A, 67,
•* v< I
CONFlDKNTL'iL..
Maroh 10th, 1948,
UNITED NATIONS WAR CRH,ÍES COiEJSSICTJ.
A7AR CRIMES TRIÁIS IN THE FAR B^ST.
The follow ing extract from a report concerning the t r ia l o f the
Major War Criminals before the International M ilita ry Tribunal a t Tokyo
has been conxnunicated by the United Kingdom Commissioner, and is new
circulated to heads o f delegations.
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE I.M .T.. TOKYO.
/' •
The individual phase of the defendant TOJO before the International
M ilitary Tribunal lasted from the 26th December u n til the 7 th January, the
Court having been in recess on the 27 th and 28th December and on the 1 st,
3rd and 4th January* *
* ,
In an opening statement which preceded the roading o f TOJO*s 250
page a ffid a v it , a document which took two f u l l days to read, his Japanese
counsel, Dr. Kiyoso, enumerated seven points v/hich ho said that that
a ffid a v it would bring out. They wore:
”1 • That Japan had neither planned not prepared boforehand fa r the
war against the United States, Britain and the Netherlands.
"2. That h o s tilitie s against the United States, Groat Britain and
the Netherlands were provoked by the a llie d nations, and the attacks were
unavoidably instituted by Japan in self-defence and fo r her very existence.
"3« That the Japanose Government hid scrupulously prepared to deliver
the lawful n o tifica tio n of war to the United States o f America p rior to the
commencement
o f h-o s tilitie s .
#
.
"4.
The true purport and significance of the Greater East Asia
"5*
The non-existence o f the so-callod "M ilita ris t Clique".
P olicy.
"6. The independence o f the 'High Command and the function , o f the
Liaison and the Imperial Conferences.
"7. Thcvt the daninent characteristics o f the M ilita ry adminstration
exercised by TOJO consisted in a ju3t control and discipline o f the m ilitary
system, and he gave neithor orders fo r , toleratod nor oonnived at any
inhuman a cts."
/
f
Points 1,2,4 and 5 in particular were expanded a t length in the
a ffid a v it in a recapitulation o f Japanese pre-wnr and wartine propanganda.
The war was forced on Japan by the economic pressure and m ilitary encircle mont exerted on her by America, E ritain , China and the Netherlands. Japan
had no desire to dominate the countries o f the ih r East; this was witnessed
by the independonoo o f the Empire o f Manahukuo, the \7ang Ching-woi regime
in China, and the "inuopencbnco"aooordod to Burma and the Philippines.
Extensive quotation was made from the speuohes o f the principle clelegatos
to tho "Greater East Asia Conference" Iwld in Tokyo in Novomber, 1943» In
view o f the numerous changes of government there had boon in tho decade pre/
/
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/3347e6/
coding, tlu outbreak o f the war, i i was recUculous tc contend tttat there
had boon a sustained war p olicy adninisto^by a sin ister "jn ilita ris tic
cliq u o o Taken out of the context o f Japan’ s actions, particu larly in
China, during that docado - as i t must Hava been TOJO*3 intention that his
Japanoso audionco should take i t - tho a ffid a v it was a w ell roasonod and
' plausible statement o f Japan’ s caso0
:
l
Ono point o f interest emerged during a b r ie f d irect examination by
othor dofonce counsel boforo cross-examination. KIDO*s counsel asked
TOJO whether KXDO hid ovor c^ctod or given advice contrary to tho Sfcipcrcr’ s
wiahos fo r peaoo. TOJO denied that ho had or that any Japanoso subject,
particu larly a high government o f f i c i a l , would, and the Prosident commented
"w ell, you knew who inplications from that reply,,11
On one oooasn.cn air, Keenan tried to got an admission fron TOJO that
w-r3 are- crimes, anu in sustaining defence objection to the question the
President cvlled attention to the fa ct that only one defendant at Nuremberg
was found gu ilty o f aggressive war alone, and he was not sentencod 'to death.
