MovieChat Forums > Emperor (2013) Discussion > Condition of Japans surrender?

Condition of Japans surrender?

posted 12 years ago by yumatom
10 replies | jump to latest

As a condition of their surrender, weren't the Japanese allowed to keep Hirohito as Emperor? If so, why is the possibility of hanging him as a war criminal an issue?

[–] AtheistRevolution 11 years ago

No, a total surrender without any conditions.Basically Japan tried to surrender and keep the emperor in power. But US said whether the emperor would stay in power was up to the supreme commander of allies.If the emperor was found to be responsible for the war they would most likely execute him. But they didn't because it would cause a insurgency and he probably wasn't totally responsible.

The second nuke was necessary because even after the first was dropped. The majority of Japans war council still didn't accept surrender. When the emperor finally told them to accept so they wouldn't be destroyed after the second nuke,a coup was attempted and stopped.

- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] yumatom 11 years ago

Thank you for the informed answer. That clears up my question. Otherwise, the movie's plot would make no sense. (I'll have to catch it when the DVD comes out in August. It was only in the theatre here for a week and I missed it.)

Also, I like your tag. Take care.

[–] lemner 11 years ago

In the movie, they say Japan was allowed to keep the institution of emperor. Not necessarily the current man.

Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam

[–] yumatom 11 years ago

Thanks Lemner. Makes sense. I need to actually see the movie, I guess. That would save us all a lot of trouble :)

[–] xenodrone 11 years ago

The atomic bombs weren't the reason why the Japanese finally surrendered. It was the Soviet Union invasion of Manchuria, the Soviets wiped out the Kwantung million men army, the most forgotten battle and biggest military defeat, which is never mentioned in the film.The Red army was also speeding their way to Japan's main islands,that terrified Japan into quickly surrendering to the Americans. The atomic bombs didn't make a difference to the japenese since most of their cities were already destroyed by firebombing like the one in Tokyo. Dropping the 2 atomic bombs was military unnecessary.

[–] clearthinkernow 11 years ago

Of course this is your (apparently uneducated)opinion. I have never heard any historian (from either side) who shares it.

[–] Eumenides_0 11 years ago

Strange, all that firebombing and destruction still managed to fail to kill the 200,000 people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who were promptly killed by the nuclear explosions. Am I really to believe that the officers looked at a terrifying new weapon that wiped out what was left intact by such intense bombing, and didn't think of surrendering?

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

[–] dhenderson-2 10 years ago

Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and another couple of cities) were left unbombed by conventional means, as the military planners wanted at least two cities left intact to demonstrate the power of their new weapon. Little Boy was a fairly certain bang, but nobody knew for sure if it would work, because there wasn't enough Uranium to make two. Even Fat Man hadn't been tested in action, just in the desert, so it might have fizzled when used for real.
Military minds at the highest level at that point were concentrated on using the devices, and pretty much nothing would have dissuaded them from doing so, I believe, save an early surrender.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ll-rr 10 years ago

xenodrone, you must be Japanese.

Condition of Japans surrender?

Condition of Japans surrender?