War crimes of the IJN submarine force

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#1

Post by Marcus » 09 Nov 2008, 16:41

Rob raised an interesting topic in the USS Wahoo discussion that I feel deserves a thread of its own:
Rob - wssob2 wrote:This summer I picked up Mark Stille's Imperial Japanese Navy Submarines 1941-45 (Osprey, 2007) and I was suprised to learn about the frequency of atrocities committed by IJN submarine crews against Allied sailors and civilians. I think that if we are going to debate the actions of Mush Morton and the Wahoo, we should also discuss the actions of the I-8, I-67 et. al.
/Marcus

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#2

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 09 Nov 2008, 20:24

I'll start off with some information from wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-8:

SS Tjisalak

On the 26 March 1944, during a raid into the Indian Ocean, I-8 torpedoed the 5,787-ton Dutch freighter SS Tjisalak. The submarine then surfaced amid the debris field and after a brief exchange of shots with the ship's defensive armament, collected the survivors upon the boat's deck. It was at this point, shortly after the freighter had sunk, that crew and passengers, totalling 97 survivors, were tied together and forced to run a gauntlet of Japanese sailors, during which they were slashed with samurai swords and beaten with monkey wrenches and sledgehammers before being shot, and kicked into the water. Six men somehow managed to survive this massacre and find a life raft, from which they were picked up by the Liberty ship SS James O. Wilder sometime later.

SS Jean Nicolet

Just two months after the murder of the crew of the Tjisalak, the crew of the I-8 were involved in yet another atrocity, when they hit the 7,176-ton liberty ship SS Jean Nicolet with two torpedoes, not far from the scene of the sinking of the Tjisalak. The 100 crew of the American ship abandoned the burning craft and took to life rafts, but were all gathered on the submarine's deck in a similar fashion. This time the massacre took several hours, as the crew were made to walk individually past the conning tower, before being set upon and murdered[1]. Suddenly, and without warning the submarine dived, plunging the tied-up sailors lying on her deck into the ocean where most drowned. Sources differ over the number of survivors, but it is believed that 22 men made it to a life raft, from which they were picked up by the HMS Hoxa some 30 hours later. Five prisoners were also taken to Japan by the submarine, one of whom survived to be released after the war.

I-8 also sunk numerous other ships, often with high loss of life, and some with total loss, suggesting additional war crimes which remain unknown. Her captain, who had encouraged and participated in the events, Tatsunoke Ariizumi, committed suicide at the Japanese surrender, and no charges were ever brought against the remainder of the crew, few of whom survived hostilities.
HIJMS Submarine I-8: Tabular Record of Movement
http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-8.htm

Alive and safe, the brutal Japanese soldiers who butchered 20,000 Allied seamen in cold blood
Daily Mail Online
By NIGEL BLUNDELL
Last updated at 17:53 03 November 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... blood.html

Can of fruit symbolizes survival
By John Berger, Hololulu Star-Bulletin
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2001/0 ... tory1.html


Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#3

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 09 Nov 2008, 20:47

Sorry folks - I mistyped - it's the I-167 that also committed war crimes:

18 March 1944:
Indian Ocean, SW of Colombo. I-165 torpedoes 3,916-ton British armed merchant NANCY MOLLER (ex-ROWENA, NORFOLK) enroute from Durban with a cargo of coal to Colombo, Ceylon. She goes down rapidly after two hits to port side at 02-14N, 78-25E. I-165 surfaces about 50 yards from the lifeboats and attempts to establish the identity of the ship. Six men from one boat ared ordered aboard the submarine and Able Seaman Gunlayer Dennis Fryer is taken POW.

Two Chinese sailors are shot, but three Lascars from the same boat are released. Before departure, I-165 circles the wreckage of NANCY MOLLER, spraying it and the survivors with machine-gun fire. A total of 30 sailors and two gunners are killed. Four days later, the ship's master, 27 sailors and four gunners are rescued by British light cruiser HMS EMERALD. [3]
from http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-165.htm


On this page (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/) is the following compendium of IJN submarine crimes:
RO-110(Kazuro Ebato)
13 December 1943
British Ship "Daisy Moller"(4807grt)
16'21N,82'12E
En route from Bombay and Colombo to Vizagapatan and Chittagong with a cargo
of general army stores inc. guns and ammunition.
55 sailors were killed by machine guns and when their small lifeboat was
rammed by the submarine.14 were saved.
"Lloyds War Losses Volume 1" gives the following statistics:
Crew of 61,6 gunners and 2 passengers killed.(Total killed 55-80% killed).
There were only 14 survivors.Almost a total massacre.
Rohwer`s "Axis Submarine Successes gives a different set of statistics:
53 out of 127 crew members of the "Daisy Moller" were killed when their
rafts and boats were rammed and strafed.

