Transcripts For CSPAN3 World War II War Crimes Trials 20170326

Director of research and history. Im asked they come in a mustard surmise. Move to thepowers rather unprecedented step of prosecuting key leaders both countries, as well as many of the perpetrators executing those policies. Well hear from dr. Peter will discuss the prosecutions that took place in europe, and then dr. Weinberg will be covering the trials and asia. I invite you all to read their biographies in the back of the program. You can ask questions afterward. Please find your cell phones now and make sure the rigors are turned off to not disrupt presenters or your neighbors experience. Before dr. Mcguire takes the podium it is my pleasure to the showcase of the conference. The showcases combined archival footage and images with oral interviews. Conducting the interviews, to editing, to producing the final piece you are about to see is done by members of my team in the research department. Without any further purdue, here is the number trials. I was one of three officers that took a sign to the. Ourtroom the internal security attachment comprised of courtroom and prison detail. The officer would stand by the main door and i would handle whatever had to be done. Courtrooming into the , that were supposed to be there. I had to make sure the prisoners , just had to keep order. Had to get everybodys attention. Had everybody stand up when the tribunal came and they sat down, had everybody sit down , on the court from floor. Many problems, except with goering, during was always having a a headache. Hess was asleep most of the time. Ie one i enjoyed talking to spent much time with during the proceedings. Thetle proceedings low will proceedings during , mostly he wase ok during the trial. When somebody said something he didnt like, he was very arrogant. He was trying to get everybody jointly. P and act nobody wanted to listen to him. Command. Not under his as much power as he had during gone andthat power was they all knew it. They did not listen to them, they ignored him. Title because kind old he was chief of staff. Taylor he yesman h itler. Earn they were hitlers orders, but had to come to someone else, and hit was military through and through. He was a look i was a lieutenant at the time. The officers after the war is over, they have to salute the victorious officers, i got a kick of them having to salute every time we passed. He would have to salute me, youll know what have to salute. E he had a couple years as an. Fficer, as a yesman i had a decent amount of that and a history making assignment at the very end of nuremberg. I get to see all the guys that started the war. They were finally being held accountable, it was a nice wrap up. Sorry for that pregnant pause. All right. Thank you to the World War Ii Museum for your education. About theak broadly nuremberg trials, also about the littleknown secret release of n azisted proxies during the 1950s. A prosecutor observed that nuernberg is both what actually happened and what people think happened. He added, the second is more important than the first. During the 1990s, the legacy of nuremberg became imperturbable tool used to justify any and all war crimes trials is a long march towards an International Criminal court with universal jurisdiction. A new generation of human rights advocates and generalists attended the trials, especially using nuernberg is the centerpiece of a successful german reeducation effort. The nuremberg trials did for them to legal guilt or innocence, the trials brought about a national catharsis. Important parts of the legacy of nuremberg like the american war crimes piece of the 1950s, and west german rejection of the Legal Litigation of the trial, were ignored. That war crimes trials can reeducate society based on the assumption that the number trials did more than punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. Rather than face profound questions about the relationship between National Sovereignty and in an jurisdiction, they believe that trials can succeed where diplomacy and the halfhearted use of military force has failed. A flurry of divorce contradictory legal activity came during the cold war. Waiters were indicted during wartime, and americans had the alien claims act detroit yugoslavian leaders from South African troops and thenciliation commission, court even considered cases against Henry Kissinger. Race era reached a slow true climax in 2001, including Christopher Hitchens trying Henry Kissinger in the pages of hartford magazine. Matthew and secretary called for a senate are you in investigation during the vietnam war. Emergency of these to the human rights era was enough to make one nostalgic for the cold war. In the long shadow of september 11, the 1990s look more like the 1920s, the International Criminal court looking to suffer the same trait fate as the treaty of versailles poorly donations. The time has come to consider the legacy of nuremberg for what it was, not what we would like it to be. Nuremberg cited a Legal Framework for the 1990s were crime trial, the legacy are unclear, because today represents a series of contradictory trials with no single lesson to be learned. The trial is referred to in the singular, there were programsor trial different in scope. The nuremberg Trials International military tribunal, continues to be the central object of inquiry for most books on the subject. 