JapanWWIIatrocities41005

Japan WWIIatrocities Page 1 11/10/2011



JAPANESE WW II ATROCITIES: 60 YEARS LATER



A research paper for the November 2004 (4/10/05 amended draft)

War in Film, Television, and History Conference

Keith Wheelock

Adjunct Associate Professor

Raritan Valley Community College

kwheelock@patmedia.net



ABSTRACT



Japan has never fully acknowledged and accepted responsibility for its war crimes.

Japan‟s deliberate effort to deny and ignore its war crimes is reflected in the paucity

of English language films and documentaries addressing this subject. The only major

Hollywood movie, multiple Academy-Award-winning The Bridge on the River

Kwai, was a romanticized presentation of a brutal and deadly event. I am aware of

only five commercially available English language documentaries (all produced in

the past decade) that focus on Japanese World War II atrocities.



We will never be certain whether one million, or many, many more, civilians were

killed during Japanese occupation of Asian territories between 1931 and 1945. There

was little post-World War II focus on Asian casualties. The best data available on

Japanese war crimes are the result of individual efforts, often in the 1990s, to

document specific cases of Japanese World War II atrocities.



These include:

 The Nanking Massacre There is incontrovertible evidence that massive and

sustained atrocities occurred in Nanking. The order „to kill all captives‟

reflected the attitude of the Japanese military towards both Chinese soldiers

and civilians. I find credible the estimate that between 100,000-and-200,000

Chinese were killed in an eight-week period.

 Unit 731 The Unit 731 operation conducted large-scale biological warfare

experiments on human guinea pigs, including Allied POWs, as well as testing

anthrax, plagues, typhoid, and other deadly chemicals on Chinese villages. I

find credible the estimates that perhaps 10,000 prisoners and at least 100,000

Chinese in villages were killed by Unit 731 activities. The United States, in

return for data on experiments conducted on live humans, granted blanket

immunity to all Japanese associated with Unit 731.

 Allied POWs The death rate (27.1%) of Allied POWs held by the Japanese

contrasts sharply with the 3.97% rate in German prison camps. Japanese

brutality against „white‟ prisoners reflected both a racist attitude and total

distain for any soldier who surrendered.

 “Comfort Women” “Comfort women” is a euphemism for about 130,000

women, mostly from Korea, China, Taiwan, and the Philippines, but also

including a few Westerners, who were forced into Japanese military brothels

during World War II. This frequently entailed seizure, rape, and forced

confinement. Many of these “comfort women” were required to service 15-

to-20 soldiers daily.

 The Burma/Thailand Railroad This 250-mile railroad, much of it through

disease-infested swamps and jungles, required over 600 bridges and

aqueducts. In the absence of heavy construction equipment, the Japanese

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 2 11/10/2011

military recruited and impressed over 200,000 Asians, and 61,000 Allied

POWs, for the project. The employment of POWs in military projects was

forbidden by the Geneva Convention and other protocols of war. The

Japanese provided minimal food and virtually no medicine to their labor

force. Sick men were obliged to work or, often, simply die. Brutality towards

laborers was commonplace. The human cost included 12,399 dead Allied

POWs and an estimated 100,000 dead Asian laborers.



Anecdotal evidence suggests that Asian civilian deaths in Japanese-occupied areas

could be in the millions. A Japanese prime minister, speaking of China, stated that

those who failed to cooperate would be exterminated. A scholar specializing in 20th

century „murder by government‟ estimates that the Japanese killed over three million

Asian civilians.



At the end of World War II, the Allies established international tribunals to

prosecute Japanese military and civilian defendants. These war crimes trials were

conducted in Tokyo and throughout the Far East. Over 4,400 defendants were

convicted, including 991 death sentences. The last prisoners were set free by

December, 1958. Some of these judicial proceedings, especially outside of Tokyo,

seemed hasty and arbitrary, and the legal precedents for these trials were

questionable.



Japan has been steadfast in its refusal to consider direct compensation for its

wartime atrocities. When American POWs filed a suit for compensation for forced

work in military industries, the U. S. government, supporting the Japanese position,

argued that all compensation claims were waived in the 1951 American-Japanese

peace treaty. The Japanese contend that, in fact, significant „compensation‟ has been

provided Asian countries in extensive grants and soft loans.



Japan has not unequivocally accepted responsibility for its World War II

mistreatment of Asian nationals, of Allied POWs, of “comfort women,” and of

others. The claim that Japan was the „victim,‟ rather than the „aggressor‟ in World

War II I find historically specious. Japan is responsible for decimating a civilian and

military population living peacefully in territories under Japanese control. While

individual Japanese have long written critically about Japan‟s wartime activities, the

government remains extremely reticent to confront these issues forthrightly.



The Japan of today, in many ways, is a combination of major post-war changes

and long-time traditions. I consider it plausible to suggest that an honorable way may

be found for Japan to: acknowledge its responsibilities for its war crimes; encourage

full disclosure of these in Japan‟s educational system; and offer some direct

compensation to surviving victims of World War II Japanese atrocities.



*******************





I shall explore 1) the nature and magnitude of Japanese World War II atrocities; 2)



the scope of post-war tribunals and issues of compensation for victims of Japanese



war crimes; 3) why and how the United States participated in a downplaying of

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 3 11/10/2011

these atrocities; and 4) why, until now, Japan has not unequivocally accepted



responsibility for these war crimes.1







Over the past sixty years, war crimes have emerged as an accepted principle of



international law under which government leaders and other individuals can be



prosecuted for “aggression,” “crimes against humanity,” and “atrocities.” Over the



past decade, Serbia, East Timor, Rwanda, and Iraq have provided war crimes



defendants. There is now an International Crime Tribunal dealing with war crimes



cases.







Until World War II, war crimes prosecutions were a rarity.2 The Allies insistence



on unconditional surrender was a stepping stone to imposing war crimes indictments



against the principal losers: Germany and Japan. Even then, some distinguished



jurists argued that, under international law, the basis for such prosecutions was



tenuous.







Germany and the Holocaust provided a dramatic breakthrough in war crimes



prosecutions. Even today, individuals in their 80s and 90s are being brought to trial.



The German government and various corporations of that nation have paid over $60



billion in reparations, primarily related to the Holocaust. However, the extermination



of up-to-500,000 gypsies remains unpunished and uncompensated.





Germany has acknowledged its war crimes guilt and has highlighted these events

1

This paper focuses on Japanese World War II atrocities and directly-related events. A more

comprehensive historical assessment should encompass racism and atrocities as practiced by both

victors and losers during the period from the “China Incident” through the end of the war. Such an

account, raising vexing issues of relative morality, is told superbly in John W. Dower, War Without

Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War (Pantheon Books, 1986).

2

See Yuki Tanaka, Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II

and the U. S. Occupation (Routledge, 2003), p. 39, for a post-World War I example. Under articles

227-230 of the Treaty of Versailles, trials were authorized for Germans thought to be guilty of war

crimes. Germany convinced the Allied Powers that this should occur in German courts. The Supreme

Court of Germany at Leipzig convicted six individuals, sentencing them to from six-months-to-four

years imprisonment. This convinced some observers that war crime punishments should not be left to

defeated nations.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 4 11/10/2011



in textbooks, films, and hundreds of books and articles. By contrast, Japan has never



forthrightly acknowledged and accepted responsibility for its war crimes. Japanese



textbooks still do not include a comprehensive account of Japanese World War II



atrocities.







This dichotomy between German and Japanese attitudes towards World War II



war crimes is reflected in English language films. Three Academy-Award-winning



movies, Judgment at Nuremberg, Sophie’s Choice, and Schindler’s List, as well



as the eight-Emmy-Award-winning Holocaust: The Story of Man’s Inhumanity to



Man, are among numerous films and documentaries that highlight diverse aspects of



German war crimes, while serving to educate current generations about such



atrocious misdeeds of the Nazi state.







Japan‟s deliberate effort to deny and ignore its war crimes is reflected in the



paucity of English language films and documentaries addressing this subject. The



only major Hollywood movie, multiple Academy-Award-winning The Bridge On



the River Kwai (1957), was a romanticized presentation of a brutal and deadly



event. The History Channel‟s The True Story of the Bridge On the River Kwai



(1996) did provide an accurate account of the horrendous affair in which over 12,000



POWs, as well as perhaps 100,000 coerced Asian laborers, died. (The reality was in

sharp contrast to Alec Guinness‟s upbeat performance and Colonel Bogey‟s march).



I am aware of only five commercially available English language documentaries, all



produced within the past decade, that focus on Japanese World War II atrocities.







Produced over the past two decades and seen by a small cable TV audience, these



documentaries provide a searing indictment of Japanese war crimes. These include



the Nanking massacre, the infamous Japanese biochemical experiments involving

human guinea pigs, and the extraordinary mistreatment of Allied POWs (over 27%



of those held by the Japanese died, compared to 3.97% in Nazi prison camps).

