The Yamashita trial

Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
#31
From querying the validity of Yamashita's conviction and his subsequent execution on February 13. 1946 we seem to have gone to defending the retaliatory murders of SS men and paratroopers by GIs in the Battle of The Bulge(with the possible connivance of their senior officers not excluding the then theatre commander, one Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower)- all I can repeat is Cardinal Cathal Daly's observation during the NI "Troubles" is that whataboutery is the most common form of moral evasion as well as the moral principle that TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE ONE RIGHT( whether in the Ardennes, the back streets of Belfast and Derry during the "Troubles" or in the rice paddies of Vietnam)!
 
Jun 2012
5,705
Texas
#33
From querying the validity of Yamashita's conviction and his subsequent execution on February 13. 1946 we seem to have gone to defending the retaliatory murders of SS men and paratroopers by GIs in the Battle of The Bulge(with the possible connivance of their senior officers not excluding the then theatre commander, one Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower)- all I can repeat is Cardinal Cathal Daly's observation during the NI "Troubles" is that whataboutery is the most common form of moral evasion as well as the moral principle that TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE ONE RIGHT( whether in the Ardennes, the back streets of Belfast and Derry during the "Troubles" or in the rice paddies of Vietnam)!
A nonsense argument. It has nothing to do with Yamashita's guilt.
 
May 2011
13,889
Navan, Ireland
#34
From querying the validity of Yamashita's conviction and his subsequent execution on February 13. 1946 we seem to have gone to defending the retaliatory murders of SS men and paratroopers by GIs in the Battle of The Bulge(with the possible connivance of their senior officers not excluding the then theatre commander, one Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower)- all I can repeat is Cardinal Cathal Daly's observation during the NI "Troubles" is that whataboutery is the most common form of moral evasion as well as the moral principle that TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE ONE RIGHT( whether in the Ardennes, the back streets of Belfast and Derry during the "Troubles" or in the rice paddies of Vietnam)!

1. What is the evidence that an order was given to American GI's to shoot SS prisoners? or is it just heresay?

2. German paratroopers/special forces supposedly (there is evidence to support it I believe) in American Uniforms -- such people can be shot out of hand.

3. How do you prove that SS soldiers were shot after surrendering or simply fought on fanatically? or that Allied soldiers simply refused to accept their surrender?

4. Brutal (to understate) behaviour of Japanese forces was so endemic that its hard to believe that Yamashita was unaware of it.

5. I have repeatedly read that Yamashita had the officer responsible (supposedly) for the Alexandra Hospital atrocities executed-- what's the source for this because I couldn't find any. It was also a far from unique episode.

6. How much is the support for Yamashita because we want a 'good Japanese' like we have the 'Good German' Rommel especially as he defeated 'us' so that so much nicer.
 
Mar 2010
2,522
#35
I'd be damned angry if I found my mates shot in a ditch( I admit that I know how those GIs felt after they found the bodies of their fellows murdered en masse by SS troops at the infamous "Malmedy massacre")- I may have sought payback, but in the cold light of day I would to quote the late Abraham Lincoln, have looked to the "better angels of my nature" and have realized that such an act would have lowered me to the moral level of their murderers. TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKE ONE RIGHT!
As far the fact that I was not even born at the time(nor fought in WWII or any other conflict), this is surely a non sequitur of the worst order(BTW may I ask what this has to do with the Yamashita trial???) Provocation may have played a role here but it is NEVER right!

Terry
Terry. You and I are fighting buddies. You and I rush a pillbox. You are shot and killed. I reach the pillbox and the soldiers surrender... sorry, these guys are dead to me.
Yes, I know. Two wrongs don't make a right. All I would know is that my buddy is dead and these guys will not be having any 'war stories' to tell their loved ones.
 
Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
#36
The Yamashita trial

Apropos of the Yamashita trial, my point was that if Yamashita's claim that he was unaware and would have punished severely (presumably by execution) soldiers involved in such behaviour was indeed true(even the prosecution did NOT make the claim that he ordered or even approved of such behaviour), then logically it also applied to "Ike" during the Battle Of The Bulfe.
As for the fact that there were no instances of no GIs admitting to killing parachutists or SS men attempting to surrender(as an order- issued by whom is unclear- on December 21, 1944), I can only make the point that that amounted to a prima facie case of if not a violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention(which the US- but not the Axis powers- had signed and ratified) but also cold-blooded murder, punishable by court martial(The Geneva Convention in its 1929, 1949 and 1977 versions all emphatically condemn "no quarter" to surrrendering or surrendered enemies). Dead men tell no tales after all!
Secondly as to the case of me being killed shortly before the hypothetical enemy surrenders, I might also make the point that soldiers are trained-irrespective of their personal feelings to be disciplined individuals above all.
The Geneva Convention may be annoying to soldiers in the field during war time, but it exists for a very good reason- without it, war would(as we saw in the war between the USSR and the Third Reich between 1941 and 1945) be even more frightful.
Need I also make the point that the Allies were supposed to be the"good guys"(in fictional dramas such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band Of Brothers" as well as fact) and anything that vitiates that claim gives color the charge that the subsequent war crimes trials were "victors' justice" frequently made by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis?!

Terry
 
Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
#38
Oh, and has anybody noticed that the victorious Allies tried and executed Germans and Japanese for engaging in much the same conduct that several posters more or less condoned GIs for doing in the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre(see Wikipedia entries for "Le Paradis massacre" and ""Stalag Luft III murders) namely killing POWs?

Terry

PS and leave us not forgot the statement by prosecutors at Nuremburg that prohibition of war crimes was meant to apply to victors as well as the vanquished- including nations that now sit in judgement( a veiled reference to the USSR)?
 
Jul 2016
9,307
USA
#39
Apropos of the Yamashita trial, my point was that if Yamashita's claim that he was unaware and would have punished severely (presumably by execution) soldiers involved in such behaviour was indeed true(even the prosecution did NOT make the claim that he ordered or even approved of such behaviour), then logically it also applied to "Ike" during the Battle Of The Bulfe.
As for the fact that there were no instances of no GIs admitting to killing parachutists or SS men attempting to surrender(as an order- issued by whom is unclear- on December 21, 1944), I can only make the point that that amounted to a prima facie case of if not a violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention(which the US- but not the Axis powers- had signed and ratified) but also cold-blooded murder, punishable by court martial(The Geneva Convention in its 1929, 1949 and 1977 versions all emphatically condemn "no quarter" to surrrendering or surrendered enemies). Dead men tell no tales after all!
Secondly as to the case of me being killed shortly before the hypothetical enemy surrenders, I might also make the point that soldiers are trained-irrespective of their personal feelings to be disciplined individuals above all.
The Geneva Convention may be annoying to soldiers in the field during war time, but it exists for a very good reason- without it, war would(as we saw in the war between the USSR and the Third Reich between 1941 and 1945) be even more frightful.
Need I also make the point that the Allies were supposed to be the"good guys"(in fictional dramas such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band Of Brothers" as well as fact) and anything that vitiates that claim gives color the charge that the subsequent war crimes trials were "victors' justice" frequently made by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis?!

Terry
"You know what we need? More lawyers in a combat zone!" - Said Nobody Ever In History
 
Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
#40
Ever heard of Vattel's law- is the theorem that the justice of a cause is defined by the means used to defend it? Your"anything goes in war" argument was decisively rejected by the Allied judges at Nuremