There were war crimes trials held in Tokyo in 1948, which resulted in death sentences for, among others, General Yamashita, who led the assault on Malaya and Singapore and was later in command of the Japanese defense of the Philippines when American forces landed to begin their liberation in October, 1944.
General MacArthur did not confer immunity upon the Emperor, which even he did not have the formal power to do. The Japanese surrender in 1945 was predicated in part on their being able to retain the Emperor, and the United States made the decision that this was a small concession to bring a quick end to the war. Many people felt (and feel) that Hirohito should have stood trial, but as the exact degree of his culpability has always been uncertain, given his largely figurehead status, a trial probably would not have resulted in a conviction and would have served no practical purpose. (Personally, I think he should have been compelled to abdicate, even if the monarchy was permitted to remain.) Both MacArthur and the American government clearly believed the terms of the surrender precluded any trial of the Emperor, and it was never seriously contemplated. As to his family, I have no idea what crimes they may have committed or been charged with, but I never heard that their fate was tied in with not prosecuting Hirohito.
In both the Pacific and Europe, I think it's safe to say, postwar justice was not always, or equally, served in the prosecution of war crimes.
reply
share