TOJO showed. very evident in terest a t thi s rom rk, and is iaay be indicative
o f tho way some nci&ers o f the- Tribunal;are thinking ox the judgment they
w ill over»tually give. On another occasion, when Japanese a c tiv itie s in
Fronoh In do-China before the. war ware under discussion TOJO revealed
Japanese fa ilu re to get the Geroans to bring prossuro ¿o bear on Vichy,
and then, givon an inch. took an e l l and drew comparison with tho present
American Occupation of Japan*
In the section-of h i 3 a ffid a v it dealing with Greater East Asia . TOJO
stated "Tho *2nr-vioipation of Sa3t Asia’ , one o f the prerequisites o f tho
Great East Asia p o licy , aimed a t tho lib eration o f tho countries o f Ea3 t
Asia from the intolerable position or status o f colonies and semi-colonies
under the control of the. Powers, so fcfavt thoy might secure and enjoy identical
froodom with other ra c ia l s ta te s .. .o” , but tho prosecution surprisingly
enough di.d not take up the question o f the status of Pornosa and Korea.
Much o f the questioning naturally centred round the Cordell Hull note of tho
26th November, 1J&/S
TOJO contended that i f the United Statos !r;d conceded
oven one o f tho points asked by tlw Japanese in th eir note to wlrich tho Hull
note was a reply, there- might not have been any war in tho p a c ific « 3ut,
when Mr* Keenan toe!; bin through the HulJL note point by point iie could not
got him to agree that there was nothing objectiobable to Japanin
tho pro­
posals thore nadisj TOJO persisted in saying that there was nothing objection­
able in the words as words, out tin t thoy could not be considered out o f the
context o f circumstances a t the time, in which ho contended that Japan was
under m ilitary and .oconomic throat from Eritain ana America,.
,
Taken a l l in a i l , the TOJO phaso o f tho t r ia l w ill probably bo of
noro use to the historian and the student, of pro-war Japanese p o litio s tlian
as convincing proof o f tho g u ilt or innooonco o f TOJO and his fello w defen­
dants. That TOJO has regained much o f the respect he had lo s t in Japanese
eyes is undoubted; his defence o f the Emperor has certainly won approval.,
and hi3 o ffe r o f Lemself as a scapogoat fo r defeat hap probably given
comfort* Japanese prose coment has buon uniformly c r it ic a l of TOJO but
thi3 uniformity in i t s e l f prompts tho suspicion that writers are merely
saying what tney ti.ink their A llie d masters want thorn to saye On tho other
hand, nemberc of the s ta ff who attended tho court during thi3 phase were
impressed by, the evrldan t ¿ynpattjy ‘ .aroused among Japanoso spectators by both
tho matter and manner o f TOJO* s testimony, while r.iuch o f \;he p:.'ivito comment
we nave heurd j.Von Japanese has ocer. to the e ffe c t that he lias stood up to
his accusers “lik e a true Japanese1*,,
+
+
T
+
+
+
.+
+
tL1no . 40*3
/
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/3347e6/
The la s t o f the individual defondant phases, that o f U1IEZU (la st
Chief of the Japanese General S t a ff, and one o f the two Japanese signatories
of the surrender), was heard before the International L illitary Tribunal la
Totyo f*aa January 7th to Janaury 9th. UMBZU presented no a ffid a v it , and
the testimony o f witnesses was p rin cip ally directed to trying to prove that
UMEZU's aotions as Commander o f the Kr/antung Am y was hot part o f a conspiracy
to Wage war and that no reports o f a tro c itie s by Japanese front lin e troops
ever reached the High Command.
....
On tte 9th January the defendant SHIMADA. mdo a- b r ie f return to the
witness box to deny that he had (since his incarceration) "threatened" TOGO
and recommended him to omit from his testimony reference to navy desires that
there should be no deolaration of war. He also denied that the navy had had
such intentions* The defence alosed it s oase on January 15th.
