• German War Criminals
• Execution Of Japanese War Criminals

. This Week's Theme is New to /r/AskHistorians? Please read our and before posting!. Upvote informative, well sourced answers. Downvote and Report comments that are unhelpful or grossly off-topic The Rules, in Brief 1.: No Racism, Bigotry, or Offensive Behavior.

Nothing Less Than, and. Write, and, Using. Provide If Asked. No Tertiary Sources Like. Serious On-Topic Comments Only:, or other.

Comments That Break. Resources. Flair Our have detailed knowledge of their historical specialty and a proven record of excellent contributions to. Flair categories. To nominate someone else as a Quality Contributor,. Upcoming Events Participant(s) Event Jan.

Top 10 Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals. '2015 Annual Report on the Status of Nazi War Criminals,' Simon Wiesenthal Center [PDF]. Alduin’s ane Family Heirloom Out of Balance Thieves Guild Radiant Quests The Fallen Escaped Criminal An Enchanted. Quests Civil War Quests. Hunt Battle For.

Of AMA: Mesoamerica and Pseudoarchaeology Features Feature posts are posted weekly. The current rotation is:. (biweekly). Related subreddits. Follow us on social media. As was already mentioned, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East tried Japanese citizens for war crimes and the like. Some more information on the tribunal:.

The Tribunal was established on January 16, 1946, and convicted 28 accused Japanese war criminals in November of 1948. The crimes were similar to those established by Nuremberg: crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The court considered (the initial indictment had 55 counts, only 10 counts were left by the end), and convicted, on the counts of: conspiracy to wage aggressive war, the waging of that war against China, the US, British Commonwealth, Netherlands, France, USSR, and Mongolian People's Republic, conspiracy to violate the laws and customs of war, and reckless disregard of duty in failure to prevent breaches of the laws and customs of war.

The judgment had nine of eleven tribunal members concurring, and put blame on the Japanese army and Japan in general for waging aggressive war. One defendant was not charged because of insanity. Two died of natural causes during the trials.

Seven were hanged, on December 23, 1948. Sixteen were given life imprisonment. Only one managed to get seven years imprisonment. India's judge exonerated the defendants, and France's judge called for acquittals, saying the blame should be laid at the feet of Emperor Hirohito (who did not stand trial). The court's other justices (with the exception of Australia's and the Philippines' judges, who wrote separate opinions) concurred in their opinions.

The judge from the Netherlands argued for more leniency in his dissent for some of the accused. The above are also called the 'Tokyo Trials'.

There were other trials, however, and far more people indicted and convicted than those 28. As the: The conference agreed that the question of the major war criminals should be the subject of inquiry by the three Foreign Secretaries for report in due course after the close of the conference. This, coupled with the, provided the precedent needed (as if Nuremberg wasn't enough) to try Japanese war criminals outside of the leadership.

The trials dealing with these 'lesser criminals' (known as Class B and C criminals) were known as the 'Yokohama War Crimes Trials', and were prepared for to great extend. From March of 1945, a War Crimes branch was created by the United States, and lists of suspects and cases were compiled.

The moment hostilities were terminated, incarcerations took place as quickly as humanly possible. On December 6, 1945, General MacArthur ordered the appointment of military commission for the trials on war crimes, which were ordered to start immediately. The Legal Section for the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers expected 300 trials involving 500 or more people would be held, and by May of 1950 there were over 952 people who had been tried, with 33 accused still on trial at that date. 996 would be tried total. Many prisoners had given themselves up voluntarily when their names were published on war crimes lists, and 200 were confined in Sugamo prison when the trials began. The first commission convened on December 17, 1945, with nine high-ranking officers appointed to it. They established the precedents for the later trials to come.

There weren't many who escaped notice, truth be told. As the Chicago Daily Tribune noted on September 17, 1945: Japanese militarists crowded Yokohama prison today, and with the arrest of Shigenori Togo, who as foreign minister helped plunge his nation into war, the manhunt for the main war criminals suspects was nearly ended. The Yokohama trials weren't the only ones to take place, however. All in all, the Pacific saw over 2,000 trials and 5,000 defendants, divided into categories based on whether or not they committed crimes against the peace and how severe their other crimes/positions were. At Yokohama, of the 996 tried, 854 would be convicted, and 124 were given death sentences (only 51 would be carried out as some sentences were reduced). 63 were sentenced to life imprisonment, 2 to 41-50 years, 410 would be given between 6 and 40 years, and the rest (255) got less than 5 years.