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 5 11/10/2011









Detailed Nazi records for the Holocaust, as well as extensive participant and



survivor interviews, have made possible an exhaustive documentation of the entire



process from internment to cremation.3 No such record has been made public on



Japanese World War II atrocities. The Japanese, when Allied forces approached,



sought to destroy evidence of their misdeeds. The United States, after Japan‟s



surrender, seized vast quantities of Japanese military records. Virtually all of these



records were returned to the Japanese within seven years of the 1951 peace treaty. 4







It seems likely that we will never be certain whether one million, or many, many



more, civilians were killed during Japan‟s occupation of Asian territories between



1931 and 1945. There was little post-World War II focus by the U. S. or anyone else



on Asian casualties during Japanese occupation. China was undergoing the turmoil



of a civil war. Other Asian territories were still under colonial rule and often in the



throes of unrest associated with a movement towards independence. The United



States was entering the Cold War.







The best data available on Japanese war crimes are the result of individual efforts,



often in the 1990s, to document specific cases of Japanese World War II atrocities.



Examples of documented atrocities include: the Nanking massacre; Unit 731; Allied

POWs; “Comfort Women;” and the Burma/Thailand railroad.







The Nanking Massacre

The activities of Japanese soldiers during the eight weeks after the capture of



Nanking in December, 1937 were initially reported by Western journalists, as well as

3

Martin Gilbert, Atlas of the Holocaust: Completely Revised and Updated (New York: William

Morrow, 1993) is a superb summary of Holocaust data together with an extensive bibliography.

4

According to a senior U. S. Army archivist, after a number of years all of these seized military

archives were boxed up and returned to the Japanese, without copies being made. Sheldon H. Harris,

Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-45, and the American Cover-Up (Routledge,

1994), p. 121. In the New York Times, March 4, 1999, reference was made to an 1957 order to return

operational and military records to Japan. A Ford Foundation grant permitted copying of about five

per cent of these records before their return to Japan, where they are not available to the public nor to

professional historians.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 6 11/10/2011



Western diplomats and civilians, who witnessed these events. Further details were



provided in the International War Tribunals. In 1958, Lord Russell of Liverpool



provided a brief summary of Japanese-inflicted atrocities in Nanking, estimating that



at least 200,000, and, perhaps, many more, Chinese had been massacred during an



eight week period.5







Iris Chang‟s 1997 bestselling book, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten



Holocaust of World War II, graphically presented the Nanking affair to the



American public. 6 This came decades after Japanese journalists and scholars began



focusing on Nanking. Honda Katsuichi, in 1971, published a widely read series of



articles in Asahi, a newspaper with ten million readers. Honda subsequently



published several books, including his extensively researched The Nanjing



Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan’s National Shame. 7 The

Rape of Nanking: An Undeniable History in Photographs, was published in



English and Chinese in 1996. The History Channel issued a 50-minute documentary,



The Rape of Nanking, in 1999.8







There is incontrovertible evidence that massive and sustained atrocities occurred



in Nanking. Photos, on-the-scene reports, interviews with survivors, Japanese



military diaries, and, many years later, public statements by Japanese soldiers

document these events.

5

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido: A Short History of Japanese War Crimes, (The

Military Book Club, 1958), pp. 41-47

6

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (Basic Books, 1997)

Ms. Chang relied heavily on interviews with Nanking survivors and on such documents as John

Rabe‟s graphic account of rape and brutality. Historians such as Frank Gibney and Joshua Fogel

contend that Ms. Chang‟s book is “flawed and inaccurate.” Professor Fogel, in a February 26, 2003

lecture at the Institute for Advanced Study, linked her book to a Chinese-American effort to identify

the Nanking massacre as a defining incident in Chinese-Japanese relations.

7

Honda Katsuichi, The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan’s National Shame

(M. E. Sharpe, 1999). Initially published in 1987 in Japanese, this is a credible account by an

experienced reporter. I found especially valuable the introduction by Frank Gibney, who places

Honda‟s account within a broad historical context.

8

Rape of Nanking (The History Channel, 1999) This is a useful summary of the Nanking massacre.

Graphic photographs vividly highlight the breadth and nature of the atrocities. Ms. Chang was a

consultant on this video together with David McGee, son of a prominent Nanking missionary. Mr.

McGee provides valuable insights on what the missionaries had witnessed and photographed.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 7 11/10/2011









The Nanking massacre followed the Japanese army‟s three month, street-by-street



battle to capture Shanghai. The troops then ravaged villages en route to Nanking,



China‟s capital, from Shanghai. As the battle for Nanking commenced, the Chinese



army disintegrated, with tens of thousands of soldiers discarding their weapons and



seeking to blend into the Nanking civilian population. Thus commenced the wide-



scale slaughter of anyone suspected of being a Chinese soldier. Some suspects were



bound together and machine gunned. Others were thrown into pits, covered with



gasoline, and burned to death. When body disposal became a logistical problem, one



solution was to force thousands of prisoners into the river, leaving them to drown.



Prisoners were used to improve swordsmanship skills. Live prisoners would be used



as targets. One account is of two lieutenants who engaged in a competition to see



who could first behead 100 Chinese prisoners.







The troops exhibited sadistic behavior towards the civilian population:



“Many soldiers went beyond rape to disembowel women, slice off their breasts,



then nail them alive to walls. Fathers were forced to rape their daughters,



and sons their mothers, as other family members watched. Not only did



live burials, castrations, the carving of organs, and the roasting of people



become routine, but more diabolical tortures were practiced such as laying

their tongues on iron hooks and burying people to their waist and watching



them torn apart by German shepherds.”9







What occurred in Nanking was the result of a deliberate Japanese military policy.



Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, Emperor Hirohito‟s uncle, was appointed to replace



General Matsui as commander of Japanese troops in Nanking on December 2, 1937.



An order under General Asaka‟s signature (the subsequent claim that this was forged

could be an effort to absolve the imperial family) to „kill all captives‟ reflected the

9

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking, p. 6

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 8 11/10/2011



attitude of the Japanese military towards both Chinese soldiers and civilians in



Nanking.10 According to Professor Herbert Bix, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning authority



on Hirohito, the emperor was aware of the Nanking atrocities.11







Frank Tillman Durdin, a New York Times correspondent who witnessed the



Nanking massacres, reported, in December, 1937, that “the Japanese appear to want



the horrors to remain as long as possible to impress the Chinese of the terrible results



of resisting Japan.”12 These atrocities, far greater than what occurred in Shanghai,



were unprecedented and, according to some authorities, unplanned. There were



standing orders to take no prisoners. Some Japanese historians ascribe what occurred



to a breakdown of discipline, racial chauvinism, desire for revenge, and “extreme



psychological frustration.”13







There is no way that an accurate count can be made of all who were killed during



the eight-week rampage in Nanking. At the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, the figure of



20,000 rapes and over 200,000 persons killed was accepted.14 Iris Chang accepts a



figure of at least 300,000 killed, while some historians support a much lower



figure.15 Based on the accounts I have examined, I find credible the estimate of



Honda Katsuichi, made in 1997, that the total Chinese killed was “a bit over



100,000, but not approaching 200,000.”16 Professor Bix refers to the best Japanese

estimates of “no fewer than 200,000.17







Unit 731

In 1936, by „command of the Emperor,‟ then- Lt. Colonel Ishii Shiro, the key



military figure engaged in Japanese biological warfare, was authorized to establish

10

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking, p. 40

11

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, (HarperCollins, 2000), p. 336

12

New York Times, December 18, 1937

13

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, pp. 333-334

14

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death , p. 102

15

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking, pp. 101-103

16

Honda Katsuichi, The Nanking Massacre, p. xiii

17

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 334. Professor Dower, in John W. Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 43,

accepts 200,000 as a middle range of military and civilian Chinese killed.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 9 11/10/2011



the Ping Fan experiment in Manchuria.18 This operation, officially called the Water



Purification Bureau, conducted large-scale biological warfare experiments on human



guinea pigs as well as testing anthrax, plague, typhoid, and other deadly chemicals



on Chinese villagers. Dr. Sheldon Harris, who devoted twenty years researching



these „factories of death,‟ has estimated that between 10,000 and 12,000 prisoners



died in these experiments as well as at least 250,000 civilian men, women, and



children.19







These biological warfare facilities had a seemingly limitless source of funding.



Under Lt. General Ishii Shiro, there was a staff of 3,000 at Unit 731 in Hardin,



Manchuria and about 20,000 staff in other units, including Unit 100, Unit 1644, Unit



565, and Unit 2646.20 Several members of the Japanese royal family either



participated in this biological warfare program or were familiar with its activities. In



fact, two of Emperor Hirohito‟s brothers were in regular contact with Ishii. A



Hirohito cousin (and close confident) worked at the Ping Fan facility under an alias.



