The Ghost of Tomoyuki Yamashita

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

The Ghost of Tomoyuki Yamashita

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jan 2003 02:19

Tomoyuki Yamashita (1885-1946) was a Japanese general who defeated the British in Malaya and then accepted the surrender of US forces in the Philippines in 1942. He surrendered in 1945 and was put on trial by a US military tribunal for war crimes. He was convicted in 1946 and sentenced to death.

Before the death sentence was carried out, Yamashita filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the US Supreme Court, asking for a review of the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court denied his application, and Yamashita was executed 23 Feb 1946.

The refusal of the US Supreme Court to hear Yamashita's petition for writ of habeas corpus represents the outermost limits of Anglo-Saxon law on the issue of personal responsibility. Yamashita, while in MHO guilty of war crimes and well-deserving a death sentence, was tried and convicted on the most insubstantial theory of personal liability ever presented to our courts.

The holding in this case, which has never been repealed, haunts war crimes proceedings to this day, because the legal principles of the case are so broad. The full opinion of the court is on line at:

Two members of the US Supreme Court dissented in the decision not to review Yamashita's case. Here is the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Murphy:

No. 61, Misc.
327 U.S. 1; 66 S. Ct. 340; 90 L. Ed. 499
January 7, 8, 1946, Argued
February 4, 1946, Decided

From the US Supreme Court case In Re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 26-41 (1946)

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, dissenting.

The significance of the issue facing the Court today cannot be overemphasized. An American military commission has been established to try a fallen military commander of a conquered nation for an alleged war crime. The authority for such action grows out of the exercise of the power conferred upon Congress by Article I, § 8, Cl. 10 of the Constitution to "define and punish ... Offences against the Law of Nations ..." The grave issue raised by this case is whether a military commission so established and so authorized may disregard the procedural rights of an accused person as guaranteed by the Constitution, especially by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The answer is plain. The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law applies to "any person" who is accused of a crime by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. No exception is made as to those who are accused of war crimes or as to those who possess the status of an enemy belligerent. Indeed, such an exception would be contrary to the whole philosophy of human rights which makes the Constitution the great living document that it is. The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs. They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest army in the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States.

The existence of these rights, unfortunately, is not always respected. They are often trampled under by those who are motivated by hatred, aggression or fear. But in this nation individual rights are recognized and protected, at least in regard to governmental action. They cannot be ignored by any branch of the Government, even the military, except under the most extreme and urgent circumstances.

The failure of the military commission to obey the dictates of the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment is apparent in this case. The petitioner was the commander of an army totally destroyed by the superior power of this nation. While under heavy and destructive attack by our forces, his troops committed many brutal atrocities and other high crimes. Hostilities ceased and he voluntarily surrendered. At that point he was entitled, as an individual protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, to be treated fairly and justly according to the accepted rules of law and procedure. He was also entitled to a fair trial as to any alleged crimes and to be free from charges of legally unrecognized crimes that would serve only to permit his accusers to satisfy their desires for revenge.

A military commission was appointed to try the petitioner for an alleged war crime. The trial was ordered to be held in territory over which the United States has complete sovereignty. No military necessity or other emergency demanded the suspension of the safeguards of due process. Yet petitioner was rushed to trial under an improper charge, given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense, deprived of the benefits of some of the most elementary rules of evidence and summarily sentenced to be hanged. In all this needless and unseemly haste there was no serious attempt to charge or to prove that he committed a recognized violation of the laws of war. He was not charged with personally participating in the acts of atrocity or with ordering or condoning their commission. Not even knowledge of these crimes was attributed to him. It was simply alleged that he unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to commit the acts of atrocity. The recorded annals of warfare and the established principles of international law afford not the slightest precedent for such a charge. This indictment in effect permitted the military commission to make the crime whatever it willed, dependent upon its biased view as to petitioner's duties and his disregard thereof, a practice reminiscent of that pursued in certain less respected nations in recent years.