14 1945 andr 1946, the court dated 22 of nazi ranking officers. Charges including crimes against peace, humanity, and conspiracy. The tribunal sense 12 to death and acquitted three. The trials were in many ways hypocritical. Collective judgments were conservative and on the whole sound. Although the soviet presence and chechen charges tainted the proceedings in the eyes of many germans, the soviets did not succeed in turning the trials to a farce. Asked thetruman prosecutor to create and staff americans and bloomberg try remaining highlevel war criminals. Charter, lawyers and judges tried 177 men between 19461949. My greatgrandfather Robert Maguire senior was a judge final trials. These are interesting cases because the courts did not address certain issues and far less certain cases long after the passions watercooled. Inerican number trials addition to punishing the guilty that intended to create an irrefutable record of hitlers third reich, defended are not simply charged with violation of the customary laws of war. The same unprecedented standards of international conduct the int. Politicians,aders, lawyers, doctors, executioners, take charge of aggression, conspiracy and crimes against humanity. The defendants included alfred , will hump onrk poche, and other banking officials. Each case produced voluminous Historical Records as opposed to documentary efforts and testifying. Prosecution, many have seen things to the german or continental leader standards, the american nuernberg trial divided a sound documenting for the record of the nazi dictatorship. The judgments were conservative on the whole. In the cases involving capital punishment, defendants work sentenced for violation of traditional laws of war. The overwhelming majority of judges rejected this as export. Gov. Decisions on high command cases if anything, make the appearrg american trials different in retrospect. Were forentences violations of the traditional laws of war. When the final trial ended in 177l of 1949, hundred 42 of 24 sentencedilty, to death, others sentenced to life. In nuremberg had no Appellate Court to review the sentences. Initially this was done inhouse by u. S. Military governor lucius clay. It is often overlooked by contemporary commentators is the vast majority of war crimes trials executed by the United States after world war ii, were tried by traditional military tribunals read the nuernberg approached tried barely 200, while commissions in europe and asia trade close to 3000. Computer andyou the minoan trial of japanese general hugh masha and homa, one examined the traditional postwar justice. If anything, nuremberg was the anomaly. That the victor has a historical obligation to extend a wide latitude of civil rights is a recent one. During the second phase of american war crimes policy american and west german leaders , 19501958, struggle to find ways to release convicted war criminals without challenging the validity of the original sentences. The parole of convicted war criminals in west germany during the 1950s carried out by the u. S. Army for lowlevel criminals and the state department for highlevel criminals highlights the class between the geopolitical need for reconciliation with new and important allies and the recent claims of universal human rights. Many west germans leaders included have the nuremberg management of parole confusing, ofmanner of punishment parole confusing, unprecedented and ultimately illegitimate. In the end the u. S. And the federal republic found a facesaving way of resolving the question to west germanys advantage. Quasi legal, nonjudicial posttrial sentence reductions about the state department to ship directions of american war crimes policy 180 degrees without contradicting the prior policy. It is widely known that rudolph hess and other imt defendants were shown little mercy under control that how did the war criminals in ally prisons fair. The west german leaders forcing eric and patrons to release convicted war criminals in exchange for a new german army during the 1950s. In the process, a very basic debate was reopened. Instead of discussing the shocking atrocities committed by many of the highranking convicts, american officials were forced to defend illegal the legal legitimacy of the trials. The nuremberg prosecution supplied documentary evidence succeeded in refuting nonsensical excuses and winning convictions by the public was not one over. Won over. In many ways the gap that was supposed to be established between the regular german body politic and their leaders actually drew them closer together. In some ways the nuremberg trials he came a contemporary became a contemporary version of the versailles treaty shame paragraphs. The attacks on nuremberg was the same as those offered in 1945 but the political context changed. The new american plan required german goodwill and cooperation. Hitlers former bodyguard reminded American Occupational authorities of this in 1950 when he said, in good faith, even with enthusiasm, we have put ourselves at your disposal. Yet i repeat in the name of all german officers who are working for the future victory in the west, if he dies, we will not lift a finger to help but will yield to the opposite point of view. By 1950, all the war criminals convicted by american courts in germany were incarcerated in bavarias landsberg prison. U. S. High commissioner for germany john mccoy announced the First American war crimes releases in january of 1951. One third of the american prisoners were immediately freed and all but seven of the death sentences commuted to prison terms. The primary beneficiaries of the high commissioners largess were german industrialists. With one stroke of his pen all the remaining lawyers and executives and industrialists convicted in the trials were released. The final section of his report with the decisions of the u. S. Army in the dock how another military trials. General thomas handy stayed the execution of all perpetrators of the massacres including set the trick americanstatesman hope these generalists ask generous acts of clemency would mollify this, but it had the opposite effect. Many germans stepped up their attacks on american war crimes policy and focused their wrath on the legal validity of the nuremberg trials. As germans inflected attention away from the crimes of the convicted and forced the americans to defend the validity of their trials, the very nature of the debate shifted. After five years of occupation and reeducation many germans refused to distinguish between the treatment of those who deserve to be punished and those who did not. This challenges were not allowed in the nurnberg trials. Article three of the london agreement charter forbade legal challenges on the jurisdiction of the court. By the 1950s the german war criminals have a powerful connected lobbying group working on their behalf. The heidelberg was founded by former nuremberg defense attorneys, and their