On February 9, 1939 Prince Chirchibu, Hirohito‟s younger brother, attended Ishii‟s



„spell-binding‟ lecture at the War Ministry‟s Grand Conference Hall. The emperor‟s



youngest brother, Prince Mikasa, evidently visited Ping Fan and toured much of the



facility.21





Japanese biological warfare activities in the 1930‟s and 1940‟s were shrouded in



great secrecy. As the end of World War II approached, a major effort was made to



destroy buildings and records and to kill prisoners who were still alive. Almost



nothing about Japanese biological warfare was raised in the war crimes‟ trials. On



August 29, 1946, an American serving as assistant to Chinese prosecutors mentioned



biological experiments on humans and animals. When the Australian justice asked

18

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 40

19

New York Times, September 4, 2002. This obituary of Dr. Harris notes that , while other authorities

do not dispute that biological experiments took place, they question the high number of victims that

Dr. Harris has estimated.

20

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 137

21

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, pp. 141-142. This section discusses the various imperial

family‟s contacts with biological warfare activities.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 10 11/10/2011



“How about letting this item go?,” it was never again raised in the war crimes‟



trials.22







American scientists convinced U. S. intelligence that this was a „golden



opportunity‟ to obtain Unit 731 data related to experiments on live humans.23



With General MacArthur‟s recommendation approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff



and, perhaps, even President Truman, blanket immunity was offered to Ishii and his



colleagues in return for full briefing and available data on „medical experiments.‟24



In this early Cold War period the Russians pressed to interview Ishii and others.



American intelligence deflected these requests. All of the Ishii information was



placed in secret U. S. intelligence files. A 1982 memorandum from a Fort Detrick



military intelligence archivist stated that “scientists in the U. S. program said the



[Ishii] information was not of specific value, but it was the first data in which human



subjects were described.” 25 Except for a few individuals tried and convicted by the



Russians, no personnel associated with Unit 731 were ever held accountable.26 Some



of Ishii‟s senior colleagues subsequently became top executives in Japan‟s medical



industry. Unit 731 scientists formed Seikonkai (Refined Spirit Association) and



constructed a memorial tower in the Tokyo area dedicated to their Unit 731



colleagues.27





The cover-up, with U. S. complicity, of Japanese World War II biological warfare



activities, was successful for over a generation. Lord Russell‟s 1958 history of



Japanese war crimes made no mention of them.28 America‟s return of Japanese



wartime archives, without copies being retained, contributed to this conspiracy of



silence.29

22

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 181

23

Unit 731: Nightmare in Manchuria, (The History Channel, 1999)

24

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, pp. 203-204

25

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death. Chapter 14, Scientists and the Cover-Up, provides a detailed

account of the U.S. offer for immunity in return for information.

26

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, pp. 229-230

27

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 375

28

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido

29

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 121

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 11 11/10/2011









Sei-ichi Morimura‟s 1980s novel, The Devil’s Gluttony, shocked Japanese with



its explicit details on Japan‟s wartime biological research on humans. Several



Japanese professors pursued scholarly research on these activities. In the early 1990s,



a Japanese Citizens‟ Committee for the Exhibit of Unit 731 Crimes mounted a



traveling exhibit that was seen by over 250,000 Japanese.30 The Chinese have



established a Unit 731 Crime Evidence Museum in Harbin, Manchuria.31 Though



there were some scientific journal articles in the 1980s, the first comprehensive



English language book on Japanese biological warfare experiments was published in



1994.32 Unit 731: Nightmare in Manchuria, a comprehensive video on this subject,



was released in 1999.33







Perhaps one will never know the complete story of Japan‟s biological warfare,



which started in 1932 and was greatly expanded during World War II. What we do



know relates both to experiments on live humans and to an accelerated effort to



create germ-filled bombs that could be sent by balloons to disperse anthrax or plague



throughout the United States.







At Unit 731 the prisoner compound held five hundred persons. Seldom did



prisoners survive for more than a few weeks. When new subjects were required,

officials would conduct a sweep in nearby villages. Japanese scientists did not



consider prisoners subjected to experiments as human beings. In Unit 731 they were



referred to as maruta (logs), while at the Nanking biological warfare factory they



were called zaimoko (lumber).34 Prisoners subjected to live vivisections rarely were



given anesthetics. There were over fifty different lethal experiments on human



beings. These ranged from testing diseases such as typhoid and plague, exposing



prisoners to frost bite, tying prisoners to posts and measuring the impact of bomb

30

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, pp. ix-x

31

Unit 731 : Nightmare in Manchuria

32

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 116

33

Unit 731: Nightmare in Manchuria

34

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 101.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 12 11/10/2011



fragments, and exploratory operations.







Local Chinese and Russian civilians were principally used in these experiments.



There is also persuasive evidence that Allied POWs were employed. According to a



1985 British TV documentary, parts of which were shown on 20/20, “3,000 Chinese,



Russian, and American [military] prisoners were maruta.” Professor Harris‟s



indication that 150 American prisoners may have been killed at Unit 731 is



reinforced by later interviews with American POWs. There still is no conclusive



documentation of the number of human beings killed in these experiments. A 1999



New York Times article mentioned 10,000, which falls within the range of the

35

10,000-12,000 estimate by Professor Harris.







The major military focus of Ishii‟s operations was to develop a „perfect plague‟



and delivery system that could be employed against Japan‟s “number 1 enemy-the



United States.” Unit 731 had a fleet of planes. It also had the monthly capacity to



manufacture 300 kilograms of plague bacteria, 500-600 kilograms of anthrax germs,



800-900 kilograms of paratyphoid and/or dysentery germs, and 1000 kilograms of



cholera germs. Several other biological warfare units had lesser germ manufacturing



facilities.36





In 1940, Hirohito sanctioned the first experimental use of bacteriological weapons



in China .37Entire villages would be targeted with bombs carrying deadly, plague-



infected fleas. The major technical challenge was the development of an effective



delivery system that could spread deadly balloons throughout the United States.



Although several balloons reached the American mainland in May, 1945, it appears

35

The information of Japanese biological warfare experiments on human beings comes from Sheldon

H. Harris, Factories of Death, Unit 731: Nightmare in Manchuria, Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the

Japanese: POWs of World War II in the Pacific, (Quill, 1994), Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors:

Japanese War Crimes in World War II, (Westview Press, 1998), and the New York Times, March 4,

1999.

36

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, pp. 55-56, provides detailed information on Unit 731‟s

operations.

37

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 362

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 13 11/10/2011



that Ishii required at least another year before he might have been able to launch



massive germ warfare against the United States.







There is no data publicly available on how many Chinese civilians were killed in



Japan‟s experiments with germ warfare. The 30,000 civilians who died in Harbin



from plague in 1947, and another 6,000 plague deaths in 1948, could be an after



effect of Ishii‟s wartime activities. Professor Harris estimates that at least 250,000



Chinese civilians were killed by Ishii‟s testing of efficient germ warfare agents. In a



2001 Washington Post article, the Chinese government claims that 270,000 Chinese



civilians were killed by Japanese biological warfare, though no evidence is provided



to support this figure. It would be safe to estimate that, at a minimum, 100,000



Chinese civilians were killed by germ warfare experiments.38







Prisoners of War (POWs)

From detailed information on the slaughter of at least 30,000 Chinese soldiers



who surrendered in Nanking and anecdotal evidence from other parts of China, it



appears that many hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers surrendered to the



Japanese between 1937 and 1945. Hirohito approved removing all constraints of



international law in treating Chinese POWs and, at war‟s end, Japan acknowledged



holding only fifty-six Chinese POWs.39 Definitive data on the number of Allied and

Asian civilians captured and incarcerated by the Japanese remains evasive.According



to the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region, over 90,000



Westerners were interned, with a mortality rate over ten percent.40 Extensive data



does exist on Allied POWs and their death rate in Japanese captivity:





38

The section on germ warfare is based on detailed information in Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of

Death, Unit 731: Death in Manchuria, and The Washington Post, March 10, 2001.

39

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 360

40

Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region, Civilian Internees held by the Japanese

during the Pacific War, www.abcifer.com/statistics.htm (no date). According to one account, 130,000

Europeans were interned in Indonesia and 30,000 died. John W. Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 296.

