Talk:International Military Tribunal for the Far East

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:34, July 24, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations / law (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Copyright violation[edit]

I added back my edits from prior to the copyright violation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshuadfranklin (talkcontribs) 17:32, 8 March 2005 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

Moved from article to talk page as recommended on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion by Philip Baird Shearer. Original history entry for adding the templage to the article page "01:46, 26 August 2005 Miborovsky (added table of charges leveled against defendants)" [1]

Comment on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion reads:

Japanese war crimes in the Pacific. Even with my limited knowledge, I know this article only scratches the surface. JW 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think "that more than 300,000 Japanese were charged with Class B and C crimes, mostly over prisoner abuse". John W. Dower's "Embracing Defeat" places the figure at 5,700.

The number was added here perhapse you would like to ask user:Preaky on his/her talk page for the source of 300K. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This article badly needs some expansion. And especially the "criticism" section seems inadaquate. Certainly there are some serious questions about the fairness of these trials, while this section seems to absolve it. Laca 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

This article deviates into a non-neutral point of view in the Criticism section. That section is more of an defense of Japanese agression and violation of international law and human rights. Japan was under the control of the military during this era, and the constitutional processes were a sham. This article could lead the reader to conclude that Japan was a liberal democracy, which it was not. This section needs to be seriously reviewed for neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.253.134 (talkcontribs) .

Agreed. At a minimum, this paragraph is sufficiently suspect to move here on the basis of poor writing and inflammatory language; I'll leave it to others to clean it if they wish.--Cory.willis 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It was MacArthur to frame up "unconditional surrender myth" which brings the whole IMTFE into tatters. There was no dictatorship in Japan, and the cabinets changed in accordance with the constitutional procedure even during the Pacific war.

This section could be longer, but it now seems very unbiased and gets to the main objection: that Japanese war actions did not differ in kind from those of the Allies in the way that Germany's did. And it does so by quoting a delegate to the tribunal, this section is very good from the NPOV angle now. It would be interesting to see Japanese behaviour compared with that of Americans and Chinese partisans (who they were fighting) or that of the Soviet Union (on the victor's side but arguably guilty of worse atrocities) but it would take some effort to do this well.

Question about wording...[edit]

Can it really be said (at the beginning) that the tribunal was convened to try the leaders of Japan, if the imperial family was immune from prosecution? Although it is mentioned later in the article, it seems like this would be a good place to point out that it was only leaders who were not in the imperial family. MaskedEditor 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i belive that this was alike to the idea of lowering charges if a criminal confesses as the emperor was crucial to the surender process of the japs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talkcontribs) 17:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing Sources[edit]

Sources for the article needs to be cited. Its severely lacking.

Bill-

Sun Aug 19, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.114 (talk) 02:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Kellogg-Briand Pact[edit]

Since the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed aggressive war and Japan was a signatory to it, did that figure into the tribunal's legal justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sentences[edit]

I added the "weasel words" citation here since this paragraph is full of weasel words.... and is unsourced... Ought I remove it?

"Okawa Shumei had a nervous breakdown during the trial and was removed. One of the erratic things he did was, hitting the bald head of the former prime minister Hideki Tojo, shouting "Inder! Kommen Sie!" (Come, Indian!) in German, and the list goes on. Therefore, the presiding judge Sir William Webb (The President of the tribunal) concluded that he was mentally ill and dropped the case against him[citation needed]. From the beginning of the tribunal, he said that the court was a farce, therefore, some people still believe that he was faking his madness in order to be released."

Actually, I'd like consensus to either delete this information since it is unsourced, interferes with the flow of the article and is only about one defendant. Failing that... another section might be needed V. Joe (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the info on bottom page notes as, being a well-known fact, I do not think this info should be deleted. The sources should easily be found for example in Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, Brackman's The other Nuremberg or Dower's Embracing Defeat. After the trial, Okawa completed a translation of the Quran...--Flying tiger (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Selective Information[edit]

I'm not sure about this, but I saw something. There are eleven judges made up of the Allies. Yet in a part which lists the number of Death sentences handed out by each judge, it does not Mention Canada, India, Australia or New Zealand, but instead only mentions The Netherlands, The Philipens (sp?), The U.S., China, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Only for non rich or nobles[edit]

The article writes:"The Japanese Emperor Hirohito, and all members of the imperial family such as Prince Asaka, were not prosecuted for any alleged involvement in any of the three categories of crimes. As many as 50 suspects, such as Nobusuke Kishi, who later became Prime Minister, and Yoshisuke Aikawa, head of the zaibatsu Nissan, and future leader of the Chuseiren, were charged but released without ever being brought to trial in 1947 and 1948." This tribunal was only to punish powerless common persons.Hirohito ruled Japan as Hitler ruled Nazi Germany.But, during Cold war USA needed a peacefull Japan, not real justice for nobles of Japan.Real politick, instead of real justice."The past is decided in the future", someone wrote decades ago.Agre22 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)gre22

Count 54 and Count 55[edit]

There is a question. There are Count 54 and Count 55. Which means Class B or Class C? Is there clear definition?--Bukubku (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed POV/undocumented section[edit]

This section which I removed on 19 November was by editor "119.104.51 which was not vandalism or anything, but under WP:Bold, I removed as an egerious POV. The section also did not seem to mention any sources. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Preserved Text[edit]

In case user 119.104.51 is not overly familar with wiki, I have presereved his section.