I-37(Hajime Nakagawa)
22 February 1944
British Tanker "British Chivalry"(7118grt)
00'50S,68'00E
En route from Melbourne to Abadan with a cargo of 420 tons of grain,but
otherwise in ballast.She had a crew of 45 and 14 gunners.
Survivors in two boats and on four rafts were machine-guned by the Japanese
submarine.15 crew and 5 gunners were killed.The Captain was made P.O.W(34%
killed)
29 crew and 9 gunners were picked up by "Delane" on 29 March 1944 in
04'55S,65'00E and landed at Durban.The survivors had been in the boats and
rafts for 37 days.

I-37(Hajime Nakagawa)
26 February 1944
British Motor Vessel "Sutlej"(5189grt)
08'00S,70'00E(position recorded by the Allies)
08'00S,63'00E(position recorded by the Japanese)
"Sutlej" was en route from Kosseir and Aden to Fremanile with a cargo of
9,700 tons of photosphates and mail.
Crew of 64 and 9 gunners.23 were saved.(68% killed).
The Japanese submarine fired on wreckage and survivors.5 survivors were
rescued from a boat after 42 days.Eighteen others were rescued after being
on two rafts for 49 days!

I-37(Hajime Nakagawa)
29 February 1944
British Ship "Ascol"(7005grt)
05'S,63'E
"Ascot" had a crew of 44 and 10 gunners.39 crew and 7 gunners were
lost.After "Ascol" was abandoned,the Japanese submarine rammed and
machine-gunned lifeboats and men in the water.40 out of 52 survivors of the
"Ascol" in lifeboats and rafts were killed by machine-gun fire.Only 7 were
saved by the Dutch Ship "Straat Soenda".Almost a total massacre(85% kiled).

I-165(Shimizu)
18 March 1944
British steamship "Nancy Moller"(3916grt)
02'14N,78'25E
"Nancy Moller" was en route from Durban to Colombo with a cargo of coal
when she was torpedoed.She had a crew of 58 and 7 gunners.
30 crew and 2 gunners were killed by pistol and machine-gun fire.One gunner
was taken P.O.W.
There were 32 survivors.(49% killed)

I-8(Tatsunoke Ariizumi)
26 March 1944
Dutch Ship "Tjisalak"(5787grt)
02'30S,78'40E
En route from Melbourne to Colombo with 6640 tons of flour.Torpedoes.
Crew 66+10 gunners+28 passengers.72 crew and gunners+27 passengers lost.
98 of the 104 Dutch(mostly) and British sailors who had survived the
torpedo attack,were killed by the submarine`s crew with swords and spanners
wielded as clubs on the submarine`s deck.Almost a total massacre.(94% killed)
Two witnesses who had been left for dead in a lifeboat,were subsequently
rescued.

I-8(Tatsunoke Ariizumi)
2 July 1944
US Ship "Jean Nicolet"(7176grt)
03'28S,74'30E
US Ship "Jean Nicolet" was torpedoed and sunk while en route from Los
Angeles and Fremantle to Colombo and Calculta with a cargo of US Army stores.
It has been said that the Japanese took all the sailors on to the
submarine`s deck and killed them one by one.Many were massacred by
clubbing,bayoneting oe beheading.The an aircraft was heard,and the
remaining survivors were left squatting on deck with their hands tied
behind their backs,while the submarine submerged.Yet a further
account(Rohwer) says:
One of the 103 crew members of the "Jean Nicolet" was killed
immediatelly,five were taken below and never seen again and one was
disembowelled.Ninety-six survivors picked up by the submarine were injured
while running the gauntlet of the crew.Twenty-three of them survived when
the submarine had to dive,and they were rescued by an Indian warship on 4
July 1944.
According to "Lloyds War Losses Volume 1",the "Jean Nicolet" was carrying a
crew of 41+30 passengers+1 army medical sergeant+28 armed guard.(Total 100
on board).
31 crew+19 armed guard+26 passengers+1 army medical sergeant were
lost.(Total 77 lost-i.e 77%)
Five of the crew were made P.O.W in the submarine.
If these figures are correct,there must be therefore have been 23
survivors.including the five P.O.Ws in the submarine,but apparently 23
survivors were picked up by the Indian Warship.
Francis J O` Gara,the purser of the Liberty Ship "Jean Nicolet",was thought
to have been among those killed.After the war he was found in a Japanese
P.O.W camp.In the meantime,another Liberty Ship had been named after him.He
was the only living person to have a Liberty Ship named after him-in
error,of course ,as it had been thought he was dead.