Professor Yuki Tanaka, Japan’s Comfort Women, p. 67, refers to Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal records

that mention about 80,000 Dutch civilian internees, of whom 10,500 died.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 14 11/10/2011



Number of Allied POWs and Death Rate Under the Japanese41

Country Number of POWs Number of Deaths Death Rate (percent)



Australia 21,726 7,412 34.1



Britain 50,016 12,433 24.8



Canada 1,691 273 16.1



New Zealand 121 31 25.6



United States 21,580 7,107 32.9



Holland 37,000 8,500 22.9







TOTAL 132,134 35,756



AVERAGE DEATH RATE 27.1







The death rate of 27.1% for Allied POWs held by the Japanese contrasts sharply



with what happened to Allied (not including Russian) POWs held by Germans. The



overall Allied POW death rate in German camps was 3.97%, while for American



POWs it was 1.1% (1,121 of 96,614). The Germans normally treated Allied



prisoners according to the Geneva Convention. Such was not the case for the



Japanese.







There is a wealth of data on Japanese treatment of Allied POWs.42 Prior to the

“China Incident” (the Japanese consider their invasions of Manchuria and China as



“incidents” rather than war), Japanese POW policy and practice were comparatively

41

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 3. Other sources suggest that the total number of American POWs

held by the Japanese exceeded 30,000.

42

Considerable evidence was presented during the International War Tribunals. Much of this evidence

is summarized in a 1958 book, The Knights of Bushido: A Short History of Japanese War

Crimes. Especially over the past generation, national POW associations have collected accounts from

Japan prison camp survivors. Some POWs have published books, many of which were privately

printed. Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II, by Yuki Tanaka, a lecturer in

Japanese studies at the University of Western Australia, provides keen insights into the Japanese

POW experience with special focus on what occurred to Australians. Prisoners of the Japanese:

POWs of World War II in the Pacific, based on hundreds of POW interviews, is an extraordinary

narrative of the POWs‟ daily lives. The video, Murder Under the Sun: Japanese War Crimes &

Trials, is a comprehensive overview of how POWs were treated and the subsequent war crimes trials .

Japanese War Crimes & Trials: Murder Under the Sun, (Lou Reda Productions, in association with

The National Historical Society, 1996)

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 15 11/10/2011



humane. The extreme mistreatment of POWs by the Japanese from the so-called



“China Incident” to the end of World War II did not reflect long-standing Japanese



military traditions. In part, this might be explained by the changing nature of the



Japanese military. By the 1930s, there was utter contempt for all soldiers who



surrendered.43 Societal obedience to authority was also a major factor.







Pulitzer-Prize-winner Professor John Dower submits that “race and ethnicity



constitute a ground base in most wartime atrocities; certainly racist contempt must be



taken into account when we try to explain the callous behavior of Japanese fighting



men vis-à-vis other Asians. In the present case studies of Japanese brutality against



„white‟ prisoners, however, we confront the racial hatreds of World War II in Asia in



their starkest form.”44 A similar sentiment was expressed by a leading Japanese



nationalist writer, in commenting on Emperor Hirohito‟s declaration of war: “Before



we can expel the Anglo-Saxons and make them remove all their traces from East



Asia, we must annihilate them (emphasis added).”45







For Americans, the Bataan Death March was a shocking example of Japanese



brutality towards POWs. Captured Americans were forced to march many miles with



virtually no food nor water. Japanese officers and soldiers would kill marchers at



random. Anyone who had difficulty maintaining the pace was shot, bayoneted, or

killed with a sword. About 2,000 American POWs died during this forced march,



together with an estimated 16,000 Filipinos.46 There were many examples of far



worse treatment of Allied prisoners. At the Sankaran (northern Borneo) POW camp,



of about 2,000 Australian and 500 British POWs, only 6 (a survival rate of 0.24



percent) survived.47





43

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 56

44

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, pp. xiv-xv

45

Kevin Reilly, Readings in World Civilizations: Volume 2, The Development of the Modern World ,

(St. Martin‟s Press, 1992), pp. 260-261

46

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 15

47

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 11

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 16 11/10/2011



The machine gunning of nurses, the hanging of live prisoners on hooks, and the



casual murder, torture, and daily cruelty reflect a pattern of treatment that



contributed to an extraordinary Allied prisoner death rate. The beheading of aviators



was a standard procedure, complemented, on occasion, by torture and cannibalism. 48







As the fortunes of war turned against the Japanese, increasingly Allied POWs



were transferred to other locations. According to one source, of 50,000 POWs



transported in unmarked ships, 10,000 died. About one third died from friendly fire.



Of the other nearly 7,000, many died from lack of water, food, and sanitation in



overcrowded holds, while others, surviving Allied bombing and torpedos, were



machine gunned or bayoneted by Japanese military. 49







As Allied forces closed in on POW camps, local commanders often were ordered



to destroy all prison records and to „prevent POWs from falling into Allied hands‟ (a



euphemism for killing them). After World War II, a number of rescued POWs died



from their prison experience, while others had to cope with severe depression and



other prisoner-related illnesses.50 Many of the surviving Allied POWs are now in



their eighties. Efforts to obtain a Japanese apology for their wartime treatment



continue to be ignored.







“Comfort Women”

“Comfort women” is a euphemism for the over 100,000 women, mostly from



Korea, China, Taiwan, and the Philippines, but also including a few Westerners, who



were forced into Japanese military brothels during World War II. The precise



number of “comfort women” will never be known. According to a Japanese plan



devised in July, 1941, 20,000 “comfort women” were required for every 700,000

48

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 321

49

Japanese War Crimes and Trials: Murder Under the Sun

50

The data on Allied POW treatment is drawn from Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of

Bushido, Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, and Japanese War

Crimes & Trials: Murder Under the Sun

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 17 11/10/2011



soldiers, or one woman for every 35 soldiers.51 An Australian scholar, based on



Japanese army “comfort women” ratios in China for every year from 1937 to 1945,



has calculated that a more realistic ratio was 1:50. For seven million Japanese troops



in all military regions, he estimates that were perhaps 139,000 “comfort women,” for



whom the wartime death rate of one sixth resulted in 116,000 who survived the war.



Of the 58,000 “comfort women” who he projected were alive in the 1990s, only a



handful have come forward to tell their stories.52







The plight of these “comfort women” was ignored in the aftermath of World War



II. It did not merit a mention in Lord Russell of Liverpool‟s pioneer 1958 history of



Japanese war crimes.53 Groundbreaking articles by Japanese journalist Senda Kako



were swiftly forgotten in the 1950s. Thirty years, later women‟s groups in Korea and



Japan began to organize a “comfort women” network. On December 6, 1991 a few



“comfort women” filed a class action suit against the Japanese government in the



Tokyo District Court.54







Women‟s rights currently are a front-burner issue in much of Asia. This was not



the case two generations ago. Indeed, a Japanese scholar, explaining the “comfort



women” brothels, referred to the contempt with which women were held in Japanese



society and the exploitation of their sexuality by Japanese men.55 Today it is

exceedingly difficult to compile an accurate history of these “comfort women.” The



personal shame associated with this forced servicing of Japanese troops prevents all



but a handful of “comfort women” from publicly telling their stories.







Primary source materials are difficult to locate on a subject that had been

51

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 99

52

George Hicks, The Comfort Women: Japan’s Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in the Second

World War (Norton, 1997) , p. 19

53

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido

54

The genesis of this “comfort women” network is described in George Hicks, The Comfort Women,

p. 11.

55

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 79

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 18 11/10/2011



ignored for so many years.56 Hata Ikuhiko, a history professor at Chiba University,



says that he regards as reliable only evidence that is scientifically proven. Applying



this criterion, he dismisses Mr. Hicks‟ book, based extensively on interviews with



“comfort women,” as “unscholarly” and “unfootnoted.” There is no documented



evidence to substantiate such official Japanese official statements such as those made



in 1996 by former Japanese Education Minister Okuno Seisuke: “Korean and other



Asian sex slaves of the Japanese soldiers during the war were actually prostitutes out



to make money.”57







The Japanese impressments of “comfort women” into military brothels frequently



entailed seizure, rape, and forced confinement in brothels. Heart-rending stories from



“comfort women” survivors, as well as from members of their villages, attest to the



brutality and degradation inflicted on countless thousands of primarily Asian victims.



There were a few instances when Dutch women were impressed into military



brothels. On occasion Japanese military would require a village elder to select



women for „work‟ details. There were also cases when women would be recruited to



work in hospitals, kitchens, or commissaries. The typical outcome was rape, then



enforced prostitution as “comfort women.”







Many of these “comfort women” were required to service 15-to-20 soldiers daily.

Some of the women received a few cents daily. It is possible that a few women



volunteered for this duty. Available evidence indicates that this would clearly be the



exception.58

56

George Hicks, in The Comfort Women, has drawn heavily on interviews with “comfort women” to

tell the story of how this occurred and what the personal impacts were on women forced into Japanese

military brothels. Yuki Tanaka, in Chapter 3 (Rape and War: The Japanese Experience), draws

heavily on Japanese language sources in his historical analysis. Yuki Tanaka‟s Japanese Comfort

Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the U. S. Occupation, (Routledge,

2002), adds little to the data provided in Hidden Horrors.

