Why didn't Hirohito himself sign the Unconditional Surrender in '45?

Air America · 7 May 2009

I have been writing a paper for my history class.

And I was left with this question:

Why didn't Emperor Hirohito personally sign the unconditional surrender in '45?

I understand the Shinto religion considers him as a living god.

Was it unacceptable for a god to unconditionally surrender to lesser beings?

Although, I find it strange, that a god would choose to dishonor himself, by relying upon a lesser being like Tojo to shield and protect him from other, lesser mortals.

Do Shinto have a different definition of the word "god" than Christians?

I need a Shinto view of these proceedings to complete my paper, so any help would be greatly appreciated, and I hope I have posted this in the correct forum.

Thanks,

Air America

nice gaijin · 7 May 2009

Not that it's necessarily the same, but why didn't General Lee sign the surrender himself when the South lost the Civil War?

I think that the Japanese leaders that held the emperor in such high esteem wouldn't have allowed him to sign the surrender. I'm no historian, but it seems that the emperor has been more a figurehead than a head of state, used as a symbol by those in power to control the direction of the country.

Mike Cash · 7 May 2009

nice gaijin said:
Not that it's necessarily the same, but why didn't General Lee sign the surrender himself when the South lost the Civil War?

The South as a country was not Lee's to surrender; there was a civil government in place, you know. He surrendered the military forces under his direct command. For that, he did sign.

I think that the Japanese leaders that held the emperor in such high esteem wouldn't have allowed him to sign the surrender. I'm no historian, but it seems that the emperor has been more a figurehead than a head of state, used as a symbol by those in power to control the direction of the country.

And it would have been difficult for the US to treat him as head of state and therefore responsible for what had been going on and then to not have him held accountable with others at the IMT in Tokyo. My (uninformed) guess would be that his not being there was more to facilitate US/MacArthur goals and policies than due to anything the Japanese may have had to say about it. After all, they were hardly in a position to resist or resent anything at the time.

nice gaijin · 7 May 2009

Mike Cash said:
The South as a country was not Lee's to surrender; there was a civil government in place, you know. He surrendered the military forces under his direct command. For that, he did sign.

I'm not sure when I got this in my head, but for some reason I was under the impression that Lee sent a lesser officer to sign the surrender for him. Perhaps I was thinking of another conflict, or I just got my facts mixed up.

Air America · 19 May 2009

99% of Japanese are Shinto, which means they view the emperor as a living god.

God tells the government what to do, not vice-versa. (Unless Japan is somehow different.)

Would it not have destroyed the entire Shinto religion, had Japan's god unconditionally surrendered to the United States in '45?

Would that not have been more than a extreme dishonor, it would have proved the Shinto religion wrong, and proven Japan's god to be nothing more than a mortal.

Gods cannot and do not surrender to mortals, if they do, how can they still claim to be gods?

What is most interesting to me is however, is the fact that mortals had the opportunity, and obviously now have the ability to destroy a god.

Air America · 19 May 2009

nice gaijin said:
I'm not sure when I got this in my head, but for some reason I was under the impression that Lee sent a lesser officer to sign the surrender for him. Perhaps I was thinking of another conflict, or I just got my facts mixed up.

Good point actually. Lee was basically Tojo and shielded Davis. Jefferson Davis never surrendered the Confedrate government even under threat of death. So techincally speaking, the confederate military surrendered, but the confederate government did not?

But yes, Lee signed the surrender himself.

JerseyBoy · 19 May 2009

Air America said:
99% of Japanese are Shinto,

Where did you get that number from?

caster51 · 19 May 2009

Do Shinto have a different definition of the word "god" than Christians?

emepror was one of divines...

God tells the government what to do, not vice-versa. (Unless Japan is somehow different.)

he is not a dictater.
he was a Just figurehead, Shinto priest, absolute authority and powerless monarch....

So techincally speaking, the confederate military surrendered, but the confederate government did not?