attorney. Also included representatives from german churches, political parties, and leading jurists. Franz bueller told me how and why it was established. When the trials were finished in 1949, me and a lot of other lawyers had taken part felt an obligation to see the defendants sentenced would get out as soon as possible and principles would not be recognized by the coming government. The same defense attorney who devised a way to enter admiral chester nimitzs testimony and nuernberg began a search or a way to reject the legal validity of the allied war crimes trials. There was a treaty settling matters of war and occupation. In this, all the acts of the military government were recognized by the German Government. In the document we prepared for the central German Government, we recommended a war crimes trial should not be recognized. In a private meeting with he and edward vall, convinced him it was not about accepting guilt or not. Excepting special offer germans and not anybody else. No government could do this. He agreed with this and he was astonishing. Not only did the Heidelberg Service a clearinghouse for information, they drafted the strategy adopted by west germany. He instructed bueller to see the leading politicians who will follow your views. You have to see and instruct them, and that is what i did. Shortly thereafter, german lawmakers made an interesting semantic shift and began to refer to the war criminals as war sentenced or prisoners of war. The most numerous german veteran organizations shared the view that the convicted war criminals were prisoners of war. Sentenced to death by the british in 1947, field marshal albert kesslring was freed in 1951. He appealed to general Matthew Ridgway in a letter, and urged him to look beyond the petty spite of politicians. Sir, opposite officer, i appeal to you in whose hands many germans lay. Politics has its limits in military matters and vice versa. The war criminal cases should be separated on political matters. The state Department Public opinion surveys in the weeks following the first war crimes limits the pointed out the lessons of nuremberg had been lost. The survey concluded a fair number of the general public sees all the decisions as political movers maneuvers rather than expressions of justice. There was a confidential report entitled west german reactions to the lands for decisions. It is clear in the interpretation of these actions they are by and large propagating views varying from the legit american retreat to outright political expediency. Legalistic distinctions like the ones between and is the and parole meant very little at this point. Amnesty and parole meant little at this point. Why is visited their loved one for the final 10 on may 5, 1951. Those who would be executed where commandos and concentration camp cards. Guards. They were hanged at the prison on june 7, 1951. According to german historian, the outcry over this execution in germany proved and provided more evidence that the lessons of nuernberg had not gotten through to war weary germans. The public uproar over the hanging of these blood tainted butchers underlines nuernbergs failures. While the americans were eager to transfer the convicted war you to transfer the convicted war criminals to west german authorities, it was not that simple. The state department was aware the western west German Government wanted physical custody but they cannot have it without recognizing the legal validity of the sentences. It provided the loophole that allowed the west German Government to reject the legal validity of the allied war crimes trials. According to bueller, it was drafted after we had a conference with adenauer. The contract will agree with restoring west german sovereignty were signed by the allies in may of 1952 and became known as the vaugn agreements. West german official pollution position on the validity of the trials can be found in article six 6 and seven. There were representatives from each allied power and freedom germans to make parole recommendations. Without calling into question the validity of the sentences. Article 7 appears to be a straightforward endorsement of the legal validity of all the trials. All judgments in criminal matters here to four or hereafter rendered in germany by any tribunal or Judicial Authority of the three powers shall remain final and valid for all purposes under german law. It shall be treated by such as german courts and authorities. Although the west German Government appeared to endorse the trials principles, buried in article 6, section 11 was an exception. The provisions of article seven shall not apply to matters dealt with in this article. A good lawyer would never do it like that, with the exception in a different place than the rule. Euler told me it was intended to conceal, no press mentioned it and nobody noticed it. Even as early as 1952, nuernberg critics in west germany had succeeded in shifting the debate away from the crimes of the convicted and to the legal validity of the trial. The finding of the most depressing west german public poll today were announced in september 1952. Only one in 10 west germans approved the handling of the war crimes issue. While 59 disapproved. The most widely disapproving our population elements, men better educated and economically better situated. In his final weeks as secretary of state, the netizen observed dean axis and observed the war criminals became a problem of considerable proportions. The secretary of state John Foster Dulles travel to meet with westermann leaders and the state department divided him briefing papers. About the nuremberg trials, they wrote, for the political point of view, the crux of the trial problem in germany is the refusal of a large number of germans to except the principles underlying the trials. When adenauer traveled to the United States in 1953 to attend the Foreign Ministers conference, a memo prepared by the state department technologist the germans had not accepted the underlying principles of the trials. The memo admitted the rationality and fax had little in the debate. In the first meeting in april of 1953, adenauer pointed out they were psychological