30 years ago, the trial of the main Japanese war criminals took place in Tokyo. It began on May 3, 1946 and ended on November 12, 1948. The trial was conducted by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. This tribunal was established on January 19, 1946 as a result of an agreement between the Governments of the USSR, the United States, Great Britain, China, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Then India and the Philippines joined the agreement. The tribunal was formed from representatives of all these countries.

28 people were put on trial. Of these, 25 were convicted; Okawa, the ideologue of Japanese militarism, was declared insane, and Admiral Nagano and former Foreign Minister Matsuoka died before the verdict was passed. Among those sentenced to punishment are 8 generals and admirals (Doihara, Kimura, Matsui, Muto, Oka, Sato, Umezu, Hashimoto), 4 former prime ministers (Koisho, Tojo, Hiranuma and Hirota), 11 former ministers (Araki, Itagaki, Kaya, Kido, Minami, Shigemitsu, Shimada, Suzuki, Togo, Hata and Hoshino) and 2 ambassadors (Oshima and Shiratori). Seven defendants (Doihara, Itagaki, Kimura, Matsui, Muto, Tojo, and Hirota) were sentenced to death by hanging, and the sentence was carried out on the night of December 23, 1948. The remaining defendants, with the exception of Togo (20 years in prison) and Shigemitsu (7 years in prison), received life in prison.

The main content of the stating part of the verdict was that, as it was irrefutably established, from 1928 to 1945, Japan's domestic and foreign policy was aimed at preparing and unleashing a series of wars of conquest, and the defendants who were at the helm of the country's government, together with the leaders of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, sought to achieve world domination by their countries, then we entered into a military-political alliance. They were going to establish the so-called " new order in Greater East Asia and Europe." For Japan, this meant seizing a number of countries and territories in Asia, including the Soviet Far East and Siberia, as well as Mongolia, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, China, India, and others. In the stating part, it was stated that Japan carried out aggressive attacks on the USSR in 1938 near Lake Baikal. Khasan and Mongolia in 1939 near the Khalkhin-Gol River; that the Japanese kept a Kwantung Army permanently stationed in Manchuria to invade the USSR; that in 1941 Japan concluded a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union with the treacherous aim of not actually observing it; that in 1941-1945. the military staffs of Germany and Japan carried out coordinated anti-Soviet activities; that the ruling circles of Japan really helped Germany at that time by sinking Soviet merchant ships, supplying Berlin with military information about the situation of the USSR, diverting significant armed forces of the USSR to the Far East from the Soviet-German front, etc.

In this regard, it is necessary to mention, in particular, the defendant Koki Hirota. He was Prime Minister from March 1936 to February 1937. Then, until May 1938, he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and later participated in meetings of Japan's oldest statesmen. The indictment stated: "In

The essay is based on documentary materials - the transcript of court sessions, the verdict and supplements to the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, stored in the Central State Academic Administration of the USSR, f. R-7867, op. 1.

page 107

In 1936, Hirota's Cabinet formulated and adopted a national policy of expansion in East Asia and its southern regions. This policy, which had far-reaching results, would eventually lead to the war between Japan and the Western Powers that began in 1941. In the same year, 1936, the Japanese aggressive policy towards the USSR was confirmed and developed, which culminated in an Anti-Communist Pact."

Along with the Nuremberg trial of the main German war criminals, which took place from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946, the Tokyo trial is one of the most impressive indicators of the ideological and political results of World War II, and its materials are an important source for its history. The defense of the principles underlying both processes is now a form of struggle of progressive humanity against the forces of militarism, imperialism, aggression and reaction in all their manifestations. L. N. Smirnov was one of the accusers (from the USSR) at the Tokyo trial. The latter is known to our readers somewhat less than the Nuremberg one. That is why it is appropriate to recall some of the facts announced 30 years ago in Tokyo, because they are still of considerable interest and remain instructive in many ways. The materials of the Tokyo trial are a serious argument against those figures from the camp of reaction and imperialism who are not averse to plunging humanity into the abyss of new destructive wars.

We would like to point out that the judges at the Tokyo trial were less fortunate than their Nuremberg counterparts: in most cases, neither the prosecutors nor the tribunal in general had direct orders from the highest Japanese authorities to commit war crimes. And here's why. The verdict of the International Military Tribunal stated :" When it became apparent that Japan would have to surrender, organized measures were taken to burn or otherwise destroy documents and other evidence of ill-treatment of prisoners of war and civilian internees. On August 14, 1945, the Japanese Minister of War ordered all army headquarters to immediately destroy all classified documents by burning them. On the same day, the Chief of the Gendarmerie sent instructions to various gendarmerie departments detailing methods for effectively destroying a large number of documents by burning them. The head of the POW Camp Department (Administrative Division for POW Affairs under the Bureau of Military Affairs of the Japanese Ministry of War) sent on August 20, 1945. to the Chief of Staff of the Japanese army on the island of Formosa, a circular telegram instructed: "Documents that, if they fall into the hands of the enemy, may prove unfavorable to us, should be treated in the same way as secret documents, and if possible destroyed." This telegram was sent to the Japanese Army in Korea, the Kwantung Army, the armies in Northern China, Hong Kong, Borneo, Tai, Malaya, and Java.

So the traces of crimes were swept away. The same document contained a directive addressed to individuals who knew that they had committed war crimes: "Personnel who mistreated prisoners of war and civilian internees or who are treated with great discontent are therefore allowed to immediately move to another place or disappear without a trace." In this way, the War Department, while destroying documentation that compromised Japanese imperialism, simultaneously took all measures to save war criminals on the one hand, and to get rid of dangerous witnesses on the other. However, the crimes were too large-scale to be covered up. 650 affidavits (written affidavits) of eyewitnesses to Japanese atrocities in various countries were placed on the tribunal table.