In my opinion, such a procedure is unworthy of the traditions of our people or of the immense sacrifices that they have made to advance the common ideals of mankind. The high feelings of the moment doubtless will be satisfied. But in the sober afterglow will come the realization of the boundless and dangerous implications of the procedure sanctioned today.

No one in a position of command in an army, from sergeant to general, can escape those implications. Indeed, the fate of some future President of the United States and his chiefs of staff and military advisers may well have been sealed by this decision. But even more significant will be the hatred and ill-will growing out of the application of this unprecedented procedure. That has been the inevitable effect of every method of punishment disregarding the element of personal culpability. The effect in this instance, unfortunately, will be magnified infinitely, for here we are dealing with the rights of man on an international level. To subject an enemy belligerent to an unfair trial, to charge him with an unrecognized crime, or to vent on him our retributive emotions only antagonizes the enemy nation and hinders the reconciliation necessary to a peaceful world.

That there were brutal atrocities inflicted upon the helpless Filipino people, to whom tyranny is no stranger, by Japanese armed forces under the petitioner's command is undeniable. Starvation, execution or massacre without trial, torture, rape, murder and wanton destruction of property were foremost among the outright violations of the laws of war and of the conscience of a civilized world. That just punishment should be meted out to all those responsible for criminal acts of this nature is also beyond dispute. But these factors do not answer the problem in this case. They do not justify the abandonment of our devotion to justice in dealing with a fallen enemy commander. To conclude otherwise is to admit that the enemy has lost the battle but has destroyed our ideals.

War breeds atrocities. From the earliest conflicts of recorded history to the global struggles of modern times inhumanities, lust and pillage have been the inevitable by-products of man's resort to force and arms. Unfortunately, such despicable acts have a dangerous tendency to call forth primitive impulses of vengeance and retaliation among the victimized peoples. The satisfaction of such impulses in turn breeds resentment and fresh tension. Thus does the spiral of cruelty and hatred grow.

If we are ever to develop an orderly international community based upon a recognition of human dignity it is of the utmost importance that the necessary punishment of those guilty of atrocities be as free as possible from the ugly stigma of revenge and vindictiveness. Justice must be tempered by compassion rather than by vengeance. In this, the first case involving this momentous problem ever to reach this Court, our responsibility is both lofty and difficult. We must insist, within the confines of our proper jurisdiction, that the highest standards of justice be applied in this trial of an enemy commander conducted under the authority of the United States. Otherwise stark retribution will be free to masquerade in a cloak of false legalism. And the hatred and cynicism engendered by that retribution will supplant the great ideals to which this nation is dedicated.

This Court fortunately has taken the first and most important step toward insuring the supremacy of law and justice in the treatment of an enemy belligerent accused of violating the laws of war. Jurisdiction properly has been asserted to inquire "into the cause of restraint of liberty" of such a person. 28 U. S. C. § 452. Thus the obnoxious doctrine asserted by the Government in this case, to the effect that restraints of liberty resulting from military trials of war criminals are political matters completely outside the arena of judicial review, has been rejected fully and unquestionably. This does not mean, of course, that the foreign affairs and policies of the nation are proper subjects of judicial inquiry. But when the liberty of any person is restrained by reason of the authority of the United States the writ of habeas corpus is available to test the legality of that restraint, even though direct court review of the restraint is prohibited. The conclusive presumption must be made, in this country at least, that illegal restraints are unauthorized and unjustified by any foreign policy of the Government and that commonly accepted juridical standards are to be recognized and enforced. On that basis judicial inquiry into these matters may proceed within its proper sphere.

The determination of the extent of review of war trials calls for judicial statesmanship of the highest order. The ultimate nature and scope of the writ of habeas corpus are within the discretion of the judiciary unless validly circumscribed by Congress. Here we are confronted with a use of the writ under circumstances novel in the history of the Court. For my own part, I do not feel that we should be confined by the traditional lines of review drawn in connection with the use of the writ by ordinary criminals who have direct access to the judiciary in the first instance. Those held by the military lack any such access; consequently the judicial review available by habeas corpus must be wider than usual in order that proper standards of justice may be enforceable.

