War Crimes Trials in New Guinea

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The war crimes trials in New Guinea were carried out by the Australian colonial power against Japanese military personnel (as category B and C war criminals ; Japanese: BC 級 戦 犯) or their helpers because of war crimes committed there and on the surrounding islands during the Japanese occupation.

organization

Australia was a founding member of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Far Eastern Sub-Committee on War Crimes (FEAC, later FEC) in Chongqing in 1943 . The FEC's categorization of Japanese war criminals was essentially followed. The rule over New Guinea as a former German colony was nominally exercised in the form of a League of Nations mandate . It worked with other allies through the War Crimes Sections established in Singapore (December 1945) and Tokyo (February 1946) . On Java there were close contacts to relevant Dutch offices. An Australian has served as a judge in many British trials in Singapore. Of the estimated 9070 suspected members of the Japanese armed forces, all had been tracked down by the end of the Morotai trials (February 28, 1946). Most of the cases have been referred to UK or Dutch courts.

As early as June 1943, a commission was set up under the later President of the IMTFE , Sir William F. Webb , who was then Chief Justice of Queensland , to investigate war crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces. Three reports had been submitted by 1945. This work was supported by the Directorate of Prisoners of War and Internees , which from 1945 was subordinate to the Adjudant General of the Australian Army.

The legal basis for prosecution was the War Crimes Act 1945 , which was passed on October 4, 1945 by both houses of the Australian Parliament. The definition of a war crime is broad; the area of ​​validity is not limited in terms of space or time. Jurisdiction included all cases where an Australian resident (not necessarily a national) or a British or Allied subject was the victim. The Board of Inquiries defined 35 crimes, including item 34 cannibalism , which was initially not punishable under comparable American guidelines. The death penalty was possible for all offenses . In general, the tribunals were limited to “serious crimes”.

The courts were to be convened by the governor general , who delegated this right to commanders. In addition to the chairman, they consisted of at least two members. Members could also belong to any other Allied power as long as the majority of the judges were Australians. In Rabaul the tribunals usually had four members, at Manus five, otherwise the minimum number of three. The officers should have at least the same rank as the defendant; belong to at least one of the same branch of service. The provision was practically always ignored.

Any evidence that the court considered worthwhile was admitted. Since the evidence was therefore mainly based on written evidence, the defendants' ability to defend themselves by cross-examining witnesses was severely limited. Otherwise, the formalities followed the Imperial Army Acts and general rules on court martial . Death sentences required unanimity if the court consisted of three members, otherwise a two-thirds majority was sufficient. The judgments were not to be justified in writing. This made them vulnerable, especially by parliamentarians, who accused the judges of "secrecy" and too lax punishments.

Attached to the court was a "judge advocate" British model, which is a neutral advisor to the military judges and explains the legal situation but does not act as a public prosecutor like its American counterpart.

Revision

A convicted person could appeal the verdict and / or sentence to the certification officer. If that officer approves the verdict, the case ends here. Otherwise the final decision was made by the Australian judge advocate general or his deputy. As a result, the accused were in a significantly worse position than in the trials in Yokohama or Guam .

The rule applicable to Australian soldiers that death sentences had to be confirmed by the (civil) governor-general and that they were only possible in certain cases of high treason did not apply to Japanese defendants.

Processes

As early as May 1945, 1,481 suspects were in custody. Hearings were held in Wewak (two trials, each with one accused), Morotai (25 trials, 148 accused, closed in February 1946), Rabaul and in Labuan ( Borneo ; 16 trials, 145 accused, closed January 31, 1946), other Australian tribunals met in Darwin (3; March – April 1946), Singapore (23; 68 defendants, 1946/47), Hong Kong (13; November 1947 – December 1948) and the island of Manus (1950–1951).

The first trial, for man-eating, ended in Wewak with a death sentence on December 4, 1945.

In Labuan, the conditions in the Miri camp ( Sarawak ) were tried. Almost all of the 1250 prisoners (mostly British and civil internees) died of starvation or diseases. The camp officers received the death penalty, which was commuted to five years' imprisonment for the junior officers. Six NCOs, two interpreters and 37 men, almost all of whom received prison sentences, were also charged. A sergeant and 20 members of his guards were sentenced to death for the arbitrary killing of 51 prisoners who were outside the camp on June 10, 1945 .

Ten out of eleven accused were convicted of the crucifixion of Australian pilots on Talaud in February 1945 by a court in Morotai. A trial began in Labuan in December 1945 of 70 defendants charged with ill-treating civilians in Kuching, Sarawak.

Even bigger was a trial (started in Ambon on January 2, 1946) in which 93 camp guards and their officers who mistreated prisoners of war at Tan Toey camp between February 1942 and summer 1945 were tried. There were 55 acquittals and four death sentences for the camp commanders when the verdicts were handed down in Morotai on February 15.

