War crimes trials for the Japanese after World War II

War crimes trials

A war crime is an act carried out against either civilians or military personnel during a war that violates the internationally accepted laws of war.

At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Allied leaders discussed how to bring war criminals from Nazi Germany to justice. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill favoured summary execution, but he was overruled by the two other Allied leaders. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, both wanted a trial process because of the systematic nature of the atrocities. As a result, after World War II ended, the Allies held trials of Axis personnel who were accused of committing war crimes. There were 2 major war crimes trials:

• The International Military Tribunal, known as the Nuremberg Trials (held from 20 November 1945 to 1 October 1946), which tried leaders and organisations from Nazi Germany
• The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), known as the Tokyo Trial (held from 29 April 1946 to 12 November 1948), which tried leaders from the Empire of Japan.

There were also many smaller war crimes trials of Japanese personnel held across Asia and the Pacific. Australia was involved in many of these. But many violations of international law by both sides, including mass rapes and summary executions, were never prosecuted.

Types of trials held

AWM 123170

There were 3 levels of trials conducted for alleged Japanese war criminals:

• Class A – crimes against peace, such as conspiring to start war
• Class B – conventional war crimes, such as violating the laws of war
• Class C – crimes against humanity.

Class A charges were brought against Japanese military and political leaders, and were heard by the IMFTE. Class B and C charges could be brought against Japanese personnel of any rank and were heard by national tribunals convened by various Allied nations.

Twenty-eight high-ranking Japanese officers and politicians, including Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, were tried at the IMFTE in Tokyo for Class A war crimes. The tribunal had judges from 11 countries. Its president was an Australian High Court judge, the Honourable Justice Sir William Webb.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Silent film of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East showing: war criminal General Hideki Tojo leading defendants alight from bus; President of the Court, the Honourable Sir William F Webb, Australia, and Chief of Council Joseph B Keenan, USA, in courtroom; former puppet Emperor for Manchuria, Henry Pu Yi, in witness box.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the prosecution took 192 days to present its evidence. Evidence included documents such as maps, orders, diaries and reports. The prosecution case was based on the legal doctrine of 'command responsibility', which was first codified in the Hague Convention of 1899. This holds that military leaders are responsible for war crimes committed by troops under their command, even if they didn't order them. The prosecution had to prove that:

• war crimes were systematic or widespread
• the accused knew their subordinates were committing atrocities, and
• the accused had the power or authority to stop the crimes.

This doctrine has also been applied to more recent war crimes trials, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1993–2017) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1994–2016). It is also in the treaty that established the International Criminal Court.

Evidence at war crimes trials was also presented in the form of testimonies. War crimes testimonies recorded many cases of prisoners of war (POWs) being beaten to death. One of those to testify before the IMTFE was Lieutenant Colonel Vivian Bullwinkel, an Australian Army Nursing Service nurse who was the only survivor of the brutal Bangka Island massacre that occurred after the fall of Singapore in 1942.

The defence took 225 days to present its case. As well as questioning the validity of the trial, the defence argued that 'crimes against peace', and specifically aggressive war and conspiracy to wage war, had not been accepted as crimes in international law at the time they allegedly took place. This meant that the defendants were being retroactively tried for something that only became illegal later. They also argued that Japan had acted in self-defence.

Other war crimes trials in the Pacific

Class B and Class C trials were held at many locations throughout the Pacific region. They were hosted by governments of Australia, Britain, China, France, the Netherlands, the Philippines and the United States.

Australia convened special military courts under the War Crimes Act 1945 (Cth) to try Japanese personnel for Class B and C war crimes. These included crimes against POWs and the execution of Allied airmen. The Australian trials were held at Morotai, Wewak, Labuan, Rabaul, Darwin, Singapore, Hong Kong and Manus Island. The aim was to hold the trials as close as possible to where the alleged war crimes took place.

One of the largest Australian-run war crimes trials was held at Ambon in the Netherlands East Indies (now Indonesia) in 1946. It tried 93 Japanese personnel in relation to the Laha massacre of 309 Australian and Dutch POWs that occurred following the fall of Ambon in 1942. Commander Kunito Hatakeyama, who oversaw the massacre, was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. Lieutenant Kenichi Nakagawa was also found guilty and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.