But for the purposes of this case I accept the scope of review recognized by the Court at this time. As I understand it, the following issues in connection with war criminal trials are reviewable through the use of the writ of habeas corpus: (1) whether the military commission was lawfully created and had authority to try and to convict the accused of a war crime; (2) whether the charge against the accused stated a violation of the laws of war; (3) whether the commission, in admitting certain evidence, violated any law or military command defining the commission's authority in that respect; and (4) whether the commission lacked jurisdiction because of a failure to give advance notice to the protecting power as required by treaty or convention.

The Court, in my judgment, demonstrates conclusively that the military commission was lawfully created in this instance and that petitioner could not object to its power to try him for a recognized war crime. Without pausing here to discuss the third and fourth issues, however, I find it impossible to agree that the charge against the petitioner stated a recognized violation of the laws of war.

It is important, in the first place, to appreciate the background of events preceding this trial. From October 9, 1944, to September 2, 1945, the petitioner was the Commanding General of the 14th Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army, with headquarters in the Philippines. The reconquest of the Philippines by the armed forces of the United States began approximately at the time when the petitioner assumed this command. Combined with a great and decisive sea battle, an invasion was made on the island of Leyte on October 20, 1944. "In the six days of the great naval action the Japanese position in the Philippines had become extremely critical. Most of the serviceable elements of the Japanese Navy had been committed to the battle with disastrous results. The strike had miscarried, and General MacArthur's land wedge was firmly implanted in the vulnerable flank of the enemy ... There were 260,000 Japanese troops scattered over the Philippines but most of them might as well have been on the other side of the world so far as the enemy's ability to shift them to meet the American thrusts was concerned. If General MacArthur succeeded in establishing himself in the Visayas where he could stage, exploit, and spread under cover of overwhelming naval and air superiority, nothing could prevent him from overrunning the Philippines." Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1945, to the Secretary of War, p. 74.

By the end of 1944 the island of Leyte was largely in American hands. And on January 9, 1945, the island of Luzon was invaded. "Yamashita's inability to cope with General MacArthur's swift moves, his desired reaction to the deception measures, the guerrillas, and General Kenney's aircraft combined to place the Japanese in an impossible situation. The enemy was forced into a piecemeal committment of his troops." Ibid., p. 78. It was at this time and place that most of the alleged atrocities took place. Organized resistance around Manila ceased on February 23. Repeated land and air assaults pulverized the enemy and within a few months there was little left of petitioner's command except a few remnants which had gathered for a last stand among the precipitous mountains.

As the military commission here noted, "The Defense established the difficulties faced by the Accused with respect not only to the swift and overpowering advance of American forces, but also to the errors of his predecessors, weaknesses in organization, equipment, supply with especial reference to food and gasoline, training, communication, discipline and morale of his troops. It was alleged that the sudden assignment of Naval and Air Forces to his tactical command presented almost insurmountable difficulties. This situation was followed, the Defense contended, by failure to obey his orders to withdraw troops from Manila, and the subsequent massacre of unarmed civilians, particularly by Naval forces. Prior to the Luzon Campaign, Naval forces had reported to a separate ministry in the Japanese Government and Naval Commanders may not have been receptive or experienced in this instance with respect to a joint land operation under a single commander who was designated from the Army Service."

The day of final reckoning for the enemy arrived in August, 1945. On September 3, the petitioner surrendered to the United States Army at Baguio, Luzon. He immediately became a prisoner of war and was interned in prison in conformity with the rules of international law. On September 25, approximately three weeks after surrendering, he was served with the charge in issue in this case. Upon service of the charge he was removed from the status of a prisoner of war and placed in confinement as an accused war criminal. Arraignment followed on October 8 before a military commission specially appointed for the case. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. He was also served on that day with a bill of particulars alleging 64 crimes by troops under his command. A supplemental bill alleging 59 more crimes by his troops was filed on October 29, the same day that the trial began. No continuance was allowed for preparation of a defense as to the supplemental bill. The trial continued uninterrupted until December 5, 1945. On December 7 petitioner was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to be hanged.