Since the criminals did not completely cover up their tracks and the tribunal later found both documents and witnesses at its disposal, the lawyers began to resort to all sorts of tricks and subterfuges during the trial itself. As in Nuremberg, the defendants ' defense lawyers in Tokyo used two arguments as the basis of their "exculpatory" arguments. By the way, these latter still find recognition and warm support in the theoretical investigations of reactionary bourgeois jurists. First, the lawyers said, before the Statute of the International Military Tribunal, approved only after the victory of the anti-fascist coalition in France.

page 108

In the Second World War, international law has never clearly and unambiguously established the principle of criminality of aggression and, consequently, criminal responsibility for it, So the victors, having first proclaimed a new law in the Charter, cannot apply it to the main military German and Japanese criminals without giving it retroactive force. After all, all actions aimed at unleashing and waging war were committed by these persons before the Charter was issued. However, giving retroactive effect to any law is contrary to the principles of civilized justice. You can't accuse anyone of something that wasn't considered a crime by law at the time of the act. Secondly, in an army bound by military discipline, the execution of any order excludes criminal liability, regardless of the severity of the consequences and regardless of the position in the military hierarchy held by the person who carried out the order. Back in Nuremberg, one of the lawyers, defending and expanding this principle, frankly stated that in totalitarian states such as the third Reich, the possibility of non-compliance with any order or order, both military and civil, was excluded, even if they were monstrously criminal.

The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg refuted these arguments of the defense completely and fully. The Tokyo Tribunal in its verdict referred to the Nuremberg precedent, without considering it necessary to repeat the same arguments in refutation of the defense's arguments, so as not to give rise to conflicting interpretations, as stated in the verdict. Without going into the details of how modern jurisprudence interprets the nature and significance of this precedent, we will only note its validity in essence and its importance for the future, because violation of the generally accepted norms of human existence that have developed over a number of epochs threatens to entail severe punishment for any persons who violate these norms in the future. Let us turn directly to some of the facts reflected in the materials of the Tokyo trial, and let their dry presentation, borrowed from the descriptive part of the verdict, speak for itself. Let us first give two typical examples.

On April 20, 1942, General Muto was appointed commander of the Imperial Guard in northern Sumatra. He was the Japanese military commander in the northern part of the island with headquarters in Medan until October 12, 1944, when he was transferred to the Philippines. During his time as Commander, he put into practice the policies that he championed when he was head of the Bureau of Military Affairs at the Tokyo War Department. From April 1942 to October 1944, atrocities were committed in the territory occupied by his troops, for which Muto directly shares responsibility. Prisoners of war and civilian internees were starved, denied medical treatment, tortured and killed, and the civilian population was exterminated. In October 1944, Muto was appointed Chief of Staff to General Yamashita in the Philippine Islands, a post he held until the Japanese surrender. Here, too, Japanese forces conducted a campaign of mass murder, torture, and other atrocities against the civilian population. Prisoners of war and civilian internees were starved, tortured, and killed.

When Deputy Minister of War Kimura resigned on March 11, 1943, he then held various positions, and then was appointed on August 30, 1944, commander of the Japanese army in Burma, and remained in this post until the surrender of Japan. During his time in Burma, Kimura implemented policies that he had promoted while still serving as Deputy Minister of War. Initially, its headquarters were stationed in Rangoon. At that time, Japanese forces committed mass atrocities in Sipao, Mossaquin Nature Reserve, Henzada (Ongun Cemetery), Tarawaddy and Rangoon Gendarme Prison. At the end of April 1945, Kimura moved his headquarters to Moulmein, after which atrocities took place in and around Moulmein. The entire population of Kalagon, a village 10 miles from Kimura's headquarters, was massacred on July 7, 1945. Mass killings took place in Moulmein: the gendarmes became even more inhumane in their treatment of Burmese and internees in the Tawoy camp, where both were starved and beaten.

An endless number of similar examples forced the tribunal, which evaluated all the evidence concerning war criminals that the judges had to deal with

page 109

After reviewing the two-and-a-half-year trial, the following conclusion was reached: "Torture of prisoners of war and civilian internees was carried out in almost all areas where Japanese troops were stationed, both in the occupied territories and in Japan itself. The Japanese practiced this practice throughout the Pacific War. The methods of torture used in all districts are so uniform that they indicate a certain policy in both training and daily practice. These included waterboarding, cauterization of the body, electrocution, stretching of the knee joints, hanging, being forced to kneel on sharp objects, and flogging." The verdict stated that as a result of such treatment, 27% of all British and American prisoners died in the camps, and many thousands of others were permanently disabled.

The historical truth requires noting that not only Japan's land forces, but also its navy, left a bloody trail of war crimes everywhere. This fleet raged no less, and perhaps even more, than the Nazi fleet, if only because it was more numerous and powerful than its German counterpart and broke out into the ocean. Japanese submarines, like German submarines, waged unrestricted naval warfare, grossly violating the 1936 London Protocol signed by both the Tokyo and Berlin governments. And he demanded that submarines should not attack enemy and neutral merchant ships without prior warning, and that after the sinking of a ship, the submarine should take all measures in its power to save its crew and passengers. Meanwhile, both the Germans and the Japanese were attacking not only armed but also unarmed merchant ships on the high seas and without any warning. That in itself was a war crime. However, it was not limited to this. Underwater pirates destroyed with machine-gun fire all those who tried to escape by swimming or on boats after the sinking of the ship.

At the stage of opening speeches, the prosecution presented Order No. 209 as one of the proofs of the atrocities committed by the Japanese submarine fleet. It was issued in March 1943 by the Imperial Japanese High Command and signed by the then Chief of the General Naval Staff, Admiral Nagano. The commanders of the submarine formations brought this order to the attention of their detachments, and they, in turn, sent copies of the order directly to the submarine commanders for strict execution. Although the original order was destroyed in Tokyo, a copy sent on March 20 by the commander of the 1st U-Boat detachment, which was then stationed on the Truk Islands, fell into their hands on February 19, 1944, when the Americans captured Kwajelein Island. Another document described a conversation between Hitler and the Japanese ambassador in Berlin, Oshima. We quote: "Hitler explained that he had ordered his submarines to surface after torpedoing ships and shoot lifeboats in order to spread rumors that most of the sailors were being killed by torpedoing, so that the United States could hardly recruit new teams." Oshima approved of this statement and said that the Japanese follow the same method of conducting submarine warfare. In March 1943, the Japanese Imperial Headquarters issued an order signed by the Chief of the General Naval Staff, which became known as General Order No. 209. The commanders of the U-boat formations brought this order to the attention of the U-boat detachments under their command. A copy of the order issued by the commander of the first submarine detachment on the Truk Islands on March 20, 1943, read:: "All submarines must interact with each other in order to concentrate their attack on enemy caravans and completely destroy them. Do not limit yourself to sinking enemy ships and cargo, you must simultaneously destroy the teams of enemy ships, and if possible, capture some of the team and get information about the enemy." And the Soviet prosecution presented evidence that the Japanese Navy not only committed violations of the laws and customs of war at sea by acting against enemy merchant ships, but also used the same methods against Soviet ships in violation of the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. In particular, there was a case when after the sinking of the Perekop ship by the Japanese, the Soviet team tried to escape, but in vain: the Japanese shot our sailors with machine guns and bombed them from the air.

page 110

The Japanese were also barbaric towards prisoners of war. From December 7, 1941 to August 21, 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs received 40 notes from the US Government through neutral States requesting information about American prisoners on Wake Island. But there was nothing to say. After all, all the prisoners were shot.