Other trials took place in China, the Philippines, and other areas for lesser criminals. Unlike the case of Israel and Eichmann, there was no high-profile leader on the run, and the leaders were summarily caught and handled much more quickly. There are some who undertake 'Nazi hunting' on their own, but as far as I've seen there's no comparable effort by the Chinese or United States to track down Japanese war criminals, nor has there been much focus on it. The Nuremberg Trials overshadowed the Tokyo Trials by quite a bit, and because the Tokyo Trials dealt with all Class A criminals (the ones people at the time cared about, to be brutally honest), there was less incentive to go after any other Class B or C criminals, though some argued that the Japanese Princes (some, anyways) and Emperor should've been tried. But because the Yokohama and other trials were overshadowed by both Nuremberg and Tokyo, it's hard to find much on them and harder to imagine anyone going after Class B or C criminals well after the war ended, besides to very small degrees and the kind of degrees that don't get much notice. Sources: International Military Tribunal for the Far East International Organization, Vol.

1 (Feb., 1949), pp. 184-186 The Yokohama War Crimes Trials: The Truth About a Misunderstood Subject Paul E.

Spurlock American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 5 (May 1950), pp. 387-389, 436-437 Reflections on the Prosecution of War Crimes by International Tribunals Theodor Meron The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3 (Jul., 2006), pp.

551-579 JAP WAR CRIME HUNT CROWDS YOKOHAMA JAIL. (1945, Sep 17). Chicago Daily Tribune (1923-1963) Pennington, L. The pacific war crimes trials: The importance of the 'small fry' vs. The 'big fish'. 1520410, Old Dominion University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Thanks for the compliment! When I was reading about him, I definitely got that impression. The reason he wanted to exonerate, as I've understood it, is because 'Australia contributed to Japan's psychological preparation for war by blocking League of Nations discussion of racial questions' (IMTFE International Organization, 186). He also appears to have taken the stance that the actions, no matter how atrocious, were not illegal in an indictable sense, that the actions of Western colonialist governments were the reason that had to be considered for what followed, and topped it off by saying that the trial was nothing more than 'victor's justice' (I'm not commenting on whether or not I agree, just to be safe on this!). It's a really interesting thing to read about, because it was (to my knowledge) the only totally dissenting opinion arguing for full exoneration and acquittal by removing blame for the actions, and the Japanese, including academics, seem to view him as a sort of 'shining beacon of objective judgment' among the rest of the judges. It is really fascinating to contrast this with the picture painted in the Nandy article, about how Pal was almost completely forgotten in India, though Indians at the time of the judgment were happy with Pal for apparently two reasons:. It showed India on a world scale as providing for international law.

It paid back the Japanese warlords for their support of the Indian freedom movement. Nandy's article does a great job comparing and contrasting this view in India with the serious tone on the judgment itself (which Indians mostly ignored where it didn't relate to them) in Japan, and how it helped '.toward the restoration of the dignity of the Japanese war dead' (Nandy, 47). Heck, the fact that the wartime Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo, supposedly left a haiku with his wife honoring Pal before he was hanged speaks to how important it was to the Japanese.but not to India.

A strange story with strange details, the more one looks into it:). Another two sources on the subject: Pal's 'Dissentient Judgment' Reconsidered: Some Notes on Postwar Japan's Responses to the Opinion Kei Ushimura Japan Review, No. 19 (2007), pp. 215-223 The Other within: The Strange Case of Radhabinod Pal's Judgment on Culpability Ashis Nandy New Literary History, Vol. 1, Versions of Otherness (Winter, 1992), pp.

45-67. It's a really interesting thing to read about, because it was (to my knowledge) the only totally dissenting opinion arguing for full exoneration and acquittal by removing blame for the actions, and the Japanese, including academics, seem to view him as a sort of 'shining beacon of objective judgment' among the rest of the judges. It is really fascinating to contrast this with the picture painted in the Nandy article, about how Pal was almost completely forgotten in India, though Indians at the time of the judgment were happy with Pal for apparently two reasons: Can anyone comment on what impact this decision had, if any, on Indian-Chinese relations? Yes, this was done secretly by MacArthur. Because of the secrecy surrounding the program and MacArthur's grant of amnesty, the world was (to some extent) uncertain what had happened in the case of Unit 731, and who had done it. Only when Soviet and US archives were published did the world really get confirmation of what was done, and much of this process occurred around the 1980s, beginning with the investigation that led Chinese expert John Powell to find documents in the US Army Archives detailing human experimentation.

