fixing bad flawed summaries from history to fiction

 i LOVE reading summaries of historical battles and exciting fiction yet the writers often RUIN it with poor wording and flawed inaccuracies that we must fix.
for example in the end of world war 2 historians record the major battles:
battle of philipine sea, where u.s. sunk two more jap major warplane-carriers. adding to the 4 sunk by midwy in 1942.
battle of leyte gulf, where u.s. sunk 3 more major jap battleships.
and then RUIN it by concluding instead of "the emperor, who was considered a god, still refused to surrender" which was true and accurately describes the situation, they write poor wording "the army refused to consider surrender" which ignores the EMPERORS authority in that culture. whether true as claimed or false the DECIDER was the emperor of japan called showa.
if he commands surrender then they treated emperor as god... until our generation luckily less fanatic... not "emperor persuaded the army leaders"... the fact is the army leaders DIFFERED some wanted to fight in china and others wanted to surrender in the navy and probably agreed with each other in the DIFFERENT battle zones... the emperor did not "persuade" as they claim at "kwbudge" website... good only for the story of the battle as its name pwency for pacific war. yet truly ignores the AUTHORITY of emperor both as emperor and in the cultural view at the time.
similarly summaries in fiction often differ from the story in the video.