Yes. it was just militaly surrender.
that was why Japanese government was kept

99% of Japanese are Shinto,

I think most Japanese are shito without consciousness

undrentide · 19 May 2009

Air America said:
99% of Japanese are Shinto, which means they view the emperor as a living god.

No, this is incorrect.

There are many, many people in Japan who pay visit and respect to shinto srhines, yet if you ask them what is their religion, most of them would not reply they belong to Shintoism.

And it was only during WWII when people were told that the emperor is a living got (arahitogami).

kusojiji · 19 May 2009

It is a misplaced 'Western' view to say that anyone "belongs to" Shinto anyway.

Air America · 20 May 2009

kusojiji said:
It is a misplaced 'Western' view to say that anyone "belongs to" Shinto anyway.

What do you mean?

nice gaijin · 20 May 2009

Air America said:
Good point actually. Lee was basically Tojo and shielded Davis. Jefferson Davis never surrendered the Confedrate government even under threat of death. So techincally speaking, the confederate military surrendered, but the confederate government did not? But yes, Lee signed the surrender himself.

Come to think of it, it might be that I just had a wire crossed and I got Davis and Lee mixed up. Thanks to you and Mike for the correction.

It is a misplaced 'Western' view to say that anyone "belongs to" Shinto anyway.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Shinto is not a religion in the same exclusive sense as others; its set of rituals have become incorporated into Japanese culture, but for a majority of the population does not seem to extend into a solid set of beliefs, and does not prevent people from practicing other religions or participating in other religious rituals. Also, the use of the word "gods" or "living god" might lead you to draw parallels between Shinto and Christianity when really they aren't appropriate. Shintoism is neither monotheistic nor messianic.

During Japan's imperial era, the emperor's divinity was used as a rallying point to whip up a nationalist fervor and build support for the regime's expansion. I haven't met anyone that actually takes that seriously anymore.

pipokun · 20 May 2009

If you came up this question after seeing the photo of the battleship Missouri, it is simply because Mamoru Shigemitsu, Foreign Minister, and Yoshijiro Umezu, Chief of the General Staff, represented Japan and signed the document on the battleship, and so did Douglas MacArthur for the Allied Powers.

And at the same day on Sep. 2, the following Imperial Rescript was issued in Japan.

1-10 Imperial Rescript on the Signing of the Instrument of Surrender, September 2, 1945
Imperial Rescript on the Signing of the Instrument of Surrender, September 2, 1945 | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

It had nothing to do with Shinto at all.

Air America · 21 May 2009

nice gaijin said:
Come to think of it, it might be that I just had a wire crossed and I got Davis and Lee mixed up. Thanks to you and Mike for the correction.
Shinto is not a religion in the same exclusive sense as others; its set of rituals have become incorporated into Japanese culture, but for a majority of the population does not seem to extend into a solid set of beliefs, and does not prevent people from practicing other religions or participating in other religious rituals. Also, the use of the word "gods" or "living god" might lead you to draw parallels between Shinto and Christianity when really they aren't appropriate. Shintoism is neither monotheistic nor messianic.
During Japan's imperial era, the emperor's divinity was used as a rallying point to whip up a nationalist fervor and build support for the regime's expansion. I haven't met anyone that actually takes that seriously anymore.

By intertwining government, military, religion, and their diety.

If one must unconditionally surrender, they all do.

But for an actual diety to unconditionally surrender to mortals, seen, and proclaimed as inferior, to even Japanese mortals?

Such a situation would be unthinkable and unbearable.

Funny, I can't find much written information on this subject either.

Can Shinto, become Shinto/Christian or Christian/Shinto with no consequences from either side?

nice gaijin · 21 May 2009

Air America said:
By intertwining government, military, religion, and their diety.
If one must unconditionally surrender, they all do.
But for an actual diety to unconditionally surrender to mortals, seen, and proclaimed as inferior, to even Japanese mortals?
Such a situation would be unthinkable and unbearable.

Is this your take on it or do you have a source for this?

Can Shinto, become Shinto/Christian or Christian/Shinto with no consequences from either side?