Australian intelligence officer Richard Saunders was one of those tasked with investigating war crimes in Timor. Sometimes, this presented some difficult ethical problems:

We arrested a number of Japanese for doing torture to the Australians. Unfortunately, there was one case which I had to deal with, where an Australian officer had been tortured, and he, unfortunately, gave the Japanese the code words and information to enable them to deal with it.

We discovered the people who had tortured this Australian officer, and I was faced with the problem. Should I have those men brought to trial with the officer who successfully lived through the war, but how do I have him as a witness? I had no idea what the government might to do someone who had given help to the enemy. So, I never supplied the briefs to enable those men to be prosecuted. The prosecution would have only given them about three months in prison, and it wasn't worth putting someone's future at risk with the government.

[DVA (Department of Veterans' Affairs) (2021), Richard Saunders's story, DVA Anzac Portal, accessed 26 April 2022, https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/stories-service/veterans-stories/richard-saunders-story]

Neither the Japanese Emperor Hirohito, nor any member of his family, were tried in any category. This was a deliberate political decision made by the US when negotiating the Potsdam Declaration, which laid out the terms of Japan's surrender.

Sentences

AWM P00634.005

In passing sentence on the accused the court is merely carrying out the laws of British and international justice. We are not taking our vengeance, but protecting society from the ravages of cruelty and imposing a sentence to act as a deterrent to others who, in the years to come, may be like minded

[Colonel J. L. McKinlay, Australian war crimes trials, Morotai, National Archives of Australia: A471, 80717.]

Between the IMFTE and the national trials, 5,379 Japanese, 173 Formosans (Taiwanese) and 148 Koreans were tried. Of these, 984 were sentenced to death, 475 to life imprisonment and 2,944 to some other form of punishment.

Australia conducted nearly 300 trials, in which 924 Japanese servicemen were accused of war crimes. Of those tried, 644 were convicted and 148 were sentenced to death, although 11 had their sentences commuted.

Execution was carried out by firing squad or by hanging. This was the first and only time that the Australian military conducted executions. The Australian military's inexperience with capital punishment meant that it was necessary to ask for British advice on gallows and firing squads.

Between June 1946 and July 1947, 111 Japanese and Korean soldiers were convicted in Singapore for crimes committed on the Burma-Thailand Railway. Of these, 32 men were sentenced to death.

Among those tried were some of the most feared men on the railway. Sergeant Seiichi Okada, also known as 'Doctor Death' for his role as a medical orderly in the Hintok–Konyu area, was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Singapore. Arai Koei, a Korean also known as the 'Boy Bastard', was sentenced to death by hanging for his role in the ill-treatment of prisoners on the Burma side of the railway.

The Japanese soldiers sentenced to death reacted in different ways. Many maintained a pride in their service to the emperor. Lieutenant Seizo Tanaka, executed in 1946 on Morotai, wrote to a family member:

It is decided I will be shot 7 o'clock 6 Mar. I was sentenced to death, but not because I did a shameful act. Rather I think it an honour for me … By my culture, I am resigned facing death.

[AWM54 1010/1/29]

Initially, the Australian Government maintained a prison on Manus Island, north of New Guinea, for Japanese prisoners. But by 1953, all Japanese prisoners held in Australian camps had been returned to Japan to complete their sentences.

Criticism of the trials

The war crimes trials have been criticised, particularly in Japan, as 'victors' justice'. Certainly much of the punishment fell on relatively low-ranked Japanese who had little control over issues such as the pace of work or supply of food and medicine to POWs.

The trials have also been criticised on procedural grounds. Due to logistical issues, evidence was mostly taken from witnesses, including POWs, using sworn written affidavits. This meant many witnesses were not present in court to be cross-examined. Yet the trials were not necessarily a manifestation of vengeance. In the Australian trials, 280 of the 644 Japanese accused were acquitted.

Victims of the Japanese, such as Stan Arneil and Lieutenant Colonel Edward 'Weary' Dunlop, did not call for reprisals against the Japanese. Many simply wanted to go home. Dunlop himself worked for postwar reconciliation with Asia.