57

The comments from Professor Hata and former minister Seisuke come from an undated lecture,

Comfort Women and the Nanking Massacre, delivered by Kosuke Shimizu of Kansai Gaidai

University.

58

Specifics on the nature of Japanese military brothels, the manner in which “comfort women” were

acquired, and the life of these “comfort women” are drawn primarily from George Hicks, The

Comfort Women and Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors. There also are web sites that recount the stories

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 19 11/10/2011









The Burma/Thailand Railroad

In early 1942, Japanese Imperial General Headquarters decided that a railroad



should be constructed across part of Siam (Thailand) and Burma to link up two



existing rail lines. The strategic objective was to shorten the lines of communication



between the Japanese armies in India and Burma. The terrain was extremely



difficult. Years earlier the British had planned such a rail linkage, but then



abandoned the project. The 250-mile railroad, much of it through disease-infested



swamps and jungles, would require over 600 bridges and aqueducts.







Japan had engineers competent to design such an undertaking. What it lacked was



the necessary heavy construction equipment. Headquarters ordered that the railroad



must be completed in eighteen months. The Japanese military recruited and



impressed over 200,000 Burmese, Tamil, Javanese, Malayan, and Chinese laborers



for the project. In addition, General Togo Hideki, the commander of all Japanese



military forces, authorized the employment of Allied POWs. I believe that this



decision was passed up to Togo because the employment of POWs in military



projects was forbidden by the Geneva Convention and other protocols of war. There



were about 61,000 POW laborers.59





There are credible book and video sources available on the construction of the



Burma/Thailand railroad..60 I consider 1957 Academy-Award-winner The Bridge on



the River Kwai to be a massive misrepresentation of what actually occurred.61

of “comfort women,‟ as well as newspaper articles that report initiatives by “comfort women”

associations.

59

Figures on the number of laborers employed come from Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 120

(more than 60,000 Allied POWs and 270,000 Asian laborers) and True Story of the Bridge on the

River Kwai (The History Channel, 1996) (up-to-250,000 Asian workers),

60

The Battle for Burma: History’s Infamous Railway of Death!, (Film Victoria, 1986) relies heavily

on interviews with British survivors of this railroad project. While it provides some interesting

personal insights, I find True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai a more valuable historical source.

61

The Bridge on the River Kwai depicts the Japanese as dependent on British engineers. This did not

occur. The film ignores the brutality and deaths that were hallmarks of this railroad project. The film

portray the wrong bridge (it is the Mae Khlong, not Kwai), and it was constructed of metal, not wood.

The bridge was frequently bombed by Allied aircraft, in contrast to Hollywood‟s portrayal of William

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 20 11/10/2011









Under peacetime conditions, this railroad construction project would have been



extraordinarily difficult. Wartime conditions, the absence of essential heavy



equipment, and headquarters‟ insistence that the bridge be completed within eighteen



months compounded these difficulties. A dreadful price was paid by forced labor that



was decimated by dysentery, cholera, and malaria. Monsoon season took a heavy



toll.







The Japanese provided minimal food and virtually no medicine to their labor



force. Sick men were obliged to work or, often, simply die. Brutality towards the



laborers was commonplace. One POW recounted: the Japanese guards “belted the



men hourly with bamboos and rifle butts, or they kicked them. I have seen them use



a five pound hammer and anything they could lay their hands on. One man had his



jaw broken with a blow from a rifle butt because he bent a spike while driving it into



the rail.62 Some of the Korean guards were relentlessly sadistic.







The railroad was completed close to its original schedule. Of 12,399 Allied POWs



who died during the railroad‟s construction, 6,380 were British and 2,815



Australian.63 Asian laborer deaths were estimated to exceed 100,000.64Today the



area around Kanchanaburi, including a vast POW cemetery, has been turned into a

tourist attraction, featuring something called the “Bridge on the River Kwai.”65







Magnitude of Asian Civilians Killed

I am unaware of any systematic effort, in the immediate post-World War period,



to calculate the number of Asian civilians who were killed as a result of Japanese



occupation activities. This was not a principal focus of the International War Crimes

Holden‟s destructive exploits. (The American Film Institute ranks The Bridge on the River Kwai 13th

on its list of the top 100 American films of the 20 th century.)

62

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido, p. 86

63

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 223

64

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 220, True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai

65

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 392

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 21 11/10/2011



Tribunals. Nor was it a primary concern in the liberated areas. The Dutch, in



Indonesia, the French, in French Indo-China, the Americans, in soon-to-become-



independent Philippines, and the British, in their colonial territories, were coping



with critical problems of survival and of reestablishing some form of governance.



Korea, freed from thirty-five years of Japanese annexation, was divided at the 38th



parallel as the result of a Potsdam Conference agreement. China was embroiled in a



civil war.







Anecdotal evidence suggests that Asian civilian deaths in Japanese occupied areas



could be in the millions, with the majority of civilian victims in China and



Manchuria. The Japanese military waged a campaign “to punish the people of China



for their refusal to acknowledge the superiority of the Japanese race.”66 In 1939,



Japanese Prime Minister Hiranuma, speaking in the Japanese Diet of the “China



Incident,” stated “as for those who fail to understand [the need to cooperate with us],



we have no other alternative but to exterminate them (emphasis added).”67 The 1937-



1938 civilian killings in Nanking seemed a forerunner to what occurred in northern



China. There the policy was described as “loot all, kill all, burn all,” as the Japanese



sought to wipe out Chinese communist resistance.”68 There is a report that Japanese



troops in the Chinese provinces of Chekiang and Kiangi annihilated entire villages



and towns, killing about 250,000 civilians.69





It is equally difficult to obtain specific data on Asian civilians killed in other



Japanese occupied areas. There are eye witness accounts of Japanese massacres of



civilians in Dutch territories, Burma, and elsewhere. After the Japanese capture of



Singapore, up-to-20,000 Chinese civilians may have been killed. 70 Up-to-100,000



Filipino civilians, as well as some citizens of neutral countries, may have been killed

66

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido, p. 39

67

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido p. 40

68

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking, p. 215

69

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 277.

70

True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 22 11/10/2011



in a frenzied Japanese military outburst prior to the liberation of Manila.71







Professor R. J. Rummel, a University of Hawaii political scientist, has devoted



over twenty years calculating the magnitude of 20th century global “democide” (his



term for murder by government). He has applied quantitative techniques in



synthesizing diverse data, then calculating what, in his experience, appear to be



reasonable ranges. Some of the magnitudes presented by Professor Rummel are



consonant with what a series of French scholars have determined in The Black Book



of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.72







The following table is from Chapter 3 of Professor Rummel‟s Death by



Government:73



Table 8.1



Japanese Democide in World War II



(000)

Democide (000)



Component in China Elsewhere Total



POWs/internees 400 139 539



Forced laborers 142 868 1,010



Massacres/atrocities 2,850 758 3,608

Bombings/CB warfare 558 ? >558



Democidal famine ? 250 >250



TOTAL >3,949 >2,015 >5,964







One Japan scholar refers to more than one million deaths in the Philippines, while



quoting historian Himieta Mitsuyoshi as saying “more than 2.7 million Chinese

71

Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 323. Professor Dower refers to close to 100,000 of

Manila‟s population of 700,000 killed by shells, bombing, crossfire, and Japanese sadists, John W.

Dower, War Without Mercy, p. 22.

72

Stephen Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrezej Paczkowksi, Karel Bartosek, and

Jean-Lous Margolin, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, (Harvard, 1999)

73

R. J. Rummel, Death by Government, (Transaction Publishers, 5th printing 2004), p. 148

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 23 11/10/2011



noncombatants were killed.”74 Professor John Dower, who has closely studied



wartime Japan, states that “in China alone, perhaps 15 million Chinese died.”75







Japanese War Crimes Trials

At the end of World War II, the Allies established international tribunals to



prosecute Japanese military and civilian defendants. In contrast to the Nuremberg



Trials, in which the horrors of the Holocaust as well as some of the key defendants



were familiar to the Western public, the judicial proceedings in Asia attracted



relatively little public attention.







The most publicized International Military Tribunal for the Far East became



known at the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Justices from eleven nations (Australia,



Canada, China, France, Great Britain, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the



Philippines, the Soviet Union, and the United States) convened to hear charges of



Class A crimes („crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against



humanity‟)76. Of eighty Class A war criminal suspects detained in the Sugamo



prison, twenty-eight (nine civilians and nineteen professional military men) were



indicted.77







The Tokyo trial convened on May 3, 1946 and ended on November 12, 1948. One

defendant was judged to be insane, two died during the trial, and twenty-five were



convicted. The seven sentenced to death included General Tojo Hideki, commander



in chief of Japanese imperial forces. On December 20, 1948 the U. S. Supreme Court



ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the Tokyo proceedings.78 The seven were

74

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 595 and p. 367.