and Public Opinion problems in germany with the war crimes issue. Secretary of state John Foster Dulles reiterated to the chancellor the u. S. Review its policies with an attitude towards a more liberal treatment of war criminals. After the meetings in washington, chancellor adenauer announced he was extraordinarily satisfied with the progress made at the talks. Above all the german chancellor wanted a parole board established before the elections in germany. The state department noted the president was aware of the problem and they needed a solution. They believed there was advantages to the Parole Program and that they would hand the matter up to the president for decision. Less than a week before the election, the first mixed a la clemency board was established. The interim mixed board impact consisted of two germans in three americans. It functioned like a traditional parole board. Prisoners could their cases twice a year, and a new nonjudicial mechanism helped ease parole standards. Credit for time served was increased and parameters for medical paroles were broadened with new provisions for physical health, mental health, old age and the condition of prisoners families. The chancellor recognized the importance of being on the right side of the war crimes issue and even visited the prison for the british prisoners were jailed in the summer of 1953. He shook hands with many and assured them he was doing his best to get them released. Between 1953 and 1955, the impact board reduced the population of landsberg prison from 318 to 41. What impacts ceased functioning in 1955, the european allies were not far behind with clemency programs of their own. But still the german veterans were not satisfied. General kesselring addressed his veteran comrades, not to participate in any new german army as long as war criminals remained in allied prisons. The pending paroles of mascara convicts set teacher with stupid American Veteran Army Officials against the state department. There was nothing the state department could do. The u. S. Army resisted the early releases of certain war criminals already, and when it came to the convicts, the army was not so quick to forgive and forget. After all, it was general mcauliffe, the man in charge of the american prisoners. He had been surrounded by the german army in 1944 at the stone at bastogne and refused to surrender. The anticipated next clemency board was established in august of 1955. The board was now responsible for reviewing parole applications of the remaining hardcore war criminals and landsberg. Composed of three germans, one from each allied country, the american number was state Department Officer edward plit. He also served on the impact board. The major crisis erected in late 1955 when Sept Dietrich was released. He originally had been sentenced to death for his role in the malady massacre. It was called a serious error and called for a Senate Investigation of u. S. War crimes policies. By november 1955, the american legions National Commander called for the resignation of the american mix board member and a Senate Investigation. American war crimes policies were losing a two front Public Relations battle with the american board member caught in the crossfire. American war crimes policies needed a scapegoat, and the state department announced edmund plit would be replaced by american former judge and senator robert upton. He took his seat on the board in 1956. He was shocked to learn the mix board had already granted pierer parole. He accepted the release as a theta copley. He admittedly set about distancing himself. He expressed strong is giving about the use of the parole process. The system is been developed in which granting parole this feeds the anza justice. Although the state department sought an independent jurist to boost the recor rep it was more than they bargained for. Pieper had served 10 years and could be released on parole. According to a new rule that granted parole on a death sentence after 10 years in prison. The only thing he needed was the next board approval for a parole job. In midapril of 1956, he was offered a job by porsche where he would become what the United States representatives. He was soon become a familiar face at pit row allemand lemans. It was approved by a vote of 51. The dissenting voice was robert upton. He wrote to the state department and expressed his dismay that the majority of the board are disposed to grant parole to war criminals. The nature of the offense is not considered in determining whether the parole is granted. In other words, members hold it eligible for parole, a war criminal senator upton compounded the state departments dilemma in june of 1956 after less than three months he resigned. The americans took no chances appointing veteran state Department Legal officer spencer phoenix to service the third american board member. Phoenix offered his appraisal of policy in two 1957 memos. A stated the board will continue operations of the death of the six individuals serving life terms, barring possibly until as late as 1985. He understood the prisoners cannot be handed over to the federal republic because of the sentence validity question. Spencer phoenixs memo b call for the rapid liquidation of the war crimes problem. He suggested the further use of posttrial, nonjudicial mechanisms to release were criminals. In yet another reduction in the requirements for parole. He offered a way around the longstanding sentence validity and passed that allowed both nations to say race. If the only argument the germans can offer for refusing custody is its unwillingness to admit the legality of the trials, it should not be difficult to incorporate an exchange of notes between the two governments with some saving paragraph to cover the point. Phoenix stated very plainly in a cover letter that he was prepared to shoulder all blame and responsibility for the american decision, and the state department should disclaim any responsibility for the decision of the american member. Phoenix but returned to washington and request a meeting with the state Department Said he could be given a wink and a nod, without any way passing the buck a