Yamashita

[temujin77]

What do you guys think of the trial for Tomoyuki Yamashita? Do you guys believe his sentence was justified? Is a commander to bear total burden of the actions of his men down to the lowest ranks? And do you think the trial was simply MacArthur's political maneuver to further secure his support base in the Philippines?

[temujin77]

By the way, I have some stuff on Yamashita here:

WW2DB: Tomoyuki Yamashita

and MacArthur here:

WW2DB: Douglas MacArthur

If you have previously visited my site and already checked out Yamashita's article, be sure to check out the new photos I added just this week. I dug up three photographs from the US National Archives and posted them; they were taken during Yamashita's trial in Manila, showing a disgraced but yet still very dignified Yamashita.

[Jim O]

This is not a smiple question and I do not know enough about the specific evidence that was presented. However, a commander is responsible for the criminal actions of his men if they are systematic, and if no action is taken to stop them. It seems unlikely that reports of such atrocities as the maccacre of 25,000 civilians would not have reached Yamashita. If his response was to "look the other way" or to wink and say "that's a terrible thing" then he was culpable. If he took action to stop it once he became aware of it (which I doubt he did but again I do not know the facts) then execution seems a harsh punishment.

On the other hand, MacArthur loved the Philippines and the Filipino people, and he was not in any way above politics. Yamashita was a handy scapegoat to hand over to the Filipinos on a silver platter so to speak.

When one considers that Albert Speer's life was spared and that he only received a 20 year prison sentence for using thousands upon thousands of slave laborers, of whom many also died from malnutrition, exposure, and disease, the sentence seems harsh in comparison. But then Speer was European...

[sniper1shot]

Yamashita....didn't he capture Singapore? (Not up on my Pacific battles)
I believe he was executed because he embarrassed the Allies.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by sniper1shot

Yamashita....didn't he capture Singapore? (Not up on my Pacific battles)
I believe he was executed because he embarrassed the Allies.

He did capture Singapore but was executed for the massacre of 25,000 Filipino civilians in 1944-45 while he was in command.

See also Trial of Tomoyuki Yamashita. Law Reports, UNWCC, 1948. Part I for details and specifications of the charges and the trial.

[temujin77]

I wouldn't say so much that he was only tried because he embarrassed the Allies. Well, at least not officially anyway; you never know what the top brass were thinking in their minds.

I recommend the paper The Defense of General Yamashita by George Guy. Guy was one of Yamashita's attorneys, and did a wonderful job describing his defense of the Japanese general, though he was naturally slightly biased in favor of Yamashita due to his working relationship with him. The paper was published in the Spring 1950 edition of the Wyoming Law Journal.

In William Manchester's American Caesar, there was also a good section on the Manila trials in which Homma and Yamashita were tried. Manchester's description of the court proceedings were mostly neutral in my view, going as far as calling the court rather "kangaroo", but many criticized the book overall as pro-MacArthur.

I have not yet checked out Jim's link in full yet, but that looked like a very valuble resource as well.

[MAGNA]

Yamashitas trial was indeed a farce. A military court for a start manned by officers answerable to the very man who brought the charges - MacArthur himself.

It was already known Yamashita had declared Manila an open city and moved his troops out as he realised the area was indefensible. The atrocities were committed by marines and sailors who Yamashita knew nothing about. They were commanded by an Admiral Iwabuchi.

Yamashita was also charged with atrocities committed in September 1944, a ridiculous charge considering he was stationed in Manchuria at that time.

Evidence was in the main heresay and at times simply made up, but still allowed. The defence could be cut off at any time according to how the presiding officer felt.

Homma was charged with responsibility for the Death March in 1942. There was no evidence for this but he was still convicted as was Yamashita.

American Caesar and other references note this as indeed a kangaroo court with no real credence and one which was brought about purely on MacArthurs wishes.

Perhaps the biggest contrast was between this proceeding and those held in Japan itself where the court was properly handled by an eleven judge tribunal.

[Wustenfuchs]

I've always been of Magna's opinion, but I will look again and see if anything changes my stance. I'll get back to this thread in a few.
Good exchange of ideas and information here by the way.
Bill