75

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, (Norton, 2000), p. 22. In a

book published thirteen years earlier, Professor Dower had stated “certainly it is reasonable to think in

general terms of approximately 10 million Chinese war dead [of whom at least 1.3 million were

military],” John Dower, War Without Mercy, pp. 295-296.

76

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido, p. 283

77

See chapter 15: Victor‟s Justice, Loser‟s Justice, in John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, for a

comprehensive account of the war trials from both the Allied and Japanese perspective.

78

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 461

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 24 11/10/2011



executed three days later.







Indian Justice Radhabinod Pal arrived at the trial as an outright apologist for



Japanese imperialism.79 His lengthy written opinion at the trials‟ conclusion stated



that “as a judicial tribunal, we can not behave in any manner which may justify the



feeling that the setting up of the Tribunal was only for the attainment of an objective



which was essentially political, though cloaked by a judicial appearance.” 80 Two



other justices filed dissenting opinions. This trial of Class A defendants was based on



questionable law and was conducted in a manner that did not adhere to basic



standards of U. S. constitutional law. General Douglas MacArthur, who played a



critical role in establishing the tenor of this trial, remarked, at the time, “Its purity



lies in its purpose, not in its detail.”81 A senior member of MacArthur‟s staff



described it as “the worst hypocrisy in recorded history,” while diplomat George



Kennan, in Japan to prepare a report on the trial for the U. S. State Department,



castigated it as “profoundly misconceived from the start.”82







A vocal concern of some justices was that Hirohito was not indicted with the other



Class A defendants.83 General MacArthur, intent on utilizing Hirohito in his efforts



to create a post-war Japanese nation, took truly extraordinary measures to save



Hirohito from trial as a war criminal.84 Both Americans and Japanese engaged

wholeheartedly in this „conspiracy‟ to keep Hirohito out of the docket.85







Other tribunals were established throughout the Far East to try defendants for



Class B and Class C crimes (conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity,

79

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 595

80

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Knights of Bushido, pp. 299-300 and Foreign Affairs (July/August

1999), pp. 110-111

81

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 582

82

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 451 and p. 453

83

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 460

84

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 594

85

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, pp. 459-461 and Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 583 and pp. 585-

587

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 25 11/10/2011



including crimes against citizens of any nationality). 86 Class B and C tribunals were



conducted between October 1945 and April 1951 by seven Allied nations (United



States, Great Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and China (Taipei))



in 49 locations. These included Singapore, Rabaul, Manila, Hong Kong, and



Yokohama. A total of 5,379 Japanese, 173 Formosans, and 148 Koreans were tried.



Of these, 984 were sentenced to death, a further 475 were sentenced to life



imprisonment, and 2,944 were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.87







Japanese and American lawyers as well as journalists from various nations,



questioned the fairness of some of these Class B and Class C trials. In contrast to the



Class A trial, which lasted for two-and-one-half years and had hundreds of lawyers



and translators, many of the other trials had difficulty in collecting appropriate



documents and in clearly identifying the specific involvement of individual



defendants.88 Regarding the Manila trials, there were clear indications that General



Douglas MacArthur, after his personal experiences in the Philippines, did not wish to



be deterred by “legal niceties.”89 A number of Manila defendants were tried and



executed within a few weeks. 90 At other locations, on occasion, a defendant could be



arrested on a Saturday, brought to trial the next Monday, then executed within a



week.91 In December, 1958 the last of the Class A, B, and C prisoners were set



free.92





In December, 1949, Russia, not feeling bound by the immunity the United States



had granted to Lt. General Ishii Shiro and his Unit 731 colleagues, tried and



convicted twelve Japanese associated with biological warfare activities in



Manchuria. They were sentenced to 2-to-25-years imprisonment. The last prisoner

86

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 2

87

See Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 2, for details on Class B and C trials.

88

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 450 and pp. 444-447

89

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 582 and Lawrence A. Massengill, Three Manila Tribunals:

MacArthur’s Revenge?, (Military Review, 1995)

90

Details on the Manila trial come principally from Japanese War Crimes & Trials: Murder Under

the Sun and George Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, pp. 364-365

91

George Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 366.

92

Japanese War Crimes & Trials

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 26 11/10/2011



was repatriated to Japan by 1956.93 The Russians may also secretly have executed as



many as 3,000 Japanese as war criminals. 94 In 1956, the communist regime in China



brought forty Japanese to trial, sentenced them to prison, and repatriated the last



prisoners to Japan in 1964.95







Japanese War Crimes and Just Compensation

The issue of government compensation for war crimes is viewed far differently



today than it was in 1945. Back then no one could have predicted that the U. S.



Congress would vote $1.2 billion to compensate Americans of Japanese descent who



were placed in U. S. internment camps during World War II. Similarly, voting



$22,000 compensation for each American employee held hostage in Iran for 444



would have seemed unthinkable. Nor could anyone have imagined that Congress



would vote billions of dollars to those killed or injured in the September 11th terrorist



attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Equally unimaginable, at the



close of World War II, was the prospect that the Germany government and German



companies would provide over $60 billion in compensation for Holocaust events.







I believe that the issue of possible Japanese compensation for its World War II



war crimes can best be examined within the context of the change in perspective



towards such compensation that has occurred since 1945. I am not aware that the

matter of Japanese war crimes compensation was seriously considered by the Allies



or by the Japanese government in the years immediately after World War II.



General MacArthur was focused on resuscitating a devastated Japanese economy,



while also endeavoring to create a viable Japanese government. Moreover, politically



the Cold War swiftly transformed Japan from a „defeated enemy‟ to an essential ally.







In the September, 1951 peace treaty signed between the Allies and Japan, the U.

93

See Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, pp. 229-230, for details of this Russian trial

94

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 594

95

John W. Dower, Embracing Defeat, p. 594

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 27 11/10/2011



S.‟s official position on further compensation was expressed in Article 26: “Should



Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any state granting that



state greater advantages than those provided by the present treaty, those same



advantages shall be extended to the parties of the present treaty.”96 Under Article 14:



“It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers.



Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently



sufficient, if it to maintain a viable economy, to make complete (sic) reparations for



all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations.”97







American POWs, many years later, sought, through the courts and in Congress,



compensation for their imprisonment and forced labor on military production in



Japanese corporations. The only previous compensation from Japan received by



American POWs had come from the sale of Japanese assets seized by the U. S.



government during the war. The individual POW payout averaged $890.98 In 1999,



American POWs filed a compensation suit against five major Japanese



corporations.99 State Department Legal Adviser William Howard Taft IV, in support



of the Japanese position, stated that the 1951 treaty “expressly waived all claims of



U. S. nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the



course of the prosecution of the war.”100





Several World War II Allies have directly compensated their POWs. The



Canadian government has provided $15,600 to each of 700 POWs or to their



survivors.101 In Great Britain, as a gesture intended to enhance Japan‟s image prior



to Emperor Akihito‟s May, 1998 visit to Great Britain, the Japanese government



offered to establish a $1.3 million fund to finance study in Japan for grandsons of

96

New York Times, December 24, 2001

97

Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking, p. 222

98

Copley News Service, September 26, 2002

99

New York Times, September 15, 1999

100

Copley News Service, September 26, 2002

101

New York Times, December 12, 1998

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 28 11/10/2011



British POWs.102 British POWs, in the absence of an apology, rejected this offer.



Subsequently, Parliament voted to provide $15,000 to each British POW (or his



widow) who was incarcerated by the Japanese.







Japan has been steadfast in its refusal to consider compensation for mistreatment



of any of the Allied POWs incarcerated by Japanese during World War II. Its policy



towards the compensation claims of “comfort women” has been more complex. The



activities of “comfort women” associations in Japan, Korea, and elsewhere have



been a continuing embarrassment to Japan‟s image in Asia. While refusing officially



to accept responsibility to provide compensation to a potentially large number of



“comfort women” claimants, the Japanese government gave tacit support to the



creation of a private Asian Women‟s Fund.103 Initially, the government‟s objective



was to raise $10-to-$20 million from „private sources.‟ Only $3.6 million had been



obtained by 1998.104 A spokesman for the fund stated that payments of $23,000



would be made to Korean and Taiwanese “comfort women,” while those from the



Philippines would receive $9,200 each. He made clear that this was not



“compensation,” but, rather, payment for “medical and welfare expenses.” He stated



that about 70 women, mostly from the Philippines, had received payment.105







The issue of compensation for “comfort women” remains unresolved. “Comfort

women” associations are still vigorously pursuing the manner. South Korea, where



the largest number of surviving “comfort women” reside, ended official efforts to



obtain compensation for Korean brothel victims. By 1998 the South Korean



government had provided $22,700 to each of 152 registered “comfort women.”106







The Japanese could argue that, in fact, significant „compensation‟ has been

102

The Other Holocaust: Nanjing Massacre, Unit 731, & Unit 100,

www.interlog.com/~yuan/japan.html (no date)

103

New York Times, August 15, 1996

104

New York Times, April 22, 1998

105

Specifics on the Asian Women‟s Fund come from the New York Times, April 22, 1998

106

New York Times, April 22,1998

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 29 11/10/2011



provided Asian countries for Japan‟s wartime activities. In the 1965 Japanese-South



Korean Basic Treaty, the South Korean government was given the right to handle all



compensation for wartime suffering. The treaty absolved Japan from further



compensation responsibilities. Under the treaty, $300 million was provided in grants,



$200 million in soft loans, and a good faith commitment was made to seek up-to-



$300 million in private credits.107







As the devastated Japanese postwar economy recovered and, eventually, became



the second largest in the world, Japan sought to expand its economic interests and



influence throughout Asia. This involved providing billions of dollars of grants and



credits. It is unclear to what extent such payments could be considered compensation



for wartime Japanese activities.







