I mean... yes, thats true, but its more complicated than that.

At the end of WW2, elements within the Japanese military and government executed an ultranationalist coup attempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

In broad strokes, the Emperor was planning to surrender, after the Potsdam Conference, after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, after the Soviet Union declared war on Japan.

A significant number of military higher ups, many various officers... decided that was bullshit, and concocted a plan to take the Imperial family hostage, destroy the Emperor's recorded speech that was to announce the surrender and urge all Japanese people to actually surrender.

This plan ended up failing, but maybe now you can see that significant portions of the Japanese military wanted to keep fighting, literally to death.

So, if you're trying to make sure that something like this coup does not reoccur in the years following surrender... it makes some sense to try and support the people who wanted to comply with you, wanted to end the war, who would and actually could ensure stability.

Consider an alternative example.

Iraq, 2003-6.

The US basically just wholesale dismantles the Iraqi government, including its military, which was a significant source of employment for a lot of people.

Those former Iraqi military members then go on to be a very significant, effective and capable element of the Iraqi "Insurgency"/Resistance, for... what, 10, 15 years?

Can you not imagine something like that playing out in Japan, up into the 1960s?

I'm not trying to endorse or defend anybody's policies or actions here... I'm just trying to point out that it's more complicated than how you summarize it.