Speaking at the trial with the accusation against Shigemitsu, L. N. Smirnov then said: "As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shigemitsu could not have been unaware of the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war in Japanese camps," and then cited some documents confirming this fact: "So, on April 5, 1943, the Japanese Foreign Ministry received a note from the US government warning that the United States would punish Japanese military personnel and officials, who are responsible for the mistreatment of American prisoners of war and for the atrocities committed against them. The Swiss Government has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the inhumane treatment of Allied prisoners of war in camps both in Japan and in the occupied territories, and has requested permission to visit the camps. For example, on June 16, 1943, the Swiss mission informed the Japanese Foreign Office that the British Government was extremely concerned about the issue of food supplies for prisoners of war. On February 5, 1944, the Swiss mission transmitted a note listing cases of inhumane treatment of American and Filipino prisoners of war in 1942 and 1943. in the Philippine Islands. Shigemitsu could not have been unaware that at the end of January 1944, Cordell Hall on behalf of the United States and Anthony Eden on behalf of Great Britain issued public statements broadcast on the radio, which set out the facts of mistreatment of prisoners of war by the Japanese administration."

All statements of this kind were received by the radio station of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, which was confirmed by Togo, Shigemitsu, and defense witness Suzuki. Then L. N. Smirnov continued: on the same occasion, a warning was issued by the commander-in-Chief of the forces of the allied powers, "addressed to the Japanese leaders, in October 1944. To all these messages... Shigemitsu invariably responded with empty replies containing false information and refusing to give permission to visit the camps... Between 25 April 1944 and 19 March 1945, the Swiss mission on behalf of Great Britain presented a large number of protests against the brutal treatment of prisoners of war during the transfer to the Burma Tai area, as well as to the Rangoon camps. In response to these protests, Shigemitsu denied that such facts ever occurred. The falsity of these statements of the defendant is indisputably proved by the testimony of the defense witness, Lieutenant General Wakamatsu, and the special report of the Japanese Government, compiled after the surrender, on the situation in the camps, which shows that at one time the Japanese Government had sufficient information on this issue. And in the testimony of Colonel Cotes and Colonel Wilde, who were held in these camps during the war, the regime of physical destruction of prisoners that prevailed there was described in detail."

The verdict stated: "On March 31, 1942, the Regulation on the Treatment of Prisoners of War was published, which created the administrative department for Prisoners of War affairs within the Bureau of Military Affairs of the Ministry of War under the direction and control of Tojo as Minister of War. Tojo exercised this control and direction through Muto as the head of the Bureau of Military Affairs... According to the instructions, the camp superintendents were required to submit monthly reports to the administrative department... These reports were discussed biweekly at meetings of the Bureau chiefs of the Ministry of War, which were usually attended by the Minister of War and his Deputy. The reports contained statistics on nutrition and other issues." Tojo admitted that he paid "special attention"to this issue. At the same meetings, many Allied protests were discussed in the presence of Tojo, such as the one caused by the shooting of captured pilots from the American Doolittle squadron and reflected in the note of April 6, 1943: "The American Government warns the Japanese Government that for any violation of its obligations to American prisoners of war or for any other acts of criminal and barbaric conduct Treatment of American prisoners of war-

page 111

in violation of the laws and customs of warfare adopted and practiced by civilized nations, the American Government, now that military operations are nearing their inevitable end, will hold representatives of the Japanese Government responsible for such inhumane and unworthy acts of civilized people and will punish them as they deserve." It wasn't just Tojo, Togo, Shigemitsu, Kimura, Shimada, or Oka who knew about the war crimes being committed. The entire Tokyo ruling clique knew about it.

L. N. Smirnov later recalled one passage from Prime Minister Tojo's testimony at the trial: "As for the Geneva Convention, it was not ratified by Japan. Indeed, the Japanese did not treat the issue of prisoners of war in the same way as Europeans and Americans. In addition, the difference in living conditions, customs and manners between the Japanese and other peoples, the large number of prisoners of various nationalities who were held over a vast territory, and the lack of various materials and products made it impossible for my country to follow the Geneva Convention verbatim. My statement that the Japanese attitude to the issue of prisoners of war is different from that of Europeans and Americans means that since time immemorial, the Japanese have considered it shameful to surrender. Therefore, all soldiers were ordered to go to their deaths, but not to become prisoners of war. In this state of affairs, it was believed that the ratification of the Geneva Convention would lead Japanese public opinion to believe that the authorities were encouraging their subjects to surrender. The fear that the ratification of the treaty might conflict with the Japanese traditional idea of prisoners of war was not dispelled until the outbreak of war. Therefore, in response to a request from our Foreign Office regarding the operation of the Geneva Convention, the War Office stated that although it could not declare full agreement with its principles, it did not object to their application, but with the necessary reservations. And in January 1942, the Foreign Minister announced through the Embassies of Switzerland and Argentina that Japan would follow the Geneva Protocol as amended."

