War crimes of the IJN submarine force

[michael mills]

Does anyone have any hard information about the orders issued to Allied submarine commanders about sinking non-military vessels without warning, and the treatment of survivors?

[bf109 emil]

Does anyone have any hard information about the orders issued to Allied submarine commanders about sinking non-military vessels without warning, and the treatment of survivors?

the only thing i could find and unsure how relative is the orders for USN subs where to shoot or attack using sonar only and not a periscope...this might have resulted in the sinking of non-military vehicles from the pure fact as sonar not being likely to distinguish the ship being neutral or non-military as opposed to a visual sighting of a military ship...

Pearl Harbour subs were commanded by Rear Admiral Thomas Withers jnr. He ordered his submarines to use sonar attacks as opposed to visual, fine in practise and peacetime, but in the harsh reality of war, a dismal failure.

but Withers and Wilkes refused to accept the evidence before their eyes, blaming it all on bad training and commanders. Many early US Submarine captains were relieved and replaced. For some reason all attacks were ordered to be carried out underwater and not using periscopes!! http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/silent.html

[David Thompson]

To get back to the subject, here's a wikipedia article on another alleged war crime committed by a Japanese submarine:

AHS Centaur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AHS_Centaur

[michael mills]

I do not think that we have strayed from the subject at all. Alleged war-crimes by the Imperial Japanese navy need to be assessed within the context of the way in which the naval war between the Allies and Japan was being fought. That is to say, we need to assess the degree to which actions by Japanese naval vessels may have been a reaction to actions by Allied naval vessels. There may have been a connection, or there may not have been, but as yet we do not know for sure.

As to the sinking of the "Centaur", the linked article makes this statement:

The reason for the attack is unknown, and the events surrounding the sinking of Centaur are controversial because it has been attested that she may have been in breach of the international conventions that should have protected her.

So the sinking may have been a crime, or it may not have. It is noteworthy that after the sinking, whichever Japanese submarine it was that carried out the attack did not surface and continue the attack against the survivors, unlike the other incidents that have canvassed in this thread. The attack on the "Centaur" occurred on 14 May 1943, a couple of months after the March 1943 order to destroy the crews of sunk merchant ships issued by the Japanese commander on Truk, so it appears that not all Japanese submarine commanders were as yet acting in accordance with that order.

The article also makes this statement:

Official protests
After consultation with the Australian armed forces, General MacArthur, the Admiralty, and the Australian Government, an official protest was sent.[91] This was received by the Japanese Government on 29 May 1943.[91] At around the same time, the International Committee of the Red Cross sent a protest on behalf of the major Allied Red Cross organisations to the Japanese Red Cross.[91]

On 26 December 1943, a response to the Australian protest arrived.[88] It stated that the Japanese Government had no information justifying the allegation made, and therefore took no responsibility for what happened.[88] The reply counter-protested that nine Japanese hospital ships had been attacked by the Allies, although these claims were directed against the United States, not Australia.[35][88] Although several later exchanges were made, the lack of progress saw the British Government inform the Australian Prime Minister on 14 November 1944 that no further communications would be made on the loss of Centaur.[92]

So it appears that US naval forces may have attacked Japanese hospital ships, assuming that the Japanese claim had some basis in fact. That is an example of the context into which we need to place our assessment of the alleged war-crimes by the Japanese Navy. Was the US navy also conducting its operations against Japanese non-military ships in a ruthless manner and contrary to the rules of naval warfare?

[bf109 emil]

Alleged war-crimes by the Imperial Japanese navy need to be assessed within the context of the way in which the naval war between the Allies and Japan was being fought. That is to say, we need to assess the degree to which actions by Japanese naval vessels may have been a reaction to actions by Allied naval vessels. There may have been a connection, or there may not have been, but as yet we do not know for sure.

i don't think using a context can abstain from one side or another or both doing an action which is against the rules of war and justifying as such because of the brutality.

Failure to look upon each case individually and instead group as a whole IMHO is wrong..if done as such, one can claim the Soviets committed no crime in Germany as the war in the east was brutal and committed by both sides, likewise the same justification might exonerate Germany's illegal order to shot Allied airmen under the pretense of the brutality of legal air attacks by USAAF and RAF planes...