The petitioner was accused of having "unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes." The bills of particulars further alleged that specific acts of atrocity were committed by "members of the armed forces of Japan under the command of the accused." Nowhere was it alleged that the petitioner personally committed any of the atrocities, or that he ordered their commission, or that he had any knowledge of the commission thereof by members of his command.

The findings of the military commission bear out this absence of any direct personal charge against the petitioner. The commission merely found that atrocities and other high crimes "have been committed by members of the Japanese armed forces under your command ... that they were not sporadic in nature but in many cases were methodically supervised by Japanese officers and noncommissioned officers; ... That during the period in question you failed to provide effective control of your troops as was required by the circumstances."

In other words, read against the background of military events in the Philippines subsequent to October 9, 1944, these charges amount to this: "We, the victorious American forces, have done everything possible to destroy and disorganize your lines of communication, your effective control of your personnel, your ability to wage war. In those respects we have succeeded. We have defeated and crushed your forces. And now we charge and condemn you for having been inefficient in maintaining control of your troops during the period when we were so effectively besieging and eliminating your forces and blocking your ability to maintain effective control. Many terrible atrocities were committed by your disorganized troops. Because these atrocities were so widespread we will not bother to charge or prove that you committed, ordered or condoned any of them. We will assume that they must have resulted from your inefficiency and negligence as a commander. In short, we charge you with the crime of inefficiency in controlling your troops. We will judge the discharge of your duties by the disorganization which we ourselves created in large part. Our standards of judgment are whatever we wish to make them."

Nothing in all history or in international law, at least as far as I am aware, justifies such a charge against a fallen commander of a defeated force. To use the very inefficiency and disorganization created by the victorious forces as the primary basis for condemning officers of the defeated armies bears no resemblance to justice or to military reality.

International law makes no attempt to define the duties of a commander of an army under constant and overwhelming assault; nor does it impose liability under such circumstances for failure to meet the ordinary responsibilities of command. The omission is understandable. Duties, as well as ability to control troops, vary according to the nature and intensity of the particular battle. To find an unlawful deviation from duty under battle conditions requires difficult and speculative calculations. Such calculations become highly untrustworthy when they are made by the victor in relation to the actions of a vanquished commander. Objective and realistic norms of conduct are then extremely unlikely to be used in forming a judgment as to deviations from duty. The probability that vengeance will form the major part of the victor's judgment is an unfortunate but inescapable fact. So great is that probability that international law refuses to recognize such a judgment as a basis for a war crime, however fair the judgment may be in a particular instance. It is this consideration that undermines the charge against the petitioner in this case. The indictment permits, indeed compels, the military commission of a victorious nation to sit in judgment upon the military strategy and actions of the defeated enemy and to use its conclusions to determine the criminal liability of an enemy commander. Life and liberty are made to depend upon the biased will of the victor rather than upon objective standards of conduct.

The Court's reliance upon vague and indefinite references in certain of the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Red Cross Convention is misplaced. Thus the statement in Article 1 of the Annex to Hague Convention No. IV of October 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 2295, to the effect that the laws, rights and duties of war apply to military and volunteer corps only if they are "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates," has no bearing upon the problem in this case. Even if it has, the clause "responsible for his subordinates" fails to state to whom the responsibility is owed or to indicate the type of responsibility contemplated. The phrase has received differing interpretations by authorities on international law. In Oppenheim, International Law (6th ed., rev. by Lauterpacht, 1940, vol. 2, p. 204, fn. 3) it is stated that "The meaning of the word 'responsible' ... is not clear. It probably means 'responsible to some higher authority,' whether the person is appointed from above or elected from below; ..." Another authority has stated that the word "responsible" in this particular context means "presumably to a higher authority," or "Possibly it merely means one who controls his subordinates and who therefore can be called to account for their acts." Wheaton, International Law (7th ed., by Keith, London, 1944, p. 172, fn. 30). Still another authority, Westlake, International Law (1907, Part II, p. 61), states that "Probably the responsibility intended is nothing more than a capacity of exercising effective control." Finally, Edmonds and Oppenheim, Land Warfare (1912, p. 19, par. 22) state that it is enough "if the commander of the corps is regularly or temporarily commissioned as an officer or is a person of position and authority ..." It seems apparent beyond dispute that the word "responsible" was not used in this particular Hague Convention to hold the commander of a defeated army to any high standard of efficiency when he is under destructive attack; nor was it used to impute to him any criminal responsibility for war crimes committed by troops under his command under such circumstances.