A slig h t s t ir vra.3 caused on the 12th January when i t transpired
that one o f the defence witnesses, a former colonel in tho Kwantung Arqy,
was an assooiate defence counsel, although not a lioensod lawyer* The
President directed that a l l rpersons participating in the defenco who wew
not qu alified lawyers should submit records o f th eir past a c tiv itie s to the
Tribunal*
Rrom the 13th January u n til the end o f the month the Prosecution
has been onfp-ged in presenting "rebuttal" evidence against tho dofence oase*
The quotation marks are used
d elib erately, fo r an the 14th January tho
Tribunal by a majority decision decided to admit new evidence, with the
stipulation that i t should be "important" and have probative value. The
President admitted that this might mean the lengthening o f the t r ia l T>ut
said that i t would be a matter "la rg ely up to the Prosecution"* A press
report stated that this decision had caused alarm to "informed sources*1
because o f the extra cost that might be involved. Expenditure on the t r ia l
was so fa r estimated to bo "between six and a h alf and seven m illion United
States dollars and more than 40,(XX),000 yen"*
Rebuttal evidence started with quotation from a Japanese "Top
Secret - Plan fo r disposing of the Incident" of the 7th August, 1937> to
refute testimony that the Japanese over intended to sottlo the "China In­
cident" by negotiation, and from a United States, ifar Department report of a
conversation between an American o ffic e r in China and the defendant HUTO,
two months before Pearl Harbour. HUTO had said then that i f an understanding
was not reaohed between Japan and America "you w ill be figh tin g us In six
weeks in Ifetnila".
Thereafter, muoh time was taken up in quoting from tho diary o f
Prinoe S alon ji, kept fo r him by his private secretary Baron rfcrada. Excerpts
were used; to refute the o a rlie r personal testimony o f the former Vice
Minister fo r Foreign A ffa ir s , Horinouohi Kensuke/ that ho had no knowledge
o f the prooedings a t a liaison conference in February, 193S> wherein the
aray had wanted to conclude h o s tilitie s quickly so that they might rxrke preparations against Russia; to refute SHIRATORI*s testimony that ho had. not
'advocated withdrawal from the League o f Nations; tp prove ARAKI’ s endea­
vours to get heavy appropriations iOJ? the arny in 1932-33 f ° r an adventure
on the A siatio mainland;
to prove ITAGAKPs apposition in 1938 to the
Bsgtfror's wish to oonclude the China war as quickly as possible; to prove
ITAGAKI’ s opposition to the Emperor’ s expressed wish not to conclude a
m ilitary alliance with Germany*
EVcrther evidence presented during the rebuttal phr.se quoted TGJO’ s
speeohet to the D iet proclaiming Japan’ s readiness to meet a l l eventualities
and searet German documents showing CQHUIA.’ s. and SHIRATORI*s approval and
support fo r German plans to divide the world into two areas, ruled by
Germany and Japan respectively. Othor evidence was heard on Japanese f o r t i ­
fication s *••••
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/3347e6/
- 4 -
flo a t ion o f the mandated islands, and Japanese submarine a tro c itie s . The
Tribunal unanimously agreed that Japanese claims that they had no t e r r it e »
r ia l ambitions in Eastern Siberia wero not s u ffic ie n tly important to
require rebuttal.
Cn tho 30th January the Tribunal rejected a defenoe request fo r
a ten days recess to prepare an answer to the rebuttal evidence*
During the month tho Court sat on the follow ing dates: 2, 5 , 6,
7, 8, ?, 12, 15, 14-, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29, 30.
OTHER WAR CRIMES TRIALS IN THE PAR EAST.
In tho iiinor I7ar Criminals T rials a t Yokotaro. during the period
from the 16th December, 1947 to the 15th January, 1948, 6 Japanese were
tried fo r oases involving B ritish Prisoners o f 77ar, o f whom one was • ,
oondonnod to doath and the other fiv e to terns of imprisonment varying
from 2-j to 14 years.
/
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/3347e6/