weapons on Chinese citizens took place after its annexation of Manchuria but before the declaration of outright war in 1937. This was against Japan's own military law, against provisions of Treaties that Japan had actually signed, and it happened on a scale considerably greater than that effected by the Nazis. But it happened and no-one put a stop to it. 

 

In our own neck of the woods, what was done by the US illegally in Laos and Cambodia was not only equally horrific, the consequences were I believe more so. The CIA's secret war in Laos resulted in that country becoming per capita the most bombed in history! On average one planeload of bombs was dropped every eight minutes, 24 hours per day for nine whole years - a staggering nine years - more than were dropped in all of World War II!

 

That bombing cost the US $17 million every single day. In recent years, the US has contributed all of $2.7 million per year to help clean up the country - an amount that was reduced in 2011!

 

The poor people of Laos continue to pay the price, because of the eighty million cluster bomblets that were dropped, 10% - 30% did not explode. Many of the country's provinces remain contaminated with unexploded bombs and many dozens of children each year are maimed or killed as a result.

 

Yet no-one in the USA has paid a price for it - as far as I am aware. It was a time of war. Yet it was illegal and it was secret! The rulebook was for other countries!