Fifty years after the end of World War II, Mohammad Mahathir, then Malayan



prime minister, stated: “Despite wartime atrocities, Japan has been a source of



inspiration and confidence….We believe it is wrong…to dwell on the past. Present



relationships are what counts; there is no point quibbling over what happened long



ago.”108 What is needed is an unequivocal apology from the Japanese government for



the manner in which they were treated during World War II. Such an apology is, I



believe, more important to Allied POWs and “comfort women” than any specific

monetary compensation.109







Prospects That Japan Will Fully Acknowledge Its War Crimes

Japan has never unequivocally accepted responsibility for its World War II



mistreatment of Asian nationals, of Allied POWs, of “comfort women,” and of



others. Nor has it provided apologies that these affected parties have found

107

George Hicks, The Comfort Women, pp. 170-171

108

Kosuke Sihiuizu, Comfort Women and the Nanking Massacre,

www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~kosukes/Nanking_Comfort.htm (no date)

109

The Economist, in a July 8, 2000 lead article, urged that the Japanese government take the

initiative in providing appropriate settlement of the claims by Allied POWs, “comfort women,”

wartime slave labor, and other World War II victims.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 30 11/10/2011



acceptable. A Japanese scholar observes that:



“Some Japanese political leaders have made public statements about the



nation‟s war crimes and have even apologized to the citizens of those



countries that suffered. However, these official apologies seem perfunctory



in the light of Oda‟s [Makato] „principle of absolute peace.‟ Their real



motivation seems more likely to be found in the realm of international politics:



to make amends with these nations to improve economic and trading terms.



Indeed the majority of Japanese politicians lack a clear recognition of



Japan‟s war responsibility. In August, 1995, at the fiftieth anniversary of the end



of World War II, then Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi tried to issue a formal



apology as head of the Japanese government. However, because of political pressure



from the conservative members of the coalitionist Liberal Democratic Party, he was



forced to apologize as an individual rather than in his official capacity of prime



minister.”110







One of the most direct apologies was made in 1998, when Prime Minister Obuchi



told Korea‟s president that “I feel acute remorse and offer an apology from my



heart.”111 This was considerably stronger than a 1995 Japanese parliamentary



resolution that expressed „remorse‟ for causing “unbearable pain to people abroad,



particularly in Asian countries, during World War II.” 112 Earlier in the year, former

cabinet minister Okuno, during a parliamentary debate, said that “if anyone owes an



apology for World War II conduct, it is the United States.”113







The political and societal sensitivities related to unequivocal acknowledgement of



responsibility for Japan‟s wartime conduct have resulted in decades of delicate



avoidance. One popular Japanese argument is that Japan was the „victim,‟ rather than



the „aggressor‟ in World War II.114 According to this reasoning, American embargos

110

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 8

111

Star-Ledger, October 9, 1998

112

New York Times, June 7, 1995

113

New York Times, March 6, 1995

114

Yuki Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, p. 7

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 31 11/10/2011



and sanctions obliged Japan ultimately to respond. I find this historically specious.



First in Manchuria in 1931, then in China in 1937, Japan seized the offensive to



invade and occupy these areas. Subsequently, when the United States pressed for



Japanese withdrawal from China, in December, 1941 Japan simultaneously attacked



Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, and British-held



territories.







The core thrust of the „victim‟ argument relates to the immorality of dropping



atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Clearly the bombing and the subsequent



affects of radiation caused great human suffering. The bombings were intended to



end World War II. Six days after a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, and only



after a pro-war coup attempt failed in the imperial palace, Emperor Hirohito



broadcast his surrender speech.115 Historians have projected that an invasion of the



Japanese islands could have resulted in millions of Allied and Japanese casualties.116







The „morality‟ of constructing (and employing) an atomic device is a separate



issue. The Manhattan Project, in which a nuclear device was designed and



developed, was initiated as response to concern that Germany had the capability to



construct such a device. The war in Europe ended in May, 1945. The American‟s



atomic bomb was first tested in July. One could argue that seeking to construct such

a device is „immoral.‟ Then it would seem equally „immoral‟ for Japan to have



pursued its own atomic bomb project, as described in Japan’s Secret War: Japan’s



Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb.117 I wonder how the Japanese



might have judged the „morality‟ of infecting millions of Americans with plague and



anthrax, if General Ishii‟s Unit 731 had been able to perfect and activate an



intercontinental balloon delivery system.





115

The Last Mission (The History Channel, 2002)

116

Peter Li, Japanese War Crimes: The Search for Justice (Transaction Publishers, 2003), p. 255

117

Robert K. Wilcox, Japan’s Secret War: Japan’s Race Against Time to Build its own Atomic Bomb

(Marlowe, 1995)

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 32 11/10/2011



Issues of relative morality are more appropriately examined by philosophers than



historians. I am indebted to philosopher Richard Kamber for his insights.118 In



response to my question of how to compare the morality of the Nanking massacre,



medical experiments on human beings, and other World War II Japanese atrocities



with dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Professor Kamber‟s initial comment



was: “I don‟t know how one takes the moral measure of atrocities, though I do think



there is some difference between decimating a civilian population living peacefully



in territories under one‟s control (e. g. Armenian genocide) and decimating a civilian



population in enemy territories (e. g. Hiroshima).119”







Applying these Kamber criteria, Japan has a heavy burden of guilt and



responsibility for:



 its actions in Nanking and elsewhere in China;



 the killing of thousands of humans in biomedical experiments;



 the killing and injuring of at least one hundred thousand additional civilians



in biological warfare tests in Chinese villages and towns;



 the torture and killing of countless civilians in other Japanese-occupied



territories;



 the forcible impressment of about 130,000 women into Japanese military



brothels; and

 the brutal, often deadly, treatment of Allied POWs held in Japanese custody.







Countries have great difficulty in acknowledging, then endeavoring to redress,



shameful historical behavior. Germany‟s acknowledgement of its guilt for the



Holocaust is one of the most encouraging examples of how this can occur. One



aspect of accepting responsibility for its war crimes was the payments of massive



compensation. Perhaps more important, the Holocaust is integrated into the German

118

Richard Kamber, An Explanatory Model for Genocide and the Explicability of the Holocaust,

[2004] See Jonathan Glover, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, (Yale Nota Bene,

2001) for a superb assessment of 20th century government immorality, with historical antecedents of

similar atrocities.

119

Richard Kamber, e-mail to Keith Wheelock, August 14, 2004

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 33 11/10/2011



educational system and into German literature and arts.







Nikita Khruschev‟s 1956 attack on Stalin for “a grave abuse” of power triggered a



series of events that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire.120 In the United



States it took fifty-eight years for the U. S. Supreme Court, in its unanimous Brown



vs. Board of Education decision, to reverse its 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled



that „separate but equal‟ facilities were legal.121 This Court reversal, together with



the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, accelerated the process of according equality



to Afro-American citizens. In 1943, the Supreme Court, in Hirabayashi v. United



States, affirmed the legality of the wartime internment of 110,000 Americans of



Japanese descent.122 In 1987, the Ninth Court of Appeals unanimously overturned



the 1943 Supreme Court findings. U. S. government lawyers declined to appeal this



decision to the Supreme Court.123 In 1968, Japanese-Americans were reimbursed for



property they had lost. In 1988, Congress enacted legislation awarding restitution



payments of $20,000 to each of the 60,000 surviving internees.124







Ruth Benedict, in her 1946 study of Japanese society, wrote that “the



Japanese…wish to remain silent and, above all, wish others to remain silent too, for



the past is not guilt in the eyes of God, but public shame, embarrassment, „face.‟”125



While individual Japanese have long written critically about Japan‟s wartime

activities, the government remains extremely reticent to confront these issues



forthrightly.







