I know Nanking was the result of a poorly controlled army that was fed anti-Chinese propaganda for a long time but this seems to be the only warcrime spoken about when it comes to Hirohito.
He officially swore of the geneva conventions and actively tried boost morale among his pillaging troops during the Sino-Japanese war. He authorised the use of toxic gas 375 times during the battle of wuhan from August to October 1938 and his orders encouraged japanese soldiers to genocide Chinese villages when they had even the slightest suspicion of communist action.
Everytime a thread arises on this board it seems to focus on the problems in discipline among Japanese soldiers and the fact that hirohito was just a figurehead. This seems like a problematic viewpoint because of the orders and statements the emperor officially put out. If German soldiers were hanged for folowing orders, shouldn't he be punished too? He did far more damage even if he was just following orders, which already is a debated claim.
I feel like we should be open about the fact that the Japanese emperor recieved amnesty because of american strategic interests and not because of his innocence. Am i wrong about this?
What "every time a thread arises on this board" are you referring to? I just ran a site:reddit.com/r/askhistorians search for "hirohito." Nearly all the viable top results ask some version of "Did/Why did Hirohito basically get off the hook for committing war crimes?"
The ones I skimmed with viable answers cite multiple historians who straight-up implicate American and Japanese strategic interests involved in Hirohito's treatment.
This answer by /u/restricteddata even shows up with the preview blurb on the Google results page:
The choice to allow Hirohito to remain was made by General MacArthur, who oversaw the Occupation. For MacArthur, keeping Hirohito in place, but making him essentially a figurehead, allowed him to keep a firm had on the existing Japanese bureaucracy and mandarin classes.
and if you're looking for a historian who is an expert on the specific topic, restricteddata writes, "The book to read on this period is John Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II."
Or at the top of the Google results page (native reddit search is terrible, but turns up similar results):
This answer by /u/TheWinStore draws on Eiji Takamae, Inside GHQ: The Allied Occupation of Japan and its Legacy, which has likewise been called "the best overview of the allied occupation of Japan yet written" (Hans Baerwald, 2004).
Two other comments in the same thread (one of which would not be permissible as a top-level response under today's rule, LOL) cite Moore and Robinson, Partners for Democracy: Crafting the New Japanese State Under MacArthur; and Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, to exactly the same end:
US strategic interests directed why and how they manipulated the emperor's position before and after the war to maneuver towards surrender and then have an easier time controlling a defeated Japan.
This answer, this answer (not within today's AH rules, but I found it easily with Google still), and this answer likewise cite multiple historians to the same effect.
And this answer by /u/kieslowskifan goes into depth on the strengths and weaknesses of Bix's "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan", a book that--cautions and all--won a Pulitzer Prize for arguing what you're claiming no historians do.
I will list some reasons already mentioned here but also give the perspective of Japanese and Japanese historians around Hirohito. It all depends on how you would hold him responsible for rubber stamping the evils master-minded by others.
Hirohito was the one that broke the deadlock for peace on the Supreme Military Council. The Army and Navy were essentially split on whether to sue for peace or not. And after the invasion by Russia and two atomic bombs, Hirohito broke the stalemate. What many people do not know, is that there was an attempted coup by some militaristic radicals to take Hirohito hostage, and prevent the peace broadcast. Moreover, Hirohito sent his own family members to ask the far flung military to lay down their arms, because the military could not actually believe that Hirohito would call for peace. The last Japanese soldier to surrender was in the 70s, because he simply could not believe Japan would have surrendered. More than that, Hirohito only had two major actions that was independent from the military or civilian governments, and this call to peace was one of them.
Hirohito was essentially used as a rubber stamp by the military whom had gained significant power around him. When people see Hirohito's stamp, it seems as if he had approved this course of action as opposed to different course. The truth is though, that he approved almost everything the military put in front of him. Many speculate as to why. He certainly had no interest in statecraft and a very agreeable demeanor. His famous words were *So desu ne* (oh is that right?) which he would utter at almost everything told to him. Besides calling for peace, the only other major effect he had was putting down a revolt by radical right wing officers, looking to restore the emperor in the government. He ordered his personal guard to fire on the uprising that was revolting in his name. They were also highly radical, so it is hard to say they would have been better than the established power. That being said, the military restricted information and meetings to the emperor.
The military would constantly use the emperor's name as an excuse to run the government, while also being highly disorganized itself. The top brass controlled most of the meetings with the emperor, and the civilian government had little contact with him. The disorganized mess of the Japanese Imperial Government and its complexity was communicated to Hirohito through meetings with the military. Only the militaristic view was communicated to the emperor, and only half truths in order to gain the rubber stamp from him. Hirohito never engineered any of the atrocities he rubber stamped the plans to, and it is hard to know whether he ever fully understood what he was stamping. Moreover, the military was a mess, populated by extreme death or dishonor radicals that operated independently of military high command, let alone the civilian government.
Certainly, the military acted not only without the civilian government's co-ordination or even knowledge, but the army and navy would act without each other's co-operation. Moreover, the army had many radical officers act on their own accord to start wars and coups in China. The take over of Manchuria was done against the express wishes of Japan's state department, by officers lower than the rank of general. Furthermore, the Marco Polo bridge incident that sparked the Second Sino-Japanese war was started by local military commanders' overreaction to a missing soldier. All of this mess needed to be filtered through military commanders that were tied to that mess and over to Hirohito.
Hirohito did know about many of the atrocities, and failed to act to stop them. There is evidence of him expressing regret for the war, which implies guilt. However, people should know that he could have been replaced, and almost was by calling for peace...