[David Thompson]

Michael -- You wrote:

Alleged war-crimes by the Imperial Japanese navy need to be assessed within the context of the way in which the naval war between the Allies and Japan was being fought. That is to say, we need to assess the degree to which actions by Japanese naval vessels may have been a reaction to actions by Allied naval vessels. There may have been a connection, or there may not have been, but as yet we do not know for sure.

and

So it appears that US naval forces may have attacked Japanese hospital ships, assuming that the Japanese claim had some basis in fact. That is an example of the context into which we need to place our assessment of the alleged war-crimes by the Japanese Navy. Was the US navy also conducting its operations against Japanese non-military ships in a ruthless manner and contrary to the rules of naval warfare?

It's for this very reason that we have separate threads, which makes it easier for our readers to find information on a single topic, and follow the discussion. There's nothing to keep any poster from starting a "War crimes of the US submarine force" thread. If there's enough factual information to justify it, we can have an "Interrelationship of WWII submarine war crimes in the Pacific" thread as well. Until then, however, let's stay focused on this particular topic -- "War crimes of the IJN submarine force."

[michael mills]

An integral part of assessing alleged crimes by the IJN submarine force is analysis of the reasons why they were committed, what purpose they served.

Investigation of an alleged crime should always take into account motive and precipitating factors. For example, when one person is being tried for an attack on another person, the court, if it is a fair one, will want to know why the attack was perpetrated, for example whether the attack was provoked in any way.

It is not sufficient to present a list of actions alleged to be criminal, if one wants to take a historian's approach and not simply engage in a martyrological exercise.

The same approach should be taken in an assessment of any alleged crimes by the opponents of Japan.

[David Thompson]

Michael -- Well, I don't see this thread as a "martyrological exercise." We're still trying to accumulate the allegations here, see whether they are true or false, and if they're true, whether or not they are war crimes. Once we get that done, we can move on to examine your ideas about the causes of causes. Until then, please stay on the topic of this thread -- the crimes and alleged crimes of the IJN submarine force.

I've been polite about trying to keep this thread on track, but having already given my reasons, I will remove further off-topic posts. As I said earlier, if you have anything factual to work with, you're welcome to start a separate thread for a discussion of your motivational questions.

Now let's get back on topic.

[bf109 emil]

Until then, please stay on the topic of this thread -- the crimes and alleged crimes of the IJN submarine force.

David and other readers, as i have limited access on a computer, one might be able to find other IJN submarine war crimes from these 100,000 pages of declassified works, unsure if they pertain to IJN but maybe interesting...http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2007/nr07-47.html

[Brady]

AHS Centaur

While it is certainly a shame that the Centaur was sunk, the circumstances of its sinking seam vauge, I have not sean anyhting that details the Subs posation and the awarness leval of the Subs Crew relative to the Ships True Nature.

If for example the USS Queenfish can Sink a Hospital Ship(Or a Ship that was considered Not Targatable, as I beelave she was not techinacly a Hospital ship at the time, refering to the ship Queenfish sank), and it is not a war crime, is it posable that the Circumstances would absolive the Japanese in the Centaur incedent...If they were known?


......

What seams to come through in all the infermation posted so far on this thread is that a great many of the Incedents reported as posable War crimes by the Japanese subs, are in the light of the fact that similar actions by US boats were not considered war crimes, not in fact war crimes at all.

Also whats to me very interesting is that Not untill after the US Boats started to gun men in the water after a sinking did the Japanese do the same, in fact the March Order from Truck, comes after the USS Wahoo incedent by just over a month, and withen Trucks operational Theater(the Wahoo gun action was withen Trucks operation area), one cant help but wounder at the timming.

...........

I know for the sake of clearity we must refrane from speculation on the why of the mater, but I cant help but be drawn down that path.

[David Thompson]

A collection of posts on the subject of attacks on Japanese hospital ships now have a thread of their own, at:

Attacks on Japanese hospital ships
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=162427

[jayant]

Hi !

In the case of Tjisalak, it is written on Wiki that there was Indian seama by the name DHANGE and who also was a witness in this trials. Does any one has info on the trials of the I-8 crew pertaining to Tjisalak ? I want to know more about this seaman "DHANGE".

Jayant

[David Thompson]

The trial may have been conducted by a British military tribunal.

Can of Fruit Symbolizes Survival
http://www.armed-guard.com/japass.html
Affidavit of Jiro Nakahara
http://home.comcast.net/~eo9066/Nakahara.html