How were these "necessary reservations" and "changes" understood? Hundreds of pages of the verdict and two volumes of appendices to it are devoted only to descriptions of specific facts of atrocities committed by Japanese troops during the Second World War. Once again, we will make room for excerpts from the texts. "During the Hong Kong War, Japanese troops entered the military hospital at St. Stephen's College, bayoneted the sick and wounded in their beds, and raped and killed the nurses on duty. During the fighting in the north-western part of Johor Bahru in Malaya (January 1942), Japanese soldiers captured a convoy of ambulances containing sick and wounded people. Service personnel and wounded people were dragged out of ambulances and shot, bayoneted, or burned alive after being doused with gasoline. In Katonga, Malaya (January 1942), a convoy of ambulances was shelled by Japanese machine guns, and the service personnel and wounded were unloaded from the vehicles, tied together, and shot in the back... Japanese military doctors practiced vivisection of prisoners of war by Japanese people who were not doctors. The dead bodies of prisoners of war with their organs removed were found under circumstances that indicated that the mutilation was performed before their death. So, in Kandok, a prisoner of war, who is described as "healthy and not injured," was treated as follows: he was tied to a tree, a Japanese doctor and four medical students stood around him in a semicircle. First, they cut out his fingernails, then cut open his chest and removed his heart, where the doctor demonstrated the work of this organ."

The diary of a Japanese man describes the following incident on Guadalcanal: "On September 26, two prisoners of war who had gone out into the jungle last night were discovered and captured, and guards were placed near them. To prevent them from escaping again, they were shot in the legs with a pistol. Military doctor Yamaji dissected the bodies of these two prisoners of war while they were still alive, removing the liver from their bodies. I first saw the internal organs of a person. It was very instructive." Eating the liver of prisoners of war (a symbol of samurai prowess) was often practiced in the Japanese army. A Japanese prisoner of war stated during interrogation: "On December 10, 1944, the headquarters of the 16th Army issued an order that the troops were allowed to eat the meat of dead citizens of the Allied Powers, but that they should not eat the meat of their own countrymen.-

page 112

stvennikov". In a circular that was in the possession of a Japanese major General, there are the following lines: "Although this is not provided for in the criminal code, however, those who eat human meat (other than enemy meat), knowing that it is such, should be sentenced to death." So, you can eat the enemy's meat! Sometimes this procedure was arranged with solemn ceremonies in the living quarters for officers. Senior officers with the rank of generals and admirals took part in the procedure. Meat from dead prisoners of war or soup made from such meat was served, even when food was scarce. And here is an excerpt from the statement of soldier Eiji Yamagizawa: "On November 1, 1944, in a speech to his troops, Major General Aotsu, commander of the 41st Infantry Division, indicated that the troops should fight the Allies to the last limit, even to the point of eating them. On December 10, 1944, the headquarters of the 18th Army issued an order that the troops were allowed to eat meat from slain allies."

Here on the podium stands the Soviet prosecutor, Colonel A. I. Ivanov. He makes a final speech in relation to the defendant Umezu, talks about his crimes when he was the commander of the Kwantung Army, and then the chief of the general staff, and gives the relevant testimony of the Manchu Emperor Pu Yi, whose objectivity is not in doubt, because the puppet emperor, along with Umezu, shared responsibility for these actions committed with his consent and on his behalf"Persons from 18 to 45 years of age were required to perform labor service in the interests of the Japanese and the Japanese army. This turned the population of Manchuria into slaves, and Manchuria into a colony. The Manchus were used for road construction, in mines, and for the production of Japanese weapons. Our workers were in terrible conditions. They received insufficient and almost inedible food, lived in poor housing, and the sick did not receive medicines. If they left their jobs, they were severely punished." Colonel Ivanov went on to cite other facts: "Umezu, as the commander of the Kwantung Army, is responsible for the atrocities committed against the Chinese in Zhehe Province in August 1941. Japanese soldiers and soldiers of the puppet Manchurian army. Then, in one night, under the pretext of searching for partisans, more than 300 families were killed and the village of Siduti in Pichuan County was burned to the ground. Punitive expeditions in Zhehe Province, organized by the Kwantung Army Command, also took place in 1942 and 1943... During Umezu's tenure as Chief of the General Staff, in November 1944, Japanese troops invaded Guilin and Liuzhou (China). Umezu is responsible not only for the invasion itself, but also for the atrocities committed by the Japanese military in the Guilin, Liuzhou and other areas of China in 1944-1945... Umezu is also responsible for the illegal temporary military field courts established to deal with cases of prisoners of war and operated in the Kwantung Army, and for passing illegal sentences to prisoners of war. He is also responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners of war in camps in Manchuria. As a result of malnutrition, excessive hard work, and poor medical care, many prisoners died of exhaustion and disease."

Let's also look at what happened in the POW camps located in Japan. The appendices to the verdict read:: "Sendai. This camp was located in Onahama, and the prisoners of war imprisoned in it had to work in the coal mines. Prisoners of war who said they were ill were severely beaten. On the evening of February 4, 1945, while checking prisoners of war, a corporal complained that he was ill and asked permission to go to the doctor. The sentry immediately punched the corporal, knocked him down, and began kicking him in the stomach while he was on the ground. The corporal died a few minutes later. It was common practice to beat prisoners of war and kick them during the examination... Hosokura. This camp was located in the Sendai area of Honshu. Prisoners of war held in this camp worked in tin and zinc mines. They were forced to perform the most grueling physical work from 6 am to 6 pm. The work consisted of drilling rocks, blasting them, clearing stones, filling buckets that had to be carried out of the mines by hand, logging and other hard labor in and around the camp. Prisoners of war each

page 113

They had to walk two or three miles up the steep hill from the camp to the mine and carry sacks of food for the Japanese. The prisoners of war made a thin soup out of potato peelings, onion slices, and radishes that were squeezed out of the garbage of the Japanese canteen. As a result of this hungry existence, people suffered from malnutrition and various types of diseases: beriberi and pellagra, anemia and dysentery.

Although Hosokura is 600-900 m above sea level, prisoners of war were forced to work in the tropical clothing they were wearing during their capture in Singapore. The warehouses at the mines were full of American Red Cross goods, including warm clothing, but these items were not given out to Allied prisoners of war, but to Japanese workers. People who were injured in the mine were given medical or surgical treatment only at the end of the day when they were injured, and only after returning to the camp located at the foot of the mountain. Many had shattered feet and arms, and many were left with broken limbs for hours without any help. The operations were performed without anesthetic agents; American doctors who were present at these operations called them a massacre. Although there were medical supplies from the Red Cross sent for use by prisoners of war, the latter were not given them. During their stay in Hosokura, about 60 prisoners of war died. Their deaths were the result of a lack of medical treatment for their injuries and the result of deprivation. Prisoners of war who complained were taken to the security room, where they were forced to stand at attention with their trousers down and their shirt up and tied around their heads. If they moved, the Japanese guards beat them with batons..."