responsibility to the department i should be glad while in washington if i can be given an informal indication that the procedure i outlined in memo b is not unacceptable or inconsistent with department policies. We should get this we should get this bothersome problem quietly out of the way where it will no longer complicate international relations. Phoenix met with state Department Legal advisors in washington. After some discussion, the mechanics of the plant of mr. Phoenix were decided to be put in operation. The state department neither approved or disapproved the plan, but it felt it did not give rise to any conflict with departmental policy. By 1957 it were only four convicts in the prison and the ones remaining for the ultimate hardcore. All have been sentenced to death and phoenix would find a way to release them all by the spring of 1958. During april of 1958 meetings of the board, the German Foreign office presented parole requests for the final prisoners while the next board unanimously decided to deny the parole requests. They did move to approve the individual clemency requests with the result being the sentences of the final four were reduced to time served. On may 9, 1958, the gates of landsberg prison swung open for the final time at the last four german war criminals in american custody were released. On may 13, 1958, spencer phoenix reported to the state department, it is only fair to say circumstances play a more significant role than i did. In any case, it is pleasant to feel as Diplomatic Panel has been removed from the state departments shoes. A few weeks later, john raymond, Legal Advisor to the state department offered phoenix is sincere congratulations on the capable manner in which he discharged his extremely delicate assignment. Spencer phoenix and found a final solution to the american war crimes. Finally we are left with two nuernberg myths. The american myth of the redemptive trial in the german myth of the harsh victors justice. The final outcome of all the nuernberg trials is not affirming the convention that political justice is by its very nature illegitimate. If anything, americas postworld war ii war crimes policy shows the many types and gradations of political justice. What is most often overlooked, especially about the american nuernberg trials is the leniency of the original sentences given the caliber of the defendants. Originally convicted and sentenced to 20 and 25 years prospectively, lamers and berger were both released from landsburg in 1951 after serving less than two years. As for the ex post facto laws, all the nuernberg courts proved extremely reluctant to apply much less convicted under these controversial laws. In the industrialist cases, several courts were almost unwilling to punish ceos whose companies had demanded, utilized in egregiously mistreated slave labor. The more systematic killing of millions of civilians was a massive violation of both customary military practice and the codified laws of war. Not to mention it was done with a coldblooded precision that was unique in human history. The nuernberg trials left a mostly sensible set of military and political standards that were not upheld in the postworld war ii era. The american flight from the radical and punitive policies of the occupied occupation period coincided with the release and social institution of prominent war criminals like krup. The idea the u. S. Government took a Firm Position on the subject of war crimes and thereby german and japanese reeducation occurred is a company thats comforting myth. The u. S. Was unwilling to uphold sentences in many ca cases justified in doing it. People judges who twisted a lot of suit the whims of despots, diplomats who got cut doubledealing, bankers to the botty of the dead, the abuse of slave labor and doctors emit related living humans in the name of science, to name only a few, deserved to pay a heavy price. One that cannot be reduced by parole or clemency. Although the west german courts attempted to pick up where nuernberg left off by trying 5000 between 1958 and the end oe absurdly lenient. They had too many friends, prosecutor told me. The man who wanted parole told his people, if you dont sign the things about the parole business, i will tell about you. Very simple. I will tell about you. He offered this telling anecdote about the german trials. I was sitting with the chief German Justice during the auschwitz case as a spectator. He was a witness for the defense, a free man. He told the courts stories. The judge said next to me, who was this man . I said this is a nice acquaintance of mine. He is only responsible for 400,000 jews. Why is he running around . I said because he is a defense witness now. He came back when he was through. He stopped and said, how are you . I said we have both grown older. Later i talked with a reserve judge who said this is very bad for us. With him running free and we should judge the little ss men who killed two. Originally sentenced to 25 years in 1949, he was also released from landsburg prison in 1951. 70 years after the nuernberg trials it remains a great deal of confusion surrounding these revolutionary trials. They certainly served as a warning to rogue political leaders that under the right set of political circumstances they might find themselves accountable. However, other aspects of the nuernberg legacy remain uncertain. The 1990s were a heady time for those who believed a nuernbergderived system of International Criminal laws would soon take root. However, by the end of the bloodiest century in recorded history, the socalled International Community had grown increasingly indifferent to and accepting of the horrors suffered by the powerless and politically insignificant members. The u. N. Responceds were weak willed, ineffectual and shameful. I never again promises and shattered. Many human rights advocates shifted their efforts from war crimes prevention to war crimes punishment, or post tragedy justice. While there was unprecedented interest in trying murderers, there was little interest in preventing crimes. Human rights advocates of aided an important evaded in important question. What are the limits of