The provisions of the other conventions referred to by the Court are on their face equally devoid of relevance or significance to the situation here in issue. Neither Article 19 of Hague Convention No. X, 36 Stat. 2371, 2389, nor Article 26 of the Geneva Red Cross Convention of 1929, 47 Stat. 2074, 2092, refers to circumstances where the troops of a commander commit atrocities while under heavily adverse battle conditions. Reference is also made to the requirement of Article 43 of the Annex to Hague Convention No. IV, 36 Stat. 2295, 2306, that the commander of a force occupying enemy territory "shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." But the petitioner was more than a commander of a force occupying enemy territory. He was the leader of an army under constant and devastating attacks by a superior re-invading force. This provision is silent as to the responsibilities of a commander under such conditions as that.

Even the laws of war heretofore recognized by this nation fail to impute responsibility to a fallen commander for excesses committed by his disorganized troops while under attack. Paragraph 347 of the War Department publication, Basic Field Manual, Rules of Land Warfare, FM 27-10 (1940), states the principal offenses under the laws of war recognized by the United States. This includes all of the atrocities which the Japanese troops were alleged to have committed in this instance. Originally this paragraph concluded with the statement that "The commanders ordering the commission of such acts, or under whose authority they are committed by their troops, may be punished by the belligerent into whose hands they may fall." The meaning of the phrase "under whose authority they are committed" was not clear. On November 15, 1944, however, this sentence was deleted and a new paragraph was added relating to the personal liability of those who violate the laws of war. Change 1, FM 27-10. The new paragraph 345.1 states that "Individuals and organizations who violate the accepted laws and customs of war may be punished therefor. However, the fact that the acts complained of were done pursuant to order of a superior or government sanction may be taken into consideration in determining culpability, either by way of defense or in mitigation of punishment. The person giving such orders may also be punished." From this the conclusion seems inescapable that the United States recognizes individual criminal responsibility for violations of the laws of war only as to those who commit the offenses or who order or direct their commission. Such was not the allegation here. Cf. Article 67 of the Articles of War, 10 U. S. C. § 1539.

There are numerous instances, especially with reference to the Philippine Insurrection in 1900 and 1901, where commanding officers were found to have violated the laws of war by specifically ordering members of their command to commit atrocities and other war crimes. Francisco Frani, G. O. 143, Dec. 13, 1900, Hq. Div. Phil.; Eugenio Fernandez and Juan Soriano, G. O. 28, Feb. 6, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil.; Ciriaco Cabungal, G. O. 188, Jul. 22, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil.; Natalio Valencia, G. O. 221, Aug. 17, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil.; Aniceta Angeles, G. O. 246, Sept. 2, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil.; Francisco Braganza, G. O. 291, Sept. 26, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil.; Lorenzo Andaya, G. O. 328, Oct. 25, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil. And in other cases officers have been held liable where they knew that a crime was to be committed, had the power to prevent it and failed to exercise that power. Pedro Abad Santos, G. O. 130, June 19, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil. Cf. Pedro A. Cruz, G. O. 264, Sept. 9, 1901, Hq. Div. Phil. In no recorded instance, however, has the mere inability to control troops under fire or attack by superior forces been made the basis of a charge of violating the laws of war.