In November 1942, the commander of the Eastern Military District ordered the establishment of a special unit in the Tokyo military prison for the imprisonment of pilots from allied countries. For this purpose, Department No. 4 of the military prison was allocated... The Tokyo Military Prison was located on the edge of the parade ground in Yoyogi, Tokyo, and later became a settlement of the American occupation forces, known as "Washington Highte". The prison was surrounded by a brick wall about 3.7 m high. The prison buildings were wooden structures that were located close to each other and took up most of the area inside the brick fence. These buildings were highly likely to be bombed, as the prison was known and recognized as part of Tokyo's military installations. On the night of May 25, 1945, there were 62 American pilots in a special section of the prison. They were placed in this trap in groups. There were two senior prison guards and 21 jailers on duty.

American B-29s began bombing Tokyo at approximately 11 a.m. on May 25, 1945. The city was engulfed in fires, buildings inside the prison fence began to burn. Flames and sparks hit the prison's wooden structures and ignited them. The jailers organized fire brigades from Japanese prisoners and made an attempt to extinguish the fire, but these attempts were unsuccessful, and they had to be abandoned. Incendiary bombs fell on the prison, and wooden buildings were burned to the ground. The next day, the charred corpses of 34 American pilots were found among the ruins of the cells, and the burned corpses of the remaining 28 were found nearby. This indicated that at least these 28 airmen managed to escape from their cells at the last moment, but it was too late to escape, and they were burned within the brick walls of the prison. All Japanese prisoners and Japanese jailers escaped death, with only a few suffering minor burns. This happened 17 days after the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and in a place that is just a stone's throw from the government residence in Tokyo! In those days, prisons in Germany began accepting the first new prisoners-former leaders of the third Reich, and the world was widely informed that the allied powers were beginning to implement their solemn promises to severely punish the perpetrators of the world tragedy. What did the Japanese government do in this regard after the fire in the Tokyo military prison? "The punishment imposed on the officer responsible for burning alive 62 allied pilots during an air raid on the Tokyo military prison was a reprimand."

page 114

"Kawasaki is located on the coast of Tokyo Bay, less than 10 miles from the capital, in an industrial area, near a railway and a steel mill. The camp was a two-story building that stood on a fenced plot of approximately 160 square meters. meters. Prisoners of war were kept in rooms with an area of 3.5 by 3 m, and each room had 8 people. The rooms were crawling with insects. The food consisted of vegetable tops, a handful of barley and Korean rice. The rations were insufficient, and all the prisoners of war would have died of beriberi and other dystrophic diseases if they hadn't stolen the fruit. All products were given out in the amount of one cup per day. Prisoners of war received a set of clothing consisting of trousers, a jacket and two shirts for the winter, a pair of underpants and one shirt for the summer. All these clothes belonged to the British army and were captured in Hong Kong. Clothing sent for prisoners of war by the American Red Cross was appropriated by the Japanese. The camp had a large supply of Red Cross materials, but the Japanese did not give them to prisoners of war. Medical supplies were kept in a warehouse and never reached the POWs, who were in dire need of them. In this camp, many people died as a result of starvation, torture and lack of medical care. Prisoners of war were beaten, forced to stand at attention, and held heavy objects over their heads for a long time. Such torture was a daily practice...

Ekkaiti. This camp was located on the coast of Ise Bay about 200 miles south of Tokyo, on the island of Honshu, in the Tokai Military District. There were 300 Americans in it. In 1944, a regular team was formed from the guards, who committed torture. Prisoners of war were tied with their hands to the upper rungs of the ladder so that their feet did not touch the ground, and they were left in this position for 3 to 5 hours for several days, and sometimes a load was tied to their feet. They were beaten with sticks, belts and fists. As a rule, as a result of beatings, open wounds appeared on the body, into which the guards poured salt, and the prisoners of war were not given food. They were often tortured in this way because they tried to leave their barracks during air raids.

The Norima camp was located near Nagoya. In July 1945, the American pilot Wagner, who was captured on the island of Corregidor, was tortured after he was caught trying to get food from the pantry at night. Four Japanese sentries beat him with rifle butts and batons, beat him in the face with their boots, then forced him to stand at attention in front of the guardhouse for three days without water or food, and all passing Japanese could beat him with batons that were issued for this purpose. When Wagner was starved to death in the following months, he made another attempt to get food from the kitchen, but was unable to return to his cell in the barracks and hid. His absence was discovered, and Japanese security began searching. Although he could not be found, he only lasted two days without food in his hiding place and tried to commit suicide by cutting his throat. The attempt was unsuccessful, and the guards discovered the place of his stay by the blood that flowed from the place where he hid. Wagner was captured and tied unconscious to a chair in front of a Japanese guardhouse, where 15 people beat him intermittently for 3 days. He received neither food nor water, and on July 20, while still alive, they put him in a box and buried him."

In all Japanese camps, so-called "B-29 beatings" were commonplace. After each raid by American B-29 bombers, prisoners of war were mercilessly beaten. A favorite form of torture was pumping water through the anus with a fire extinguisher. Prisoners of war were beaten with shoes, hitting their ears. Many of them had their eardrums burst.

"Yamani. This camp was located on the island of Shikoku. On March 8, 1945, two prisoners of war were accused of stealing sugar that they had bought from their sentries. They were interrogated and tortured to make them confess to the "theft". Their hands were pinned to tables, and their fingernails were torn off with a knife. Prisoners of war there were often beaten by sentries using a heavy wooden sword made specifically for this purpose. A popular method of torture was also to beat prisoners of war with a baseball stick-sized stick. Security forced me to

page 115

prisoners were forced to kneel on bamboo sticks, holding a piece of metal at arm's length, which was then touched with electric wires, or forced to spend hours pulling themselves up on their hands, or beating each other. Some were left open-mouthed for long hours, with bamboo chips inserted between their teeth."