I-8(Tatsunoke Ariizumi)
29 June 1944
British Ship "Nellore"(694grt)
07'51S,75'20E
En route from Bombay for Melbourne and Syndey with 2720 tons general and
goverment stores.
Torpedoed.
She had 155 crew+ 9 gunners+ 45 passengers.
35 Crew+ 5 gunners+ 39 passengers were lost.(79 lost out of total 209-i.e 38%)
One gunner and 10 passengers made P.O.W.
Ariizumi committed hara-kiri when a later command,the large submarine I-400
was taken over by the US Navy in August 1945.[Rohwer]
Tatsunoke Ariizumi, in command of I-401,shot himself as the submarine
entered Tokyo Bay,flying the black falg of surrender.[Padfield]

I-26(Toshio Kusaka)
29 March 1944
US Liberty Ship "Richard Hovey"(7176grt)
16'40N,64'30E
Sunk by torpedo and gunfire while en route from Calcutta and Bombay for
Aden with 3330 tos gunnies,jute etc.
She had a crew of 41+28 gunners+2 passengers(Total 71).While the crew of
the "Richard Hovey" were in boats and on rafts they were machine-gunned by
the submarine.Three crew and one gunner were lost.Four crew were made P.O.W.
Some of the survivors were rescued by British merchant ships having spent
16 days in the water.

I-12(Kameo Kudo)
28 Octomber 1944
US Liberty Ship "John A. Johnson"(7176grt)
29'55N,141'25W
Torpedoed en route from San Francisco to Pearl Harbour with war
supplies,including explosives.The ship broke in two,and was abandoned.Both
sections were shelled by the submarine.The forward section blew up and
sunk.The after section was set on fire before it sank.
Ten of the "Johnson`s" 70 crew were killed when their lifeboat was
machine-gunned by the I-12.

PF
Member
Posts: 2123
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 14:19
Location: USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#4

Post by PF » 14 Nov 2008, 17:58

Not just IJN Submarines:
When the gunboat USS Asheville {PG-21} was sunk by destroyers Arashi, Nowaki, and the cruiser Maya on 3 March 1942 just 1 survivor {FM 2/C Fred Brown} was picked out of the water while other survivors were machine gunned and left to sharks. Brown died of disease while a POW March 1945 but managed to tell his story to others.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#5

Post by David Thompson » 14 Nov 2008, 18:48

For interested readers:

The Story of Fred Louis Brown, Fireman Second Class, United States Navy
http://fizkid.tripod.com/id68.html

Unfortunately, the webpage gives no sources.

Brady
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 23:02
Location: Oregon

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#6

Post by Brady » 06 Jan 2010, 21:53

redcoat over on the Wahoo thread made some rather interesting points to me Mr. Tompson did as well through some linked threads concearing what constitues a war crime in these maters, and It would seam that if a filter were aplied to a few of the noted instances above they would not I beleave be a crime.

redcoat refering to the Wahoo incedent wrote:

The important fact about this incident was the fact that the men in the water and boats were uniformed members of the Japanese armed forces, and do not appear to have made any attempt to signal their wish to surrender to the submarines crew.
This would, from my readings of the rules of war then in place, would make the actions of the submarine, legal.

The fact that the majority of the men were unarmed and posed no threat to the submarine is irrevellent.

If they were a civilian crew the laws of war would be different, it would only require them to not resist the submarine to be entitled to protection under international law


This was news to me and has forced me to review my former take on the situation, though given some of the details above and in the wahoo incedent are still schechy.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#7

Post by michael mills » 08 Jan 2010, 02:06

Picking up survivors from a vessel that has sunk, and then killing them ritualistically, with elements of torture, is obviously a war crime.

But actions such as shooting at survivors in the water, on rafts, or on lifeboats seem to be a different matter, just a continuation of the original attack which sank the enemy vessel and may well have caused substantial loss of life in itself.

The fact that in some cases the Japanese submarine took a small number of survivors out of the water and kept them as POWs, while continuing to fire on the remainder, suggests that from the Japanese viewpoint only the former group had been taken prisoner and were entitled to protection, while the remainder of the survivors in the water were still combatants who had not surrendered.