Most of the tribunals met in Rabaul between March 1946 and December 1947. In many cases it was about denial of fair trials , with the Japanese being accused of having executed the accused quickly and without justification. The most common allegation against Japanese officers, however, was that of lack of control over subordinates ( superior responsibility ). In cases where the accused claimed to have acted “on higher orders” , attenuating circumstances were often recognized.

The negotiations against Lieutenant General Baba Masao and others concerned the killing of prisoners of war. Of the 2,200 mostly Australian prisoners in the Sandakan POW camp in the summer of 1944, six were still alive a year later. Many died of starvation or perished on death marches to Ranau , 260 km away , 150 of the 183 people who had arrived there died within a few days, the rest were executed for the sake of simplicity. Baba, the responsible military governor of Borneo, and the camp commandant Hoshijima Susumi were sentenced to death. A number of camp guards (mostly from Formosa) received prison sentences.

Almost all of the residents of Ocean Island were killed on August 20, 1945. After being notified of the Japanese surrender , five groups were formed and the victims were handcuffed and blindfolded. They were then taken to the cliff and shot. Nine officers were sentenced to death. The others received 20 years' imprisonment. Two teams seven years; there was an acquittal.

Almost a third (99) of all Australian cases dealt with the circumstances under which Indian prisoners of war, approximately 32,000 of whom fell into Japanese hands in the fall of Singapore, had to exist. 22 trials concerned the fate of Chinese prisoners of war who were given over to the Japanese as labor in New Britain by the Wang Jingwei regime .

No trials took place in 1949, partly over disputes with the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) in Tokyo, although around 800 suspects were still in custody. Over four years of pre-trial detention violated British law. Therefore, between June 1950 and May 1951, the last 113 defendants were brought to the island of Manus and tried. This island was chosen because it was the part of Australian territory closest to Japan. Many defendants were transferred from Sugamo Prison after SCAP threatened to release by November 1, 1949 those who would not be tried soon. There were 26 trials with 113 defendants. There were 69 convictions, including 13 death sentences, five of which were carried out.

Of the 644 convicted (69.5% of the 924 accused) of all 296 Australian war crimes trials, 496 received prison terms and 148 death sentences passed. Most of the procedures (188) were carried out in Rabaul. Of the 390 defendants there, 266 were convicted and 124 acquitted. Those sentenced to prison terms were all housed first in Rabaul and later in Manus. The Japanese were transferred from there to Sugamo Prison in June 1953. The Statuory Rule No. 11 of 1951 allowed waiver of a quarter of the sentence for good conduct. From 1955, prisoners who had served ten years or a third of their sentences (whichever was less) were released. All remaining prisoners were released on July 4, 1957.

literature

  • George Dickinson: Japanese War Trials. In: Australian Quarterly 24, 1952, ISSN  0005-0091 , pp. 69-75.
  • George Dickinson: Manus Island Trials. In: Journal of the Royal Historical Society 38, 1952, ISSN  0035-8762 , pp. 67-77.
  • Philip R. Piccigallo: The Japanese on Trial. Allied was crimes operations in the East. 1945–1951 . University of Texas Press, Austin TX et al. a. 1979, ISBN 0-292-78033-8 , (Chapter 7 “Australia and Others” ).
  • DCS Sissons: The Australian War Crimes Trials and Investigations (1942-1951). 2006.
  • Rajendra Singh: Post-war occupation forces. Japan and South-East Asia. Combined Inter-Services Historical Section, India & Pakistan, New Delhi 1958, ( Official history of the Indian Armed Forces in the Second World War, 1939–1945 13).

swell

  1. ^ Australian Encyclopaedia , Sydney 1958, Volume 9, p. 156 (keyword War Crimes Trials ).
  2. ↑ as microfilms in Australian National Archives: A10943, A1066, A10950, A11049
  3. ↑ Reports as microfilms in Australian National Archives: Series MP742 / 1
  4. ↑ No. 48 of 1945; on this: Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals Statuory Rules 1945, No 164
  5. ^ DCS Sissons: The Australian War Crimes Trials and Investigations (1942-1951). ( Memento of May 9, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) 2006, p. 21.
  6. ↑ § 8 Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals
  7. ^ DCS Sissons: The Australian War Crimes Trials and Investigations (1942-1951). ( Memento of May 9, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) 2006, p. 22.
  8. ^ Section 9 War Crimes Act 1945
  9. ^ DCS Sissons: The Australian War Crimes Trials and Investigations (1942-1951). ( Memento of May 9, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) 2006, p. 34.
  10. ^ Peter Stanley: “Great in adversity”: Indian prisoners of war in New Guinea. In: Australian War Memorial. (English)
  11. ↑ Scisson, p. 38

Web links