post tragedy justice . In my view war crimes prosecution signify failures, the failure to act, to deter, and the failure to prevent. Simply put, trials can never make up for disgraceful in action and the face of innaction in the face of atrocity. The cold war was transformed into a more timid, therapeutic form of legalism in the brief postcold war era. While perhaps there was a new era of human rights in places like new york city, washington, d. C. , and cambridge, the decade will be remembered for the wests feeble responses to genocidal civil wars that life are fragmented attention. Vied for fragmented attention. The idea it is permissible to stand by and watch as genocide is carried out on Live Television as long as a dozen ringleaders are solemnly indicted and tried by a Fair International tribunal in the nottoodistant future. Given the trend of International Law since nuremberg, the time has come to reconsider its legacy as more of an anomaly in a paradigm. Today much a discussion of war crimes is less informed by history and law, but pop psychology. Legal innocence and guilt to be replaced by euphemisms like closure, truth and reconciliation. Nobody in their right mind opposes the punishment of war crimes traders, but coming after the bloodiest century in the history of man, is it enough to see new salvation and new codes of International Law in the world courts . S swedish historian suggested in his book, you already know enough, so do i. It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and draw conclusions. Thank you. [applause] good morning. Can you hear in the back . In the years 1945 to 1952, there were 2200 trials involving 5700 defendants in east and Southeast Asia. I have been assigned 20 minutes to cover them. I hope you understand why i summarize. All the trials have been made especially difficult for the prosecution because the japanese engaged in an extensive preand post a render effort to destroy any and all records that might be utilized in the trials that the allies had publicly threatened during the war in the hope of restraining japanese from committing ever more atrocities. At the insistence of the United States, emperor hero peter hirohito was not tried so the transformation of japan, and in my opinion, because of his role in bringing about the surrender of japan. The top individuals involved in unit 731 on experiments on humans were also not tried that u. S. Insistence to enable this country to profit from their work. In all cases defendants in the trials actually held were provided with counsel, either of their choice or assigned and in some cases both. In the record is clear. The defense counsel were extremely energetic and their efforts, and at times successful in getting the accused acquitted or subjected to lower sentences than the prosecution called for. It should be noted that after the trial conducted by the International Military tribunal for the far east, generally known as the tokyo war crimes trial, trials were held by the United States, britain, australia, canada, china, the netherlands, the philippines, france and russia. The tokyo war crimes trial opened on may 3, 1946, and ended on november 12, 1948. Of the 28 original defendants, two died of Natural Causes during the trial and one had a mental breakdown and was released. The nine civilian and 19 military defendants were charged with planning and launching an aggressive war that was fought in a manner that involved an endless list of violations of the laws of war by the murder and rape of civilians, the mistreatment and killing of prisoners of war, and a lengthy list of other horrors. The remaining 25 defendants were found guilty. Two of the 11 judges had disagreements with details of the judgment, and one, a judge from india who sided with japan during the war, dissented from the verdict. Seven defendants were sentenced to death and were hanged, while the others were sentenced to jail terms that in practice and it with three dying in jail and the remaining 13 being paroled between 1954 and 1956. The full transcript of the trial has been published in 27 volumes, as compared to the 22. Of the main trials at nuremberg while there has been some criticism of this trial, on the whole it seems to me fair to say that the evidence, both for initiating war and for conducting it with practically endless violations of the laws of war was overwhelming. As a historian i cannot refrain from mentioning that in the wars japan fought before 1931 it had been so careful both during hostilities in the treatment of prisoners of war that it had been held up as a model to others. That was at a time when japan sought recognition from the west as a civilized society. By 1931, its new leaders had deliberately abandoned that qwest and would quest, and would pursue a totally different course. The United States conducted a whole series of further trials in manila, china, the civic islands, and in yokohama. The vanilla manila trial of journal yamashita saw him condemned on the basis of command responsibility, primarily for the mass slaughter and rape of tens of thousands of filipinos and others in manila of march of 1945. Because this trial has been the subject of more controversy than any other i will return to it at the end of this presentation. General hamo was convicted and executed for the horrors of what became known as the Bataan Death March in which those under his command and his personal observation had mistreated and slaughtered thousands of american and filipino prisoners of war after they had surrendered in april of 1942. There has been little criticism of that trial. American trials in china engaged japanese mistreatment and killing of american flyers of the famous doolittle raid and of flyers captured after parachuting after later error rates into china, burma, india theater. Of the 75 accused in the 11 trials, 67 were convicted, eight were acquitted, and 10 were sentenced to death. There has been little attention and discussion of these trials. The american navy, for the first and only time in its history, tried Japanese Military and civilian officials for mistreatment of both prisoners of war and local inhabitants and the pacific islands. Trials were held at guam and kwajalein in the marshall islands. There was also a trial of 19 japanese accused of having used american prisoners for medical experiments, and then killing those who did not die in the process. The 47 cases involved 123 defendants, led to 113 convictions, 10 acquittals, and can carry out death sentences. 