One major problem is the dichotomy between the sense of honor portrayed by the

120

William Taubman, Khruschev: The Man and His Era, (Norton, 2003), pp. 270-299

121

Leonard W. Levy, Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (MacMillan, 1986), pp. 160-164

and Richard Kluger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black

America’s Struggle for Equality, (Knopf, 1976)

122

Leonard W. Levy, Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, pp. 1010-1013.

123

Alice Yang Murray, What Did the Internment of Japanese Americans Mean?, (Bedford, 2000), p.

77.

124

Eric Foner & John A. Garraty, The Reader’s Encyclopedia to American History, (Houghton

Mifflin, 1991), p.p. 588-589

125

New York Review of Books, July 14, 1994

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 34 11/10/2011



samurai and the Code of Bushido and the dishonorable behavior of the Japanese



military in World War II. By World War II the chivalry of Bushido seemed replaced



by a new code of relentless hatred of the enemy.126 The belief that surrender was the



ultimate dishonorable act, together with a strong sense of racial superiority both



towards Asians and whites, contributed to a mentality that permitted humans in



biomedical experiments to be treated like maruta (logs).







In late 1945, Emperor Hirohito made a remarkable speech to his subjects:



“The bondage between us and you, the people, is constantly tied with



mutual trust, love and respect. It is not brought by mere mythology and



legends. It is never founded on a chimerical conception which ascribes



the Emperor as a living deity, and, moreover, [regards] the Japanese as



superior to all races of people, hence destined to rule the world.



(emphasis added)127”







These were astonishing words in a society in which the emperor had long been



considered divine. Moreover, denial of Japanese claims of racial superiority



challenged a core tenet of Japanese society. According to the ancient concept of



kokutai, adapted to modern Japan in the 19th and 20th century, Japan was an



inherently superior race destined to lead Asia, if not the world.128





Hirohito‟s words also provided an opportunity to reexamine Hirohito‟s role in



Japanese war time activities. The Allies, in negotiating Japan‟s surrender, decided



not to depose the emperor. General Douglas MacArthur, in his efforts to reconstruct



post-war Japan, ordered that the imperial family be immune from all war crimes



investigations. In his Pulitzer-Prize-winning book on Hirohito, Professor Bix



documents how Hirohito, as supreme commander, was directly involved in all major

126

New York Times, July 14, 1997, from a review of Robert Edgerton, Warrior of the Rising Sun:

History of the Japanese Military, (Westview, 1997)

127

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 46.

128

Karl van Wolferen, The Enigma of Japanese Power, (Vintage, 1990), pp. 260-262

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 35 11/10/2011



decisions from the “China Incident” through the end of World War II. Bix observes



that Hirohito‟s “own modus operandi as supreme commander, and the influence he



exerted on operations, remain among the least studied of the many factors that



contributed to Japan‟s ultimate defeat, and are therefore the most in need of



reexamination.”129







The Japan of today, in many ways, is a combination of major post-war changes



and long-time traditions. It is the world‟s second largest economy. It‟s once



dominant role in Asian affairs increasingly is being superceded by China, its restless



neighbor. The militarist society of sixty years ago is now predominantly civilian,



with an expanding „defense force.‟ Some of the convergence between old and new is



reflected by the ongoing controversy related to the Yasukini Shrine. This war



museum, recently enhanced by a $33 million expansion, is intended to honor Japan‟s



military past and its military heroes.130 Prime ministerial visits to this shrine have



prompted sharp complaints from several Asian governments. Their concerns are that



Japanese war crimes are ignored or distorted and that high-ranking Japanese officers,



including those convicted in the Tokyo War Trials, are includes in this pantheon of



heroes. In 2001, Prime Minister Koizumi, in an effort to lessen criticism, visited the



shrine on August 13th, rather then the initially scheduled August 15th anniversary of



Japan‟s surrender.131





What might have been considered unthinkable in Japanese society sixty years ago



may be somewhat more possible today. One dramatic example is the openness with



which the unhappiness of Princess Masako, wife of heir-apparent Crown Prince



Naruhito, is acknowledged, with imperial discussion of her therapy for depression



and anxiety.132 Such humanization of the imperial family would never have occurred



a generation ago.

129

Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito, p. 16

130

Associated Press, August 13, 2002.

131

New York Times, August 13, 2001

132

New York Times, August 7, 2004

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 36 11/10/2011









The world has changed profoundly over the past sixty years. It is entirely possible



that the Japanese government will continue to stonewall on issues such as Allied



POWs and “comfort women,” until the remaining survivors die. It is also plausible to



suggest that an honorable way might be found for 21st century Japan to acknowledge



its responsibility for its war crimes, to encourage full disclosure of these in Japan‟s



educational system, and to offer some direct compensation to surviving victims of



World War II Japanese atrocities.







Professor Gerda Lerner, former president of the Organization of American



Historians, speaking of South Africa‟s successful start of national reconciliation,



wrote that “nations, like individuals, have to take responsibility for their past actions.



The only way to avoid the determinism inherent in past choices is to confront errors



made and openly reverse one‟s course. My hope is that one day her sentiments



might apply equally to Japan.







BIBLIOGRAPHY



Books

Bix, Herbert P., Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan. New York:



Perennial/HarperCollins, 2000.

Bourke, Joanna, An Intimate History of Killing: Face to Face Killing in 20th Century



Warfare. New York: Basic Books, 1999.



Chang, Iris, The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. New



York: Basic Books, 1997.



Cook, Haruko Taya & Cook, Theodore F., Japan at War: An Oral History. New



York: The New Press, 1992.



Werth, Courtois, Stephane, Panne,Nicolas, Paczkowski, Jean-Louis, Andrzej,

Bartosek, Margolin, Karel, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror,



Repression. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 37 11/10/2011



Daws, Gavan, Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the Pacific.



New York: Quill, 1994.



Dower, John W., Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, New York:



W. W. Norton & Company, 1999.



Dower, John W., War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War. New York:



Pantheon Books, 1986.



Foner, Eric & Garraty, John A., The Reader’s Companion to American History.



Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.



Gilbert, Martin, Atlas of the Holocaust. New York: William Morrow and Company,



1993.



Glover, Jonathan, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, New Haven:



Yale Nota Bene, 2001)



Harris, Sheldon H., Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-45, and



the American Cover-Up. London and New York: Routledge, 1994



Hicks, George, The Comfort Women: Japan’s Brutal; Regime of Enforced



Prostitution in the Second World War. New York and London: W. W. Norton &



Company, 1997.



Honda Katsuichi, The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan’s



National Shame. Armonk, New York, and London: M. E. Sharpe, 1999.



Kluger, Richard, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and

Black America’s Struggle for Equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976.



Lerner, Gerda, Why History Matters: Life and Thought. New York and London:



Oxford University Press, 1997.



Levy, Leonard W., Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (Volumes 1 & 2).



New York and London, MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986.



Murray, Alice Yang, What Did the Internment of Japanese Americans Mean?.



Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin‟s, 2000.

Li, Peter, Japanese War Crimes: The Search for Justice. New Brunswick and



London, Transaction Publishers, 2003.

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 38 11/10/2011



Reischauer, Edwin O., Japan: The Story of a Nation. Rutland and Tokyo: Charles E.



Tuttle Company, 1979.



Rummel, R. J., Death by Government. New Brunswick and London: Transactions



Publishers, 2004.



Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War, 1931-1945. New York: Random House, 1978



English translation of a book published in Japanese in 1968.



Sides, Hampton, Ghost Soldiers: The Forgotten Epic of World War II’s Most



Dramatic Mission. New York: Doubleday, 2001



Taubman, William, Khrushchev: The Man and His Era. New York and London: W.



W. Norton & Company, 2003.



Tanaka, Yuki, Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. Boulder:



Westview Press, 1998.



Tanaka, Yuki, Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during



World War II and the U. S. Occupation. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.



Van Wolferen, Karel, The Enigma of Japanese Power. New York: Vintage Books,



1990.



Wilcox, Robert K., Japan’s Secret War: Japan’s Race Against Time to Build its Own



Atomic Bomb. New York: Marlowe & Company, 1995.



Films



Hollywood Movies

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)



Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)



Schindler’s List (1992)



Sophie’s Choice (1982)



Documentaries and Made for TV

The Battle for Burma: History’s Infamous Railway of Death! (1986)



Holocaust: The Story of Man’s Inhumanity to Man (1978)

Japanese War Crimes & Trials: Murder Under the Sun (1996)



The Last Mission (2002)

JapaneseWWIIatrocities Page 39 11/10/2011



Rape of Nanking (1999)



True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai (1996)



Unit 731: Nightmare in Manchuria (1999)



JapaneseWWIIatrocities41005