The Government claims that the principle that commanders in the field are bound to control their troops has been applied so as to impose liability on the United States in international arbitrations. Case of Jeannaud (1880), 3 Moore, International Arbitrations (1898) 3000; Case of The Zafiro (1910), 5 Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1943) 707. The difference between arbitrating property rights and charging an individual with a crime against the laws of war is too obvious to require elaboration. But even more significant is the fact that even these arbitration cases fail to establish any principle of liability where troops are under constant assault and demoralizing influences by attacking forces. The same observation applies to the common law and statutory doctrine, referred to by the Government, that one who is under a legal duty to take protective or preventive action is guilty of criminal homicide if he willfully or negligently omits to act and death is proximately caused. State v. Harrison, 107 N. J. L. 213, 152 A. 867; State v. Irvine, 126 La. 434, 52 So. 567; Holmes, The Common Law, p. 278. No one denies that inaction or negligence may give rise to liability, civil or criminal. But it is quite another thing to say that the inability to control troops under highly competitive and disastrous battle conditions renders one guilty of a war crime in the absence of personal culpability. Had there been some element of knowledge or direct connection with the atrocities the problem would be entirely different. Moreover, it must be remembered that we are not dealing here with an ordinary tort or criminal action; precedents in those fields are of little if any value. Rather we are concerned with a proceeding involving an international crime, the treatment of which may have untold effects upon the future peace of the world. That fact must be kept uppermost in our search for precedent.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the charge made against the petitioner is clearly without precedent in international law or in the annals of recorded military history. This is not to say that enemy commanders may escape punishment for clear and unlawful failures to prevent atrocities. But that punishment should be based upon charges fairly drawn in light of established rules of international law and recognized concepts of justice.

But the charge in this case, as previously noted, was speedily drawn and filed but three weeks after the petitioner surrendered. The trial proceeded with great dispatch without allowing the defense time to prepare an adequate case. Petitioner's rights under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment were grossly and openly violated without any justification. All of this was done without any thorough investigation and prosecution of those immediately responsible for the atrocities, out of which might have come some proof or indication of personal culpability on petitioner's part. Instead the loose charge was made that great numbers of atrocities had been committed and that petitioner was the commanding officer; hence he must have been guilty of disregard of duty. Under that charge the commission was free to establish whatever standard of duty on petitioner's part that it desired. By this flexible method a victorious nation may convict and execute any or all leaders of a vanquished foe, depending upon the prevailing degree of vengeance and the absence of any objective judicial review.

At a time like this when emotions are understandably high it is difficult to adopt a dispassionate attitude toward a case of this nature. Yet now is precisely the time when that attitude is most essential. While peoples in other lands may not share our beliefs as to due process and the dignity of the individual, we are not free to give effect to our emotions in reckless disregard of the rights of others. We live under the Constitution, which is the embodiment of all the high hopes and aspirations of the new world. And it is applicable in both war and peace. We must act accordingly. Indeed, an uncurbed spirit of revenge and retribution, masked in formal legal procedure for purposes of dealing with a fallen enemy commander, can do more lasting harm than all of the atrocities giving rise to that spirit. The people's faith in the fairness and objectiveness of the law can be seriously undercut by that spirit. The fires of nationalism can be further kindled. And the hearts of all mankind can be embittered and filled with hatred, leaving forlorn and impoverished the noble ideal of malice toward none and charity to all. These are the reasons that lead me to dissent in these terms.
Last edited by David Thompson on 17 Jun 2004 19:30, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Jan 2003 06:14

The Supreme Court has seldom been known for its courage. New Deal Interventionist Justice Frankfurter no doubt advised his colleagues that the best way out of the appeal dilemma of the Yamashita trial was to simply blow the Constitutional violations off. Story continued on Page A-12. Yesterday's news. Yamashita had embarassed MacArthur, so not only the Left, but also the Right wanted to make him pay. He failed to control each-every one of his troops when they were being routed and some committed atrocities. It was also particularly galling to the Victors that General Yamashita was allowed to stand trial while wearing his rank and decorations.


David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 24 Jan 2003 06:21

Scott -- Thanks for reading this sepulchral post (If you hadn't read it before). I just don't agree with the majority opinion in this case.