And in the occupied territories, in the camps for prisoners of war and interned citizens, a regime reigned that generally blurred the lines between jailers and predatory animals, and the behavior of the latter was noticeably inferior to the sophisticated crimes of the former, their sadistic fantasy. The documents recorded the murders of prisoners in Kai Tai in 1942, the massacre on Hainan Island in May 1943, the Langseong massacre in March 1945, and mass rapes there, as well as repeated torture of prisoners and Indochinese, Chinese, Canadians, and French in April and May 1945 in Haiphong, Hanoi, and other places. When the Japanese attacked the French garrison at Damha on March 16, 1945, and the French retreated, one captured soldier was taken to the blockhouse. His hands and feet were bound with iron wire and then he was burned alive. There, prisoners of war were systematically subjected to various tortures: beaten with batons, driven under the nails with lighted matches, cauterized with cigarettes and burning candles, tortured with hanging blocks, water and electricity. One of the tortures was that prisoners of war were forced to kneel on sharp pieces of wood, after which the non-commissioned officer who conducted the "interrogation" jumped on their feet. More than 200 French prisoners of war were killed in groups of 50. They were killed with sabers, bayonets and pickaxes. Mass murders. Prisoners of war and civilians also took place at other locations in Langson. The child, who was several months from birth, had his skull smashed in. In Dondang, the French garrison surrendered, after which all its soldiers were slaughtered by the Japanese with sabers and bayonets. Five people were burned alive in Damha. Mass killings also took place in Xin Man, Hoan Su, Phi Hoyan. Two women in Hoi an were forced to cohabit with 50 soldiers for several weeks, and one of them went mad; then both were killed. A 15-year-old French woman and her mother were raped and then killed. In Laos, all male Europeans were killed, including two bishops. General Nagano, commander of the Japanese 37th Division, congratulated his troops and said that he considered these acts to be military actions.

In Takhek, 55 Frenchmen were killed, including 40 civilians, 10 soldiers, two women and one child. Some of them were beheaded, others hanged. At Fort Brielle de Lisle, prisoners were taken out in groups of 50 to 60 people and lined up in a row, after which the Japanese, who were standing behind, stabbed them with bayonets and sabers, and the survivors were finished off with pickaxes. Leon Atuard, a French non-commissioned officer, was captured by the Japanese in Mito on March 9, 1945. They took him to the gendarmerie headquarters, tied him up with ropes, and a day later they began to beat his feet, then tortured him with water, passed electric current through his legs, and then beat him daily. Similar treatment took place with other prisoners. There would be no end to quoting documents that mention similar facts. These facts took place in all areas of "Greater East Asia", in all Japanese military units that encountered prisoners of war.

In the course of the trial, the lawyers did not dare to challenge the facts, given the large number and overwhelming force of evidence gathered by the prosecution. But while acknowledging them, they set out a different task: each of them proved that it was his ward who had nothing to do with war crimes and did not even know about them, while the numerous diplomatic protests and speeches of the leaders of the allied powers on this topic, broadcast on the radio, were regarded simply as enemy propaganda. The excitement of the" judicial struggle " so captivated the defense that none of the lawyers thought about the question: what conclusion will the judges come to if they sum up their statements? And summing up such crimes showed that they, huge in scale and uniform in methods of commission, lasted for 8 years (during 1937-1945) and covered an entire quarter of the globe in terms of area (at the culmination of Japanese military successes). It turns out that all these crimes were the result of "disjointed" and "unauthorized" actions of lower-ranking performers, who committed them at their own peril and risk.

page 116

the commanders of the armies, who had this happening literally under their noses, they say, did not know anything and did not order to do so. Absolutely all such attempts by lawyers to whitewash the defendants were convincingly refuted by the tribunal.

Sometimes the defendants themselves or some defense witnesses simply "drowned" the arguments of the lawyers with their testimony. Here is the testimony of former Minister Shigenori Togo. He talks about the events of August 10, 1945. On the eve of the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. Togo says that after that, even the most frenzied on the Tokyo Olympus became clear: the war is hopelessly lost, a catastrophe is on the verge. There is an urgent meeting of the Supreme Military Council in the presence of the Emperor. The issue of the need to accept the Potsdam Declaration of the Allied Powers and surrender unconditionally is being resolved. In principle, moreover, everyone agreed on the condition of preserving the basic structure of the Japanese state. However, the high command of the army and Navy, as well as the Minister of War, set three conditions for their consent. The third of them is: "The punishment of war criminals will be entrusted to the Japanese themselves." Representatives of the armed forces insisted so strongly on this demand that the meeting was adjourned because it was impossible to come to a positive decision. On the same day, the emperor summoned the members of the Supreme Military Council and agreed that it was necessary to adopt the Potsdam Declaration on one condition - to preserve the basic structure of the state. As for the military, they, according to That, remained in their opinion, but obeyed the decision of the emperor.

So, the Japanese military leadership demanded the transfer of Japanese war criminals not into the hands of the allies, but into the hands of Japanese courts. Truly, "the thief's hat is on fire": it means that the then government of the Land of the Rising Sun knew about the existence of war crimes, and the military leadership sought to save war criminals, including themselves, from just retribution. Tojo and co. were well aware that" provided the basic structure of the state is preserved, " they would not be afraid of a Japanese court. In a few more days, Minister Kido will write in his diary about the conversation with the emperor, who said: "The idea of bringing war criminals to justice is unbearable to me, but now is the time to endure the unbearable." Of course, the Japanese minister-keeper of the seal, keeping a diary, least of all thought that the latter would find a place among the many other evidence presented by the prosecutors to the high tribunal.

In these obviously difficult conditions for the defense, American lawyers decided to bring their Japanese colleague, Professor of international law Takeyanagi, to the forefront. He was entrusted with the mission of delivering a "theoretical" speech in defense of all the defendants wholesale. Here we are interested in the part of the speech that deals with crimes against the laws and customs of war. Takeyanagi argued :" By making the superficial assumption that the situation in Germany and Japan was similar, the Chief Prosecutor may believe that the defendants, who held certain positions, issued orders to commit crimes against the laws and customs of warfare in various parts of the theater of operations. But such "orders from above" cannot be proved. The Chief Prosecutor therefore bases his accusation of "orders from above" on an assumption, and only on an assumption, since he states: "These murders were committed over such a large territorial area, cover such a long period of time, and such a large number of them were committed after the protests handed down by neutral countries, that we should consider them only as a consequence of positive orders issued by the persons sitting here in the dock." But it should be clearly shown what specific position a defendant held when he issued such orders; presuming guilt without accurate evidence would be a significant violation of justice and would be on the conscience of the world."