Was there at the time any requirement under international law for a submarine, or any naval vessel for that matter, to rescue survivors from an enemy ship that had been sunk? It would be difficult for a submarine to accept many prisoners, given the lack of space to hold them. From my reading I know that there were many cases in both the First and Second World Wars, involving both sides, where a ship that had sunk an enemy vessel did not attempt to pick up survivors but left them to die.

Perhaps the bottom line is simply the difficulty of accepting prisoners in the course of naval combat, as compared with land warfare; it is not simply a matter of marching prisoners to the rear, but rather of keeping them on an already overcrowded vessel perhaps for weeks on end.

Brady
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 23:02
Location: Oregon

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#8

Post by Brady » 08 Jan 2010, 02:27

From what I gather, the plucking of one or two survivors from the water from a sinking generaly had more to do with intelgance gathering than an atempt to save lifes per say.

The British Sub hunter who was famious for sinking something like 5 U-boats in a few days, his name excapes me, comes to mind, he told his men under no circumstances pick up survivors from a U-Boat unless they give the Name of the Comander and the U-Boat Number first...

Obviously the practile aspect of the sub and all those stricken crewmen is an isue, The Laconia Incedent....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#9

Post by David Thompson » 08 Jan 2010, 02:50

Michael -- You asked:
Was there at the time any requirement under international law for a submarine, or any naval vessel for that matter, to rescue survivors from an enemy ship that had been sunk? It would be difficult for a submarine to accept many prisoners, given the lack of space to hold them. From my reading I know that there were many cases in both the First and Second World Wars, involving both sides, where a ship that had sunk an enemy vessel did not attempt to pick up survivors but left them to die.
Truly. As I understand it, the law of naval warfare at that time was for the ship to pick up survivors after the engagement ended, military necessity permitting. If for some reason rescuing survivors was impractical, it didn't happen. See the 1907 Hague X convention, for instance:
ARTICLE 16
After every engagement, the two belligerents, so far as military interests permit, shall take steps to look for the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded, and to protect them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill treatment.

They shall see that the burial, whether by land or sea, or cremation of the dead shall be preceded by a careful examination of the corpse.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague10.asp

This provision also appears in Article 85 of the Manual of the Laws of Naval War, Oxford, adopted by the International Institute of International Law, August 9, 1913, at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1913a.htm

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#10

Post by bf109 emil » 08 Jan 2010, 11:25

David, I have a question as Japan was not a signing member of the Geneva convention, nor was, from what i was able to see a signing member of the 1907 Hague rules for the conduct of Maritime War...would they be obligated to follow these rules? placing morals aside, could the provisions of the Hague rules you listed and the Geneva convention be used as a bases for trying a nation Internationally when and if in fact they where never a pre-signing member?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#11

Post by David Thompson » 08 Jan 2010, 13:26

bf109 emil -- You asked:
David, I have a question as Japan was not a signing member of the Geneva convention, nor was, from what i was able to see a signing member of the 1907 Hague rules for the conduct of Maritime War...would they be obligated to follow these rules? placing morals aside, could the provisions of the Hague rules you listed and the Geneva convention be used as a bases for trying a nation Internationally when and if in fact they where never a pre-signing member?
This question came up several years ago in another thread (which I can't locate at the moment). As I recall, there was an exchange of diplomatic correspondence between the US and Japan early in the war, in which the Japanese government was specifically asked if they intended to respect the 1929 Geneva POW convention. In that exchange, on 4 Feb 1942, Japan agreed to respect the convention.

For the diplomatic exchange, see Foreign Relations of the United States, 1942, vol. 1, pp. 792 et seq.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... RUS1942v01

Japan signed all of the 1907 Hague Conventions except XIV. On 13 Dec 1911 Japan ratified the 1907 Hague I-VIII Conventions, but not IX-XV, so they were bound by treaty to respect the first eight of them (but not the Hague X convention on maritime warfare):

Signatures, ratifications, adhesions and reservations to the Conventions and Declarations of the First and Second Hague Peace Conferences, Carnegie Foundation (1914), pp. 8-9.
http://www.archive.org/details/signatur ... 00carnuoft

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#12

Post by bf109 emil » 08 Jan 2010, 23:37

Thanks David and as
Japan signed all of the 1907 Hague Conventions except XIV. On 13 Dec 1911 Japan ratified the 1907 Hague I-VIII Conventions, but not IX-XV, so they were bound by treaty to respect the first eight of them (but not the Hague X convention on maritime warfare):
and the war crimes in question where a crime under article 16 of the Hague X convention, one which Japan never signed or heralded to oblige or respect which your quote earlier stated as...
ARTICLE 16
After every engagement, the two belligerents, so far as military interests permit, shall take steps to look for the shipwrecked, sick, and wounded, and to protect them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill treatment.