User avatar
Barry Graham
Posts: 88
Joined: 25 Nov 2004 05:59
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Yamashita and the Malayan massacres

Post by Barry Graham » 02 Apr 2005 06:03

I have just completed reading "The Bridge at Parit Sulong" by Lynette Silver.
The book sheds new light on Yamishita and the atrocities in Malaya.

The book speculates that the massacres that occurred during the southern retreat of Allied forces down the west coast of Malaya were triggered by a fluked, direct hit by Australian artillery on the Imperial Guards divisional headquarters that took the lives of several senior divisional officers resulting in a "take no prisoners" policy being issued by the divisional commander to the troops under his command.

In the retreat several massacres took place. The most notable being the execution of between 200-300 at Bakri and the slaughter of 107 Australian and 40 Indian Army wounded at Parit Sulong.
After fighting their way south down the causeway the the force found that their retreat was cut off at the Parit Sulong bridge.
Despite negotiations under a white flag to allow the wounded to pass the Japanese refused the request.
In the misplaced belief that the Japanese would honour the Geneva Convention the commander decided to save as many fighting men that he could and issued the order to all troops to attempt an escape, leaving the wounded in trucks and ambulances under a flag of truce.

The wounded were assembled and later inspected by the Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Nishimura Takuma, General Officer Commanding, Imperial Guards Division who gave the order to "dispose" of the wounded.
In his trial defence Nishimura claimed that this meant "move the wounded to the rear" - but the Chief of Staff, Colonel Imai Kamerjiro - who did not survive the war - added; "The bodies of the prisoners are to be cremated on completion of the execution". The full text of the order was passed on to Lt. Fujita given the task of disposing of the prisoners.

The wounded were bound together in groups and executed by machine gun fire, their bodies covered in petrol and burned.
Later the remains were pushed into the river or buried using enforced labour from the Malay village.
Many of the allied dead were compacted into bomb craters in the approaches to the bridge as raod fill.
Three Australians survived the massacre of whom two survived the war.

The commanders of other Japanese divisions did not find it necessary to extract such revenge.
Following a successful ambush and ferocious fighting on the East coast which took the lives of a great number of Japanese, between 100 and 150 Australians where overcome by a superior force which left few survivors.
The Japanese commander, impressed by such bravery against overwhelming odds erectd a huge wooden cross honouring " Our Gallant Enemies, the Australians".

After the Japanese surrender Colonel Cyril Wild of the British Army carried out investigations into the Malayan massacres in an attempt to bring the war criminals to justice. Wild had no love for the Japanese having suffered the humiliation of carrying the white flag to the Ford factory when Singapore was surrended and later suffering brutal beatings at the hands of Japanese guards on the Burma-Siam railway.
Just before Yamashita was to stand trial in Manilla, Mountbatten sought permission to have Colonel Wild interview him on his knowledge of the Malayan atrocities in the hope that Wild would discover the identities of the officers involved.
Contrary to expectations, Yamashita was most forthcoming. When questioned about Parit Sulong and a number of other atrocities, including the murder of patients and medical staff at Singapore's Alexandra Hospital, he claimed no prior knowledge. Up until this point Wild had assumed that, as commander of the invading force, he must be aware of the atrocities committed by his troops. Wild and his colleagues also believed Yamashita was responsible for issuing orders which had resulted in the massacre of thousands of innocent Chinese civilians in Singapore. however, after interrogating the General, Wild was convinced he was telling the truth - he had not issued any orders and had no knowledge of any of the atrocities,which he roundly condemned.
As proof of his disapproval, Yamashita agreed to name the senior officers of the units responsible. At no stage did he question any of Wild's evidence and on several occasions he,denounced the perpetrators in fairly strong terms. As Wild recounted the details, the General took notes, including the names of some of the witnesses. In response to atrocities against Australians and Indians at Parit Sulong and near Bakri, Yarnashita stated "the troops of the Konoye (Guards) Division, under the command of Lieutenant Nishimura Takuma must be considered responsible for two massacres of Australians and Indians following the Muar battle'. He agreed with Wild that Nishimura should be interrogated and wrote out his name in Japanese characters.
Apparently Wild was impressed by Yamashita's frankness.
'Yamashita', Wild told Mountbatten 'has given the impression of speaking the truth when he disclaimed previous knowledge of these Malayan atrocities'.
It appeared that Wild's faith in Yamashita's integrity was not misplaced.
Following the occupation of Penang Island, on Malaya's west coast, Yamashita had learned of wide misbehaviour by his troops. Already angry, he became even more enraged to discover that three of them had rampaged through Georgetown, the island's capital, pillaging and raping at will. Punishment was swift. The three soldiers were executed and the battalion's commanding officer, Major Kobayashi, placed under close arrest for 28 days.
Writing in his diary, Yamashita recorded 'I want my troops to behave with dignity most of them do not seem to have the ability to do so. This is very important now Japan is taking her place in the world'. He also hoped he could achieve his plan of invading Malaya and Singapore 'without killing too many of the enemy'. In an effort ensure his troops would toe the line, Yamashita ordered Colonel Watanabe, his political chief, to deal harshly with any soldier found ill-treating civilians. These orders made virtually no impression on the General's senior officers who, intent on defeating the enemy where not interested in such trivial matters.
Later, in the last days of fighting on Island, Yamashita urged the British to surrender early and so avoid the unnecessary slaughter of civilians. Cynics would say that Yamashita, knowing his supply supply lines where at their limit, used this argument as a ploy; Wild, after discussing the issue with him was convinced that Yamashita's concern was genuine.
Later in the book there is a further quotation that seems to pass the blame for many of the Malayan atrocities to subordinate officers.

