ask any ex 2nd world war vet who he would rather be captured by, he would say the germans. yet we never chased the japanese. i wonder why? i have my own ideas, and its not difficult to work out is it?
2007-05-19 20:39:14 · 11 answers · asked by chris 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We did prosecute and execute several Japanese war criminals. Some of those death sentences were commuted. Some were sentenced to prison terms and some of those were commuted and others served their full terms. However, many were not prosecuted because they were useful in maintaining order and rebuilding the country Some had links to organized crime which we felt could be useful in the cold war (i.e. spys and the Sakhalin Island which fell under Russia's control after WWII was a particularly desireable intelligence target) In fact many were used by the CIA in various schemes but the usual results was that we gave them a lot of money that just disappeared and gained no useful intelligence. It wasn't until the early 1960's that we finally caught on and abandoned their use. Their last use was probably on covert missions which disguised them as Buddist Priests in Cambodia and Vietnam.
2007-05-25 01:13:51 · answer #1 · answered by cwomo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A war crimes trial was held in Tokyo on May 3, 1946. 28 were indicted. Of the 28, 7 were sentenced to hang, including prime minister Tojo. The remaining 21 received life in prison sentences. Similar trials were held in several Asian countries that had suffered years of Japanese occupation. We did not chase the Japanese because they did not run, unlike the Nazis who fled to South America.
2007-05-19 20:51:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
They were barbaric animals who starved and worked to death Australian, Dutch and Brittish POW's on the Burma Railway, the place is actually a "shrine" to Aussies who visit there to remember what their Grandfathers whent through.
I dont understand how the Japanese could be welcome into an Australian Returned Servicemans RSL Club ? for a drink. Only the Anti-discriminations laws prevent any exclusion. Last night I actually drank, pretty heavily with an American Ex-Pat here in Sydney and hes girlfriend who is Japanese and thought wow after Hiroshima and Nagasaki relations are so strong, amazing !
2007-05-19 22:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
specific they have been. in lots of circumstances conflict crimes are categorized in keeping with what anybody is doing. In Germany, for the duration of conflict crimes trials against German management, indiscriminate bombings of civilians populations weren't considered conflict crimes as a results of fact the allies engaged in this custom besides. Japan's events in WW2 make the unintentional bombings of the U. S. look tame. They have been possibly the main brutal struggling with rigidity ever, i do no longer even choose to point right here the styles of issues they did. conflict crimes are particularly a posh way of punishing the losers of a conflict. They consistently have been. the U. S. replaced into discovered responsible of a few 30 unusual conflict crimes in the gulf conflict (UN conflict Crimes Tribunal), they did no longer face punishment for a single one.
2016-12-11 14:39:57 · answer #4 · answered by jowers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your assertions are wrong.
(1) The Tokyo Trials took care of a good number of Class A war criminals.
(2) Surrender on both sides was not commonplace. Allied troops preferred to kill rather than risk being killed trying to take prisoners.
(3) The Russians took a good number of Japanese POWs from China (where most of the war crimes were committed) and ensured the vast majority of them died in forced labor camps.
(4) Many of the wartime leadership in the field preferred to take their own lives in battle during a defeat, or after the Emperor's surrender broadcast.
(5) Disease and battle losses ensured not very many Japanese returned home from the war to begin with.
If you're going to make claims, back them up.
2007-05-20 03:21:22 · answer #5 · answered by Nat 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We did prosecute there political and military leaders. But we never prosecuted the Emperor because MacArthur felt he was needed to rebuild the country. We also never prosecuted the Japanese doctors for war crimes and crimes against humanity for there biological experiments.
2007-05-20 09:56:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The largest percentage of the German WWII war criminals pursued were associated with the extermination of Jews and other ethnic groups. But there were many others who were prosecuted for military prisoner abuse, abuse of civilians and looting.
The Japanese of course didn't have this problem. But there were hundreds of Japanese prosecutions and several executions.
But the Nuremberg trails got all the publicity.
2007-05-19 20:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
You should check out the book "Flyboys". Its from the same author of "Flags of our Fathers". It is REALLY entertaining and VERY informative. It mostly relates to pilots who were captured by the Japanese island of Chichi Jima. An amazing and eye-opening book. The end of it describes alot of what happened during the trials of Japanese officials.
Also, did you know that in WWII more people were killed by Japanese swords than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined? Makes you think.
Sorry I cant answer your question, as soon as I finished the book I gave it to my Dad to read.
2007-05-20 00:28:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most of the Japanese that would have been tried were killed and yes there were some that tried. The Japanese couldn't blend in as well as the Germans.
2007-05-19 20:49:58 · answer #9 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are wrong there were trials after the war in Tokyo.
2007-05-20 09:35:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