Takeyanagi speculated on the fact that his clients managed to destroy most of the documentation that compromised them in a timely manner. But at the same time, he "forgot" that, first of all, the very fact of destroying documents is, although indirect, nevertheless a strong proof of the bad conscience of the Tokyo rulers. And indirect evidence in its entirety is often as reliable as direct evidence, and this is recognized in all countries. Second, a number of criminal orders issued by the Japanese-

page 117

However, he ended up on the judges ' table. Faced with a wall of compelling evidence, Takeyanagi began to openly slander his own people in order to save the real criminals. Here is his cynical statement:: "Even if the alleged atrocities or other violations are similar in nature, this cannot justify such an assumption. This type of action can only be a reflection of national or racial characteristics. Crimes, no less than the greatest works of art, can express the characteristics of a given race. Geographical, economic, or strategic similarities may partially justify "similar types" of actions. The existence of orders from above, as well as the persons who issued them, must be undoubtedly proved in the case of a serious nature of actions."

Further demanding "super guarantees" of justice for his clients, as interpreted by his lawyers, and weaving a web of casuistry around the provisions of international law, Takeyanagi turned to the question of mass killings, which he did not dare to deny, and allowed himself such statements: "The mass murders in question... apparently, they were committed (if indeed they were committed) while suppressing attempts by local residents to revolt. An armed mutiny cannot be eliminated with the help of rose water. It is absolutely not necessary that formal courts should be appointed even before the execution is carried out in cases where the authorities have faced armed rebels and traitors. If it is proven that prisoners of war were sometimes killed, it was when the enemy's armed forces were nearby, ready to invade. Killing prisoners of war under such circumstances can sometimes be a perfectly acceptable military precaution. In any case, it is impossible to conclude from them that there is such a general plan. The stories of prisoners of war about threats and the stories of clerks about the existence of secret orders are not sufficient confirmation, but, on the contrary, they are very weak evidence. Japanese military doctrine may have held that the obligations to prisoners of war did not exceed the obligations to preserve the lives of their own troops, and in some unrelated cases, commanders could interpret this principle without sufficient responsibility. But that doesn't mean they followed the instructions. This principle in itself is not at all in conflict with the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention of 1929, which Japan has not ratified."

After hearing these statements, which were absurd from the standpoint of international law and monstrous in their inhumanity, one could understand why the American part of the defense had instructed its Japanese counterpart to develop its "theoretical" scheme. Who is happy to take on such a mission? Takeyanagi calmly continued, " As for the brutal methods of treatment used by the gendarmerie, the prosecution's closing statement reads as follows :: "This unity of methods could not be accidental, but should be the result of universal training. And if such universal training was conducted, then it was part of government policy." The reference to "universal education" cannot be supported by common sense, since the use of brutal methods of treatment could be the result of the general level of mental state of persons in the same profession. The further statement that the training that supposedly existed was a matter of State policy shows that the word "training "means"military training". This statement is again unjustified. It is not the Government's responsibility to monitor the details of"military training." Concluding, Takeyanagi demanded: "We call on the tribunal to ensure that when making its historic decision in this unprecedented criminal case, it is guided only by the generally recognized norms of international law. There is no need to remind the High Tribunal that the unjust imposition of harsh punishments for crimes that are unknown to law will only embitter the hearts of future generations and prevent the establishment of the eternal peace necessary to ensure friendly relations between East and West. Future generations of the Eastern peoples, as well as of the entire world, looking at this historic decision from a broad historical perspective, may conclude that the greatest injustice was committed by punishing the leaders of one of the nations in the First place.-

page 118

Western Asia, while statesmen and generals of Western powers have never been punished for their aggressive actions in the East for the past three centuries."

Indeed, European and American colonialists committed many serious crimes in Asia and on other continents over the course of several centuries and went unpunished. But humanity moved forward, international law developed and improved, the face of the Earth changed, and, to Takeyanaga's chagrin, long before his speech, this international law firmly declared the punishability of war crimes, declaring aggression a crime for any statesman. Takeyanagi did not want to pay attention to such "trifles" and drew a new parallel from the depths of time, recalling Jeanne d'Arc: "Just as the simple daughter of Orleans, convicted and executed in front of the embittered British occupation army, later became a great martyr and saint in the eyes of the French people, so the death sentence passed here against any of the defendants at the behest of the conquerors will make the simple son of Yamato a great martyr in the eyes of his people and even a great martyr for the cause of Asia". The judges were forced to listen patiently to these pearls of "eloquence" in which the heroic daughter of France, who fought for the freedom and independence of her homeland and was burned alive by the invaders, was compared to the criminal rulers of militaristic Japan, burdened with countless crimes against peace and humanity.

As the old saying goes, " he lies,he lies, and he will tell the truth." Takeyanagi, "scaring" judges with the consequences of a harsh sentence, said: "The Tribunal is well aware that history knows of many cases in which the death sentence imposed on a political or religious leader not only eliminated all his crimes, but also illuminated the ordinary prosaic life with the magic light of glory." The truth here lies in the assumption that the death penalty " eliminates all crimes." Thus, Takeyanagi acknowledged the existence of these crimes. As for the" magic light of glory", then Takeyanagi did not become a prophet in his homeland. We are sure that modern progressive Japanese give the correct assessment to the militaristic statesmen of that time, people who poured blood not only on foreign countries, but also on their own state, leading it to a national catastrophe. Not to mention the fact that the generally accepted norms of criminal law are alien to the principle that the crime of one person can get away with it with impunity, if the same crime was previously left unpunished for another person.

On June 4, 1946, the opening speech of the chief prosecutor, American Keenan, opened the phase of presenting numerous evidences to the Tokyo Tribunal incriminating the defendants in committing the most serious crimes. Keenan, in particular, argued: "The plan of war adopted by the defendants is the same as that used by their co-conspirators in the conspiracy of the German Nazis in their habitual tactics of terror, cruelty and savage brutality, especially against helpless prisoners of war, civilians and those who survived the torpedoing of merchant and military ships by Japanese submarines.". This sameness of crimes committed is not accidental. Recent history shows that when the imperialists launch wars of conquest or try to crack down on the national liberation movement, atrocities follow their every step like a shadow. Moreover, these atrocities are not the result of the disgusting improvisation of individual sadistic officers or soldiers, nor are they the result of any national or racial characteristics of one of the belligerents, as some bourgeois psychoanalysts try to portray it and as Takeyanagi tried to prove.