....noted historian Irwin P Hoyt, drawing on a number of previously unpublished Japanese documents, archives and records stated:
Singapore fell. A hundred thousand prisoners of war had to be dealt with. It was not an easy task for General Yamashita and the task was made more difficult by the brutalities of his subordinates. The worst of these was Major-General Nishimura Takuma of the Imperial Guards Division. He encouraged rape and murder and pillage among his troops ... Yamashita gave orders - the orders were disobeyed. Finally Nishimura was sent home to Japan in disgrace. The Guards alone, among the three Divisions assaulting Malaya, did not receive an Imperial Rescript after victory.
The Imperial Guards had dishonoured itself.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 02 Apr 2005 06:35

Thank you, Barry, for a very interesting and informative post.

User avatar
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Post by redcoat » 02 Apr 2005 12:38

I've read only a little on General Tomoyuki Yamashita, but what I have read has lead me to consider him one of the great generals of the war, and sadly it does appear he was a victim of injustice in his war-crime trial :(

Thanks all, for the info.

User avatar
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 02 Apr 2005 16:04

Here's a description of the battle for Manila from historian John Costello:
The fanatical Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabachi had discounted Yamashita's order making Manila an open city. He commanded the naval garrison of 17,000, whom he had ordered to fight to the death alongside the 4,000 army soldiers who also found themselves trapped. A four-day initial battle left much of northern Manila in flames as the American tanks and artillery spearheaded the push to the Pasig River, which divided the city........

The Battle of Manila was to be fought with a savagery that made nonsense of MacArthur's February 7 communique proclaiming that "our forces are rapidly clearing Manila," and predicting that the "complete destruction" of the enemy was "imminent." ......

"Day and night the shelling goes on," Time magazine correspondent W.P. Gray reported, as the Pacific War's only major battle for a city ground relentlessly on. "How many hundreds or thousands of civilians have already dies by fire or shellfire outside Intramuros, nobody knows. Hundreds of city blocks are burned and flattened. Many unburned buildings are pocked or shattered by gunfire." The civilian population suffered horribly. Over 100,000 Filipinos died from the heavy bombardment and the butchery and indiscriminate rape by increasingly desperate Japanese troops.
John Costello, "The Pacific War," p.533

It is obvious that General Yamashita had lost control over the troops in Manilla.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: The Ghost of Tomoyuki Yamashita

Post by David Thompson » 02 Jul 2008 16:51

Some interesting and newly-available information on the case:

The Case of General Yamashita: A Memorandum ... ashita.pdf

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”