They shall see that the burial, whether by land or sea, or cremation of the dead shall be preceded by a careful examination of the corpse.
Perhaps a better question might be...Where Japanese submariners obligated to follow a rule of war that their nation never signed or obligated to follow? Could these Individuals be prosecuted legally for a war crime, under a law their nation never rectified nor bound them to follow?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#13

Post by David Thompson » 09 Jan 2010, 00:05

bf109 emil -- Do you have an example of a war crimes trial charging a Japanese defendant with a violation of Article 16 of the 1907 Hague X convention, for us to discuss? Since Japan didn't ratify the treaty, I think the only potentially successful approach would be to claim that the article restated a pre-existing custom of naval warfare. For submarine warfare, the "so far as military interests permit" clause would make the criminal charge difficult to prove, so the circumstances of the case would have to be pretty flagrant.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#14

Post by bf109 emil » 09 Jan 2010, 00:36

David Thompson wrote:bf109 emil -- Do you have an example of a war crimes trial charging a Japanese defendant with a violation of Article 16 of the 1907 Hague X convention, for us to discuss? Since Japan didn't ratify the treaty, I think the only potentially successful approach would be to claim that the article restated a pre-existing custom of naval warfare. For submarine warfare, the "so far as military interests permit" clause would make the criminal charge difficult to prove, so the circumstances of the case would have to be pretty flagrant.
No David i cannot, this is why i asked as earlier http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1264360 Rob - wssob2 wrote "Sorry folks - I mistyped - it's the I-167 that also committed war crimes" and listed "On this page (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/3166/) is the following compendium of IJN submarine crimes: naming these Japanese submariners as possible war criminals...I-37(Hajime Nakagawa), I-165(Shimizu), I-8(Tatsunoke Ariizumi), I-26(Toshio Kusaka), I-12(Kameo Kudo)...

So maybe might i ask, was what these 5 submariners did legally a war crime with neither their nation nor being obligated to follow article 16 of the 1907 Hague X convention as posted as being such earlier?

Brady
Member
Posts: 1521
Joined: 10 Jul 2008, 23:02
Location: Oregon

Re: War crimes of the IJN submarine force

#15

Post by Brady » 09 Jan 2010, 01:07

bf109 emil wrote: naming these Japanese submariners as possible war criminals...I-37(Hajime Nakagawa), I-165(Shimizu), I-8(Tatsunoke Ariizumi), I-26(Toshio Kusaka), I-12(Kameo Kudo)...

So maybe might i ask, was what these 5 submariners did legally a war crime with neither their nation nor being obligated to follow article 16 of the 1907 Hague X convention as posted as being such earlier?

From what I gahtered from the Wahoo thread the fine line is drawn by weather the crew are civilian or not, if they were uniformed its just fine to MG the men in the water or life boats. Whats interesting is that recently I beleave Merchant Seamen were aloted a status in the US of Beeing veterians, that in efect thy were in the Service of the country...

While it is clear that the US MG'ed Japanese Civilian SeaMen on Numiours ocashion and that was aparently ok, I am not shure how this aplies to the above cases.

......

I-37 as an example from above MG'ed Survivors from sinkings on several ocashions acording to her trom and her captain was tried for this post war and served time:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-37.htm

I cant personaly see this being much diferent from the Wahoo example, but I am uncertain.

.....

I-165 Trom: http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-165.htm

I dont think this would qualify as a warcrime, all the men were Uniformed and afik the Chinese men were open game legaly as far as the Japanese were concerned.

......

I-8, This is clearly a Crim(s) imo:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-8.htm

In 1946, 13 former crewmembers of I-8 and several IJN submarine staff officers are tried in Tokyo for war crimes committed in the Indian Ocean. The Gunnery Officer Lt Masataka Sadao is sentenced to seven years in prison, Lt Hattori Masanori to five years and other crewmembers receive lesser sentences.

.....

I-26, Another gray area

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-26.htm

......

I-12, Anoter Gray Area

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-12.htm

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”