===The fairness of the Tribunal=== - - In the trial, Japanese side submitted more than 3000 cases of defensive materials (including the official declaration of Japanese government, Army and Foreign Minister) and most of them were rejected while the hearsay prosecutor materials were accepted. (Tokyo Tribunal Materials Publication) Even "Twilight in the Forbidden City" written by Sir Reginald Fleming Johnston who was the tutor of Puyi, the last emperor of China, was rejected. - - The Japanese interpreters, which was supposed to be protected by the code, were cut off in the middle of defenders' speech and even the shorthand records could not be kept. Due to the lack of competency of the interpreters, the interpretation was not properly done. - - One of the judges, Henri Bernard of France pointed out afterward that there had never been a chance for all the judges get together and discussed about the matter.

Defendants[edit]

Under the "Defendants" section, I suggest we break the article into subsections of "Civilian officials" and "Military officers." During the long time span the trials covered, several military officers held government positions concurrent to important military positions, so the overlap can confuse readers. The decision to put such people in one subsection, but not the other, is arbitrary.76.89.141.150 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese own criminal trials ?[edit]

"with initial encouragement from the Americans, began and soon ended a series of their own war crimes trials in the months before the IMTFE took shape" see : http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/tokyo-trial (from Pritchard) . Some more info on this ?Trente7cinq (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath : american forced labor disclosed[edit]

I just found this , which could somehow take place in the article, couldn't it ?:"In September 1999, some 500 American WWII veterans filed suit against five Japanese corporations (including Mitsubishi and Kawasaki), seeking reparation for having been used as slave laborers during the war. According to the plaintiffs, these corporations built their postwar success on a foundation of American forced labor. The companies say they have been wrongly targeted, because the modern conglomerates have no relation to the wartime entities accused of these practices, prohibited now as then under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Holmes (4,000 Bowls of Rice), a respected historian and researcher who is part of a presidential panel working to declassify the records of Nazi war crimes, weighs in heavily on the side of the former American POWs. Using recently declassified documents, Holmes bolsters the vets' claims. (One formerly top secret Japanese cable read, "Due to a serious shortage of labor power in Japan, the use of the white POW is earnestly desired.") But the most emotionally charged evidence comes from the former POWs themselves. In interview after interview, Holmes chronicles the abuse of American captives, whose lingering medical and emotional problems are compounded by the belief that their suffering has been minimized by a postwar culture more moved by the plight of other groups of war victims. (Feb. 19) Forecast: A front-page New York Times article on October 2, 2000, broke news of the case on a national level. This book provides a foundation for further media coverage, and should be widely cited. Meanwhile, buffs and vets will find out about the book via newsgroups and the like."Trente7cinq (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ando Kizaburô ???[edit]

Ando Kizaburô (1879-1954), was a Lieutenant General of the Imperial Army and a Vice-President of Taisei Yokusankai. Between 1943-1944 he was elected to the Cabinet of Tôjo Hideki, becoming the Minister of Internal Affairs. After the war he was sentenced as Class-A War Criminal. Due to the outbreak of the Cold War he was later released. http://www.simplyhaiku.com/SHv5n4/features/Ito.html Can't find more info on him Trente7cinq (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Must be "Ando Kisaburo" see :http://www.generals.dk/general/Ando/Kisaburo/Japan.htmlTrente7cinq (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"War Crimes" and Waterboarding -- Research needed to clarify precedents pertinent to current torture debate.[edit]

Could some one familiar with this literature find out which of the executed defendants were accused of "water torture" or "water boarding"?

As you know, the U.S. has been engaged in a discussion of whether or not water boarding consists of torture. Beginning with a claim by John McCain in 2007, it has been repeated that the U.S. after WW2 executed Japanese military personnel for using water boarding against American POW's.

It appears that in the major online sources, no specific defendants are named, nor are any accounts of Americans being water-boarded specified.

These specifics would be very helpful in establishing or denying clear legal precedent in this issue, and the research should be fairly easy for some one already familiar with the literature in this area.

Thank you for considering my request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.215.41 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not what the TALK PAGES are for. Please don't make posts of this nature (off-topic, requests) here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
None of the executed defendants were accused of water-torture/waterboarding. McCain spoke in error in 2007. There was one case of a Japanese (Non-commissioned) officer being charged with major abuses of US POWs, such as beating and starving, and in addition to that he was charged with less severe abuses such as water-torture. He was jailed for a few years and then released in the 1950s. Walterego (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the "Class A" war criminal counts are not consistent within this article[edit]

First, it says that 28 were trialed, with some as Class A and some not Class A.

Later, in "Aftermath" section, it says that there were three groups of Class A criminals, while the first group includes 28.

Are those 28 all Class A, or not?

--Mongol (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It says they tried 70 in class A but only 28 (the first group) were charged. HotshotCleaner (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMON NAME - the current article title is hardly what the Tokyo Trials are known as[edit]

"International Military Tribunal for the Far East" is not the common parlance. If we are to follow policy, something along the lines of "Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal" or "Tokyo Trials" should be used, although I would personally prefer the former.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a point. However, "Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal" sounds like the proper name of the tribunal, which it is not, and "Tokyo Trials" is too vague. "Tokyo war crimes trials" is closer, perhaps. The title should convey the idea that the article is about the war crimes trials that took place in Tokyo, and the capitalization should not suggest that the article name corresponds to the formal name of the trials. Some thought needs to go into this if we're going to make the trouble to change it. --Yaush (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Incomprehensible statement[edit]

"The number of death sentences by country is as follows: the Netherlands 236, Great Britain 223, Australia 153, China 149, US 140, France 26, and Philippines 17". This is meaningless as it stands and needs elaboration. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)