10 carried out death sentences. Also attracted little attention. United states carried out a large number of cases, a total of 319 in yokohama under the offices of the american eight army which had its headquarters there. These trials of 996 japanese primarily involved the legend mistreatment at killing of allied prisoners of war, and in one case the performance of experiments on them. They were 854 convictions, 142 acquittals, and 51 implemented death sentences. A majority of the original death sentences having been produced by the reviewing authorities. The british tried many of their 306 cases in singapore. The 920 accused in these cases were tried for their actions against allied prisoners of war and local civilians. 811 were convicted, 265 were executed. These cases included those growing out of the horrors committed by the japanese in connection with the building of the railway from thailand to burma you may have watched in the movie the bridge on the river kwai. It should be noted that many more forcefully recruited locals lost their lives on the project in the about 600 allied prisoner of war killed in the process. Some of the trials have been criticized as too harsh, and some as too lenient. But in all cases the defendants had determined defense assigned to them. Australia conducted 296 trials, 924 defendants of whom 280 were acquitted and 644 were convicted. 148 of those convicted were executed. These cases, like those already mentioned primarily involved charges of mistreatment and killing of prisoners of war and civilians of areas the japanese occupied. There was also a case about cannibalism. As in a number of cases tried by other allied powers, the issue of command responsibility played a significant role. One example was a japanese general who had 1000 prisoners of war go on a death march of 165 miles, which only 183 survived. By the end of the war only 33 of these were still alive. The general had them all killed. It is not surprising that he was sentenced to death and executed. Canada collaborated with United States and britain in trials they held that involved japanese mistreatment of canadian pows. There was also the trial of such offenses in hong kong, which led to 11 convictions. An important point was the participation of canada and 11 trials in tokyo against japanese accused of mistreatment of canadian pows. New zealand did not hold separate trials of its own. The Chinese Nationalist government of Chiang Kaishek conducted 605 trials involving 883 defendants. Of the latter, 504 were convicted. 350, more than one third, were acquitted. 149 were sentenced to death. These trials overwhelmingly involved japanese atrocities against civilians in the war in china. It will not come as a surprise that one of the trials involved the japanese commander in nanking during the notorious 1937 massacre there. The general pleaded not guilty, but literally hundreds of eyewitnesses contributed to his conviction and subsequent execution. The netherlands conducted 448 trials, in which 1038 japanese were accused. 969 were convicted, the highest proportion of any of the allied trials. 226 of the 236 death sentences were carried out. On the whole, the dutch courts were the most severe. But a certain had certainly had solid reasons for the weather operated. Aside from a case of enforced prostitution that led to a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, there were such cases as of that of admiral kimada who ordered 1500 west borneo natives decapitated. The newly independent philippines tried 72 cases involving 169 defendants. There were 133 convictions after several cases were dismissed. The 17 death sentences did not include the military governor. For orinda steeds committed by the forces under his command he was sentenced to life of hard labor. The whole process of trials in the philippines was collocated by issues relating to the extensive collaboration of numerous filipinos with the japanese during the occupation. We cannot possibly going to that subject here and now. The french tried 230 japanese in 31 trials. They convicted 198 of them. 26 death sentences were carried out, but it has to be noted that 43 of those tried were tried in absentia because they had been charged but not caught. To the best of my knowledge, except for a tiny number of individual cases, nothing of this kind happened in the cases tried by other allied countries. The soviet union conducted only 1 case under the general offices that offices. This was officially a cold war propaganda effort to discredit western allies for not trying hirohito and key figures in the banking leadership who according to soviet theory where the instigators of the war. They were also some trials arranged by the chinese communists, but these again were essentially propaganda operations that do not need review in this context. The whole trial process wound down in 1949. 50 ended in 1952. By that time there than a peace conference and a peace treaty with japan by most of the allied powers and the developing cold war led to a shift in the position and policies of the United States which played a leading role in the trial process and came to play a leading role in shutting it down. One might say by the way of summary that a substantial number of those who had committed or directed atrocities had indeed been punished, but a large number had escaped without ever facing a trial. The Japanese Secret Police surely deserved their reputation for extreme cruelty, having worked hard to acquire it. It is not and should not be surprising that a substantial proportion of those charged were members of that. Organization organization. That helps explain the harsh sentences many received. Because the mr. Men of allied pows the mistreatment of allied pows played such a large part, there is a statistic that is relevant and worthy of note. Of