Replies

"the Emperor gets a lot of credit stateside for the surrender, but was in fact a big part of the problem all along"

There is no incompatibility between "the Emperor was a big part of the problem all along" and "the Emperor's intervention was crucial in bringing about the surrender of Japan."

Both statements can be true and are in fact true, from what I have read. In August 1945 it was a very very delicate thing to bring off Japan's surrender, and even after the 2nd atomic bombing their army's fanatics tried hard to block the movement toward surrender. It was only when the Emperor insisted and the recording of the Emperor's message was broadcast that the surrender finally came about.

There is no incompatibility between "the Emperor was a big part of the problem all along" and "the Emperor's intervention was crucial in bringing about the surrender of Japan."

I don't doubt it. My point was only that Sakai's observation about the Emperor was a total eye-opener for me. From the 1960s until my bro-in-law gave me Sakai's book a few years ago, I had heard consistently that the Emperor had been insulated innocently from politics while his mad, megalomaniacal generals were plotting and executing the war against the U.S. It was a surprise to me to learn that the Emperor had been all for it and Adm. Yamamoto was opposed, and knew it would fail.