The Globe and Mail, in a February 1, 1992 article, says this: As explained in an internal War Department memorandum, dated June 23, 1947: 'Since it is believed that the USSR possesses only a small portion of the technical information, and since any war-crimes action would completely reveal such data to all nations, it is felt that such publicity must be avoided in the interests of defence and security of the U.S. It is believed also that the war-crimes prosecution of Gen. Ishii and his associates would serve to stop the flow of much additional information of a technical and scientific nature.' There was, until the 1980s, a great amount of secrecy regarding Unit 731, and that made it harder for anyone to really consider the whole 'prosecution' idea.

Most of the people who were still alive by this time were interviewed, but by 1992 most of them were dead, and word was still having trouble getting out as far as what exactly happened. The grant of amnesty made it even more difficult to consider trying them then for war crimes, due to the question of getting extradition from wherever they were and trying them even after the Supreme Allied Commander (MacArthur) had given them amnesty. So yes, there were these promises of amnesty in some cases, but there were no real attempts to prosecute later when this was all revealed, and it was very hard to prove anything before archives were opened and researchers in the 1980s really got on the trail.

German War Criminals

Sources: Tao, J. (1998, Feb 13). New evidence found on notorious unit 731. China Daily Terry, E.

(1992, Feb 01). JAPAN: The Awful Secret of Unit 731. The Globe and Mail. Fascinating answer! Also, about this: This, coupled with the 1943 Moscow Conference precedent for Germany2, provided the precedent needed (as if Nuremberg wasn't enough) to try Japanese war criminals outside of the leadership. Is this now very common in international courts (citing other courts' opinions in their decision)?

I know this is very common in the U.S., and that from time to time the U.S. Courts will cite certain British court cases, but I've never really seen/read much about the rest of the world in terms of their decision making and opinion writing, so I'd love to (a) learn more and (b) know if you have any places to start! There are definitely cases where previous cases in international law are used as precedent, but opinions are rarely referenced from specific national courts in the judgment of international courts. Even past cases (especially because international courts like the ICJ and ICC don't make a huge amount of judgments) are sometimes hard to reference, though the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia) and ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) both had references to Nuremberg in thought and foundational basis, even if not the judgments rendered explicitly (though I think there too).

Many courts may make reference to the laws and precedents of other nations, but to my knowledge it's not something they use as some kind of binding precedent at all on which to base their judgment. Opinions sometimes cross over, but even that seems rather rare, as I said. What is really meant by what you quoted from my post is that there was an internationally based agreement among the great powers which saw the need for war crimes tribunals, and the fact that it was carried out in Nuremberg made it all the more possible to have it happen elsewhere. Even so, international courts were very slow to be set up, and the idea of 'universal jurisdiction' for some crimes has been lacking in great amount. While in Nuremberg, it was argued that some crimes were so heinous that state sovereignty did not protect leadership (ie.

Genocide is so bad you can't get away with it just because your state doesn't outlaw it and isn't party to the international treaties against it), but this idea was not exercised or used again as precedent for quite some time (until Pinochet, I believe, in the UK in 1998 or 1999). Some great places to start: by Laurel E. Fletcher and Harvey M. Weinstein - This one specifically talks about the criminal courts in Yugoslavia, and discusses their shortcomings and strengths, as well as the roots/goals. By Alison Des Forges and Timothy Longman - Similar, but this one deals with Rwanda. It also details some small cases of applying 'universal jurisdiction' by talking about how Rwanda and the tribunal there have affected conventions of international law. By Elizabeth Rubin - This article discusses the difficulties for the ICC in prosecuting criminals in Darfur, and helps relate that to the context the above two articles give you.

Execution Of Japanese War Criminals

Unfortunately I can't explain as clearly as I'd like how often courts cite each other. That's not something I'm well acquainted with beyond what I've said already. What I can say is this: the precedents set by the issues talked about above are very interesting as far as international law's growth, and how it's been applied. Those articles are a great place to start looking into the ways international courts have operated in the past, and what their goals/shortcomings are.

There's many more articles along that vein, but those are a good way to start (and they're quick reads!). Indeed they werent, but I describe the war crimes trials that went through Japan. Unfortunately, there's a lot less information I can provide on the rest than I'd like. I haven't seen any real examples of long-term prosecutions or manhunts, possibly because the Nazis were the main focus of the world in the atrocities committed (as I said, Nuremberg overshadowed Tokyo, and was far more influential in international law since it effectively set the precedent for Tokyo), but I can't be too certain if there were any of those occurrences. I wish I knew more about it, but I haven't seen any examples of it happening, really. Also, Nazi-hunting went on in far greater amounts, from my understanding, than Japanese war-criminal hunting.

Again, I can't really guess as to why, but that's just how it appears. Hopefully someone else can answer more in-depth about it!