A futile effort! In reality, these atrocities are planned, blessed and sanctioned in advance at the highest level of power, becoming a way of imperialist aggressive warfare. The Tokyo Trial of Major Japanese War Criminals, as well as the Nuremberg Trial of major German War Criminals, provided convincing evidence for the correctness of this statement. And it is curious that under the pressure of indisputable facts, the correctness of such a conclusion was recognized in Tokyo by representatives of the prosecution from among bourgeois lawyers, and sometimes very conservative way of thinking. So, Ki-

page 119

nan in his opening speech said: "The Japanese sought, and this was part of their plan of aggression, to suppress the will of the peoples to fight, committing atrocities of incredible cruelty both in nature and in scale. The evidence will show that the inhumane method of warfare was general in both its geographical distribution and its timing. This is evidence of the existence of a certain plan of war, characteristic of Japanese military aggression wherever it unfolds." He was echoed by another prosecutor, Filipino Donets: "Many witnesses passed before the tribunal. Japanese documents describing the main policy pursued by the defendants in order to raise a warlike race of gentlemen seeking to conquer the world have also been published. It should be remembered that all the means under State control - radio, schools, theaters, cinema, literature and religion-were mobilized to implement this policy in order to instill in the Japanese people a fanatical spirit of militarism, a blind worship of totalitarianism and ultranationalism, a love of aggression, a fierce hatred and contempt for all potential and actual enemies. The charges will show the results of this policy: thousands upon thousands of innocent people were killed, maimed, starved to death and reduced to poverty, countless cities, villages and villages were devastated, houses and huts were looted.

The key to a correct assessment of our evidence is the realization that this insidious propaganda of hatred, preached at home, has somehow poisoned the minds and hearts of many Japanese people, who, either in arrogance born in victories, or in despair, in anticipation of inevitable defeats on the battlefields, committed such barbaric acts, the complete destruction of the Japanese people. identifying which will make the whole world shudder. We will show that Japanese atrocities were not isolated incidents, individual crimes, but a common phenomenon throughout the Pacific and Asian theater of war. The techniques and methods used for murder, torture and rape, for the unbridled destruction of property, were constant and the same. The stronger the resistance, the more violent the attacker became. These atrocities, which began on a massive scale, first in Nanking in 1937, and culminated in the Manila events of 1945, have been going on for 8 long years. They covered a quarter of the entire globe, including Burma, China, Indochina, Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, Hong Kong, the Philippines, New Guinea, and various Pacific islands. The main mass of criminals were soldiers and officers from all parts of the Japanese military organization. The victims were innumerable, and they included the population and prisoners of war, healthy and sick, young and old, men and women, even children and newborn babies. Thus, the strategy of terror was part of the Japanese form of warfare, designed to destroy the spirit of resistance in the population of the areas in which the fighting took place."

The laws and customs of war recognized by international law become an insurmountable obstacle for a State waging an unjust and aggressive war. That is why they are deliberately dismissed, and war crimes become one of the means to achieve the anti-national goals of aggressive war and are largely planned in advance, forming an integral part of the military-strategic plan. If we evaluate the nature of war crimes committed during the Second World War from these positions, then the danger of the modern arms race in the field of missile and nuclear weapons, imposed on humanity by reactionary circles, becomes quite obvious. After all, such weapons, if deliberately used for aggressive purposes, would put an end to the legal regulation of military conflicts in general. International law would simply be thrown aside, and wars would turn into the extermination of many peoples and the devastation of entire continents. That is why the relentless struggle waged by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in the post-war period for limiting the nuclear missile race and reducing its arsenal, and then for its complete prohibition and destruction, is so important for the existence of humanity and modern civilization. And until the peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems becomes an unshakable foundation of international law, until modern means of mass destruction are banned and destroyed.

page 120

It is dangerous to forget about the war crimes committed by the aggressors. There are fewer and fewer living witnesses to the crimes of those years. And it is necessary that people who were born and raised under peaceful skies should know and constantly remember the danger that imperialist reaction plans pose to them and their descendants.

When discussing the problem of war criminals, the question often arises: how could it be that the armies of modern capitalist states with a rich material and spiritual culture always have more than enough officers and soldiers ready to commit the most heinous crimes? The answer is rooted in the way of life that prevails in these countries, which is designed so that, when necessary, it easily awakens all the darkest and basest things in a person. And preparation is conducted on a daily basis, because in capitalist countries every hour there is a struggle for the right to live on Earth. And the concept of "life" has an unusually wide range - from living on the semblance of unemployment to the heights of luxury and thoughtlessly scattering huge sums to please their own whims. In such conditions, the powerful propaganda machine daily in very diverse and sometimes sophisticated forms hammers into people's heads the idea: "Be strong, strong-willed, purposeful, do not be afraid of the struggle and do not be shy in its methods, boldly throw yourself into the vortex of life, which, having absorbed the weak, will carry the strong, unprincipled, to the shining heights of wealth and pleasure and the authorities." Literature, movies and TV films are being distributed that openly heroize criminals, delve into the psychology of sadists, and naturalistically depict their disgusting deeds in every detail. And all this ideological artillery strikes at one goal: by suppressing all that is light and sublime in a person, to awaken the dark and base. As a result, in the bowels of bourgeois states, even in peacetime, conditions are created for the formation of criminals, among whom there are many young and healthy people, future military conscripts.

Anyone who comes to modern Tokyo will not easily find the former building of the Ministry of War, where the International Military Tribunal for the Far East met. This house, which in the 40s seemed impressive and voluminous, is now lost against the background of giants of concrete and glass, which grew up later. Its facade keeps a dull silence, and nothing seems to remind you of the historical events that unfolded within its walls. And inside the house, everything has changed beyond recognition: now here is the barracks of one of the parts of the Tokyo garrison. In Japan itself, this building is shrouded in a dense web of oblivion. We can still see the words carved on its facade: "Not only were the main war criminals tried here; here, as in Nuremberg, another defendant was invisibly but palpably present in the dock. His crimes were completely exposed and proved with judicial precision. These defendants were imperialist policies and diplomacy in the Japanese-militarist version, which, together with their fascist-Nazi version, plunged humanity into the abyss of World War II."

page 121

Permanent link to this publication: