Changes

{{Japanese characters}}

{{Japanese characters}}

The State Department in Washington, not General [[Douglas MacArthur]] made the decision to retain Hirohito and the imperial institution; the decision evolved by 1944 out of a wartime assumption that the emperor was not personally guilty but was essential for American plans for postwar Japan.<ref> American planning for the postwar world began in 1939. Joseph Ballantine and George H. Blakeslee, directors of the State Department's Far East unit, were influential planners along with historian Hugh Borton and especially [[Joseph Grew]], who had been the US ambassador in Tokyo for ten years. </ref> Rather than a flash of inspiration from the supreme commander, American policy toward the emperor represented a confluence of motivations that crystallized in the early days of the occupation.<ref> MacArthur in early 1946 warned Washington that a war crimes indictment of Hirohito "will unquestionably cause a tremendous convulsion among the Japanese people, the repercussions of which cannot be overestimated. He is a symbol which unites all Japanese. Destroy him and the nation will disintegrate." Guerrillas would take to the hills and "a minimum of a million troops would be required . . . for an indefinite number of years" to stop the rebellion. Tōjō was put on trial instead and hung. Quoted in Tetsuya Kataoka, [http://books.google.com/books?id=iuUynl48h4EC&pg=PA37&dq=%22destroy+him+and+the+nation+will+disintegrate%22&sig=uLW4WXjpM4fAZioeVx7C0eNDk34 ''The Price of a Constitution: The Origin of Japan's Postwar Politics'' (1991) p.  37 online]</ref>  MacArthur agreed with the policy and orchestrated dramatic public displays, as well as real changes, that made it clear a new era had arrived and that militarism and emperor worship had ended.<ref> Hal Brands, "Who Saved the Emperor? The Macarthur Myth and U.S. Policy Toward Hirohito and the Japanese Imperial Institution, 1942-1946." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 2006 75(2): 271-305. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

The State Department in Washington, not General [[Douglas MacArthur]] made the decision to retain Hirohito and the imperial institution; the decision evolved by 1944 out of a wartime assumption that the emperor was not personally guilty but was essential for American plans for postwar Japan.<ref> American planning for the postwar world began in 1939. Joseph Ballantine and George H. Blakeslee, directors of the State Department's Far East unit, were influential planners along with historian Hugh Borton and especially [[Joseph Grew]], who had been the US ambassador in Tokyo for ten years. </ref> Rather than a flash of inspiration from the supreme commander, American policy toward the emperor represented a confluence of motivations that crystallized in the early days of the occupation.<ref> MacArthur in early 1946 warned Washington that a war crimes indictment of Hirohito "will unquestionably cause a tremendous convulsion among the Japanese people, the repercussions of which cannot be overestimated. He is a symbol which unites all Japanese. Destroy him and the nation will disintegrate." Guerrillas would take to the hills and "a minimum of a million troops would be required . . . for an indefinite number of years" to stop the rebellion. Tōjō was put on trial instead and hung. Quoted in Tetsuya Kataoka, [http://books.google.com/books?id=iuUynl48h4EC&pg=PA37&dq=%22destroy+him+and+the+nation+will+disintegrate%22&sig=uLW4WXjpM4fAZioeVx7C0eNDk34 ''The Price of a Constitution: The Origin of Japan's Postwar Politics'' (1991) p.  37 online]</ref>  MacArthur agreed with the policy and orchestrated dramatic public displays, as well as real changes, that made it clear a new era had arrived and that militarism and emperor worship had ended.<ref> Hal Brands, "Who Saved the Emperor? The Macarthur Myth and U.S. Policy Toward Hirohito and the Japanese Imperial Institution, 1942-1946." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 2006 75(2): 271-305. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

[[Image:Hirohito and macarthur.jpg|thumb|255px|MacArthur and Hirohito at their first meeting, Sept. 1945.  MacArthur asserts himself as the older, informal and dominant leader; Hirohito appears younger, formal, subservient, and very clearly not a god]]

[[Image:General MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito.jpg|thumb|400px|MacArthur and Hirohito at their first meeting, Sept. 1945.  MacArthur asserts himself as the older, informal and dominant leader; Hirohito appears younger, formal, subservient, and very clearly not a god]]

Hirohito moved rapidly to ensure surrender by all army units, and to demobilize his soldiers, a decision that facilitated the American Occupation and demonstrated his willingness to cooperate. The Americans responded by deciding not to control Japan directly (as they controlled Germany), but to keep the Imperial government in place and operate through it. In an interview with American newspapers, Hirohito said that he was not responsible for Pearl Harbor and did not intend a sneak attack, exactly the right message to help rehabilitate his image in the U.S. Hirohito and MacArthur got along well, which was a signal for all their subordinates to follow suite. The Americans did not give orders; they made suggestions which the Japanese quickly accepted.   

Hirohito moved rapidly to ensure surrender by all army units, and to demobilize his soldiers, a decision that facilitated the American Occupation and demonstrated his willingness to cooperate. The Americans responded by deciding not to control Japan directly (as they controlled Germany), but to keep the Imperial government in place and operate through it. In an interview with American newspapers, Hirohito said that he was not responsible for Pearl Harbor and did not intend a sneak attack, exactly the right message to help rehabilitate his image in the U.S. Hirohito and MacArthur got along well, which was a signal for all their subordinates to follow suite. The Americans did not give orders; they made suggestions which the Japanese quickly accepted.