the pows from the United States and the British Commonwealth and nation, and empire, excuse me, held by the germans, 4 died while in captivity. The comparable figure for those held by japan is 28 . And this terrible figure covers a shorter period of hostilities. What needs to be said is that on the whole the trials were both public and fair. The number of acquittals offer some indication not only about the strength of the efforts of those assigned to defend the accused, but also to the careful weighing of evidence by the judges. Perfect judges is a prerogative of god, but the many judges who found themselves assigned to difficult and sometimes very complicated cases seemed to this student of the subject to have tried hard and conscientiously to act in a fair and equitable manner. I want to conclude with a discussion of the trial that has stimulated the most extensive criticism and discussion other than the main war crimes trial. That if general tamayogi. He was executed primarily for the enormous murdering and raping Japanese Military personnel committed in manila over a period of a week, affecting literally tens of thousands of filipinos and other nationals. I do not claim to be an expert on legal procedures, and it is possible that as the first of the american trials this one had some technical shortcomings. The critical issue however in my judgment as a historian, and as a former soldier accustomed to getting the word when in the army is the issue of command authority. The one the court utilized as a basis for its judgment and that was frequently thereafter mentioned as the basis for decisions in other trials. From december 1941 to the summer of 1942, Japanese Forces advanced throughout east Southeast Asia and into the pacific islands. As they conquered burma and the dutch east indies, the bulk of new guinea and the philippines, and many of the british island colonies in the south pacific, there was one incident in which after taking a city japanese soldiers ran around for days murdering and raping civilians and civilians and soldiers in hospitals by the thousands. This was in singapore in february of 1942. There were incidents elsewhere, but nothing similar happened and any other city that came under japanese control as they advanced. From late 1943 on, as the japanese were forced to retreat and in the process were pushed out of cities they had occupied for years, there was one more such incident. That was in manila in march of 1945. Nothing like it happened in any other city. Please note the two incidents are three years and a month apart and separated geographically by thousands of miles. There is no evidence that any of the japanese units involved in the horrors and singapore were involved in the horrors in manila. The two incidents, one unique in the period of japanese advance and one unique in the period of japanese retreat have only one element in common. Yamashita is the commander in chief and both instances. Those who believe this is a coincidence are entitled to their views. I do not share it. Military personnel get the word and generally behave accordingly. Obviously no general can watch every soldier under his command, and if one of the thousands commits an offense of some sort, however serious it may be, it is the responsibility of that soldier. But if thousands of soldiers commit offenses simultaneously over a period of days, there is clearly Something Else going on. Is it likely that tens of thousands of military personnel would decide to risk a courtmartial in the same week . Is it entirely possible that many of them would kill or rape a civilian at some point of time during their military service . But thousands in the same days . Ironically, the idea of a coincidence is especially unlikely if one considers the argument so many japanese defendants brought forward in her defense in the trials and had their counsel push over and over again. The Japanese Military, defendants and counsel constantly insisted with subject to extremely strict discipline. Over and over this was argued as an excuse for committing terrible deeds, or at least obeying orders to do something horrific should be considered a mitigating factor in the assessment of punishment. Only two times in almost four years of fighting did Japanese Military discipline not apply. And thousands of Japanese Military individuals decided to take advantage of this lapse to act individually as they preferred. As i said just now, those who want to believe that are welcome to do so. It seems totally unbelievable to me. The issue of command responsibility cannot make a commander responsible for specific individual acts by subordinates. But when thousands of subordinates act the same way at the same time they clearly have reason to believe that this is what they are expected or at least allowed to do. Those who roamed the streets of manila for days murdering and raping local civilians continued to have the same commander for an additional half year. Even though breaking into the spanish consulate general and killing and raping there cost problems in tokyo, not one japanese soldier was called into account by the commander who was always supposed to be obeyed. This is not most likely that the soldiers believed with good reason that they had acted with the consent of their commander. It seems to this student that the court in the yamashita case acted fairly in signing a commitment role to the commander as the troops acted with good reason to believe that he allowed them to act. I am sorry if i have talked too much about manila. But since the case may be the most debatable of the war crimes cases in the east it deserves special attention and any quick survey of an important subject. Whatever technical defects may be found in that case, if its basically into a reasonable series of fair trials that brought to justice a substantial if only partial portion of those who had committed an enormous number of atrocities. Thank you. [applause] in lieu of questions we want to stay on time, but before i let you always we are going to ask i know he registered this morning. I would like mr. Paul spencer to stand up and please be recognized. Paul spencer is the settlement