I don't know what you're asking here.

Air America · 21 May 2009

nice gaijin said:
Is this your take on it or do you have a source for this?
I don't know what you're asking here.

Thats my take on it so far. But I very well could have, and sometimes do miss things.

I'm strarting to wonder if The Emperor has his clothes on.

What do you know, or think about it?

Air America · 21 May 2009

Can Shinto, become Shinto/Christian or Christian/Shinto with no consequences from either side?
I don't know what you're asking here

I know Shinto can also be Budhist, I am wondering if they can adopt any and all other philosophies...even if their prophecies and teachings are at odds and are completely different.

nice gaijin · 21 May 2009

Air America said:
Can Shinto, become Shinto/Christian or Christian/Shinto with no consequences from either side?
I don't know what you're asking here
I know Shinto can also be Budhist, I am wondering if they can adopt any and all other philosophies...even if their prophecies and teachings are at odds and are completely different.

As I've said, Shinto is more ritual than belief, the closest things to belief are Shinto's pantheistic view, and the concepts of impurity and purification. Neither of these are necessarily at odds with other religions, as the argument that everything is imbued with the divine spirit is a pretty common notion across the board. Purity and impurity can just be rephrased as sin and absolution. Shinto has these aspects like many other religions, it just deals with them through a different set of complex rituals. Beneath the veneer of ritual is a loose set of beliefs that can be readily assimilated into other systems.

Shintoism and Buddhism are non-exclusive, so they play well with other religions. The question is if the other religion is willing to play along. Many Japanese have Buddhist, Shinto, and even Christian ceremonies throughout their lives. For them, there doesn't appear to be a conflict between the three, though I've had several Japanese that participate in these ceremonies and rituals tell me that they're pretty much atheist.

As for the other part, perhaps you could look into the articles on State Shinto. I think you are confusing the propaganda used to unify Japan with the reality of the Emperor's role in the leadership of the empire. Caster51 actually put it quite well:

he is not a dictater.
he was a Just figurehead, Shinto priest, absolute authority and powerless monarch....

justin · 21 May 2009

I think Hirohito didn't sign the Unconditional Surrender himself as a way to save face. I know, sounds kind of dumb on my part, but its just my thought on the matter.

Between the A-bombs and having to be the first Emperor to address the people he must have felt it was the only way to save a shred of his honor. A small act of defiance perhaps. Only Hirohito will ever know for sure.

Hiroyuki Nagashima · 21 May 2009

The signature of His Majesty the Emperor?
Is it this?

site
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~knagai/GHQFILM/DOCUMENTS/surrender.html#shosho

caster51 · 21 May 2009

hiroyuki nagashima said:
the signature of his majesty the emperor?
Is it this?

site
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~knagai/ghqfilm/documents/surrender.html#shosho

朕は昭和二十年七月二十六日米英支各国政府の首班がポツダムに於て発し後にソ連邦が参加したる宣言の掲ぐる諸条項を受諾し、帝国政府及び大本営に対し連合国最高司令官が提示したる降伏文言に朕に代り署名し且連合国最高司令官の指示に基き陸海軍に対する一般命令を発すベきことを命じたり、朕は朕が臣民に対し敵対行為を直に止め武器を措き且降伏文書の一切の条項並に帝国政府及び大本営の発する一般命令を誠実に履行せんことを命ず
Imperial Rescript on the Signing of the Instrument of Surrender, September 2, 1945 | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

I think Hirohito didn't sign the Unconditional Surrender himself as a way to save face.

why must Hirohito sign?
even at that time, The Diet is a top policymaking group in Japan. The emperor only approves the decision even today.

Why didn't Hirohito himself sign the Unconditional Surrender in '45?

Registered

Resident Realist

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Resident Realist

Registered

Registered

Back in town

後輩

Japa'n vagyok

先輩

Registered

Resident Realist

先輩

Registered

Resident Realist

Registered

Registered

Resident Realist

The Rise of Cobra

TAN

後輩

Similar threads