Japan

[Klaus]

warcrimes_side.jpg


Japanese War Crimes Trials
1946-1948

The American public largely ignored the war crimes trials in Tokyo and throughout Asia in 1946-1948. Unlike the charismatic Nazi leadership, who were infamous throughout Europe, the Japanese leadership was not well known. That was due in part to the Allied propaganda, which did not want to criminalize the Emperor. If the Allied public saw him as a criminal, they would demand his removal, which would have prolonged the war.

Hirohito's role in the conflict is not clear. He is generally seen as ineffectual, although there was some evidence offered in the 1990's that showed he was an active participant in the war planning. However, to maintain order in Japan, the Emperor was not indicted.

The Men put on trial in 1947 and 1948 were the first of 20,000 civilian and military former leaders who had either killed prisoners or had participated in the vague crime of instigating the war. While many would endure prison sentences of varying lengths, 900 were executed in trials around Asia.

Those executed included Hideki Tojo, General Masaharu Homma, Tomoyuki Yamashita, and five others who were blamed for atrocities during the war. The Japanese argued that they were subject to war crimes trials simply because of the heinous crimes of their German allies, essentially claiming the Allies were finding them guilty by association.

What was never examined at the War Crimes Trials in Tokyo were the actions of Unit 731 in China. Using biological, chemical and thermal tests on Chinese and Allied prisoners, they dropped bubonic plague on Chinese cities, froze naked Soviet prisoners in refrigerators, and experimented with anthrax, mustard and phosgene gas on POWs. Very little about unit 731 was known until the 1970's. The Tribunal does investigate the forced sexual slavery of hundreds of thousands of Korean, Chinese, Dutch and Filipino women. No compensation, or even a statement of apology, is given.

What was never recounted in either the European or Asian war crimes trials were the Allies' war crimes. Systematic atrocities on the scale of Manila or Nanjing were never committed, but there had never been an apology or understanding of the horrors of firebombing of civilians and the use of atomic weapons.

Most of the 20,000 men were released when the Americans ended their occupation in 1952. Many right-wing Japanese deny there were war crimes at all. The 1997 release of Iris Chiang's The Rape of Nanjing results in





Source: http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/warcrimes.htm

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by Klaus

Hirohito's role in the conflict is not clear. He is generally seen as ineffectual, although there was some evidence offered in the 1990's that showed he was an active participant in the war planning. However, to maintain order in Japan, the Emperor was not indicted.

Before Emperor Hirohito found out that he was exempt from the war trials, he approached Douglas MacArthur. "I come to you, General MacArthur, to offer myself to the judgment of the powers you represent as the one to bear sole responsibility for every political and military decision made and action taken by my people in the conduct of war", he told MacArthur. MacArthur noted Hirohito's courage to accept a responsibility that might mean certain death, and commented that he was "the First Gentleman of Japan in his own right." That said a lot about the Emperor.

[Klaus]

He did the right thing. But perhaps he knew that they couldn't execute him? On the other hand I think it is their code of honor.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Klaus

He did the right thing. But perhaps he knew that they couldn't execute him? On the other hand I think it is their code of honor.

They could have executed him and there was a great deal of debate about whether to try him as a war criminal. It was MacArthur who ultimately prevailed in that argument. In the final analysis, keeping him alive and on the throne enabled a quicker return to "normalcy" in Japan by allowing the very proud Japanese people to retain some sense of honor. He was forced to renounce the idea that he was somehow a deity, as believed by Japanese tradition up until that point.

[Klaus]

I think he knew that he had a pretty god chance to get away. MacArthurs did the right thing too. It was a clever way to keep down the waves.

[Jim O]

I agree. It was 100% the correct decision. While Hirohito was "with" the militarists, he was the Emperor and he was not the government. Would the Nazis have tried King George for bombing Dresden? I doubt it.

[Klaus]

I think that's the whole point. You don't trie Kings and Kaisers. Not to mention you don't execute them. It would not be worth the trouble.

[Ingsoc]

Originally Posted by Jim O

I agree. It was 100% the correct decision. While Hirohito was "with" the militarists, he was the Emperor and he was not the government. Would the Nazis have tried King George for bombing Dresden? I doubt it.

Well technicly as the head of state he responsible to all the actions of the men under him, althought it's debatable how many real influence he had during WWII (I always saw is position in WWII similar to the one of Wilhelm II in WWI, an abosulute monarch who loses much of it's power in favour of the military elite).

Of coure no matter if he was guilty or not, if the American had put him on trial it's likely that the occupetion of Japan wouldn't gone so peacefully.

[temujin77]

Originally Posted by Ingsoc

Well technicly as the head of state he responsible to all the actions of the men under him

You're referring to the Yamashita Standard. That did not become a legal precedence until just a couple of months later.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by temujin77

You're referring to the Yamashita Standard. That did not become a legal precedence until just a couple of months later.

But the fact that the Supreme Court affirmed it then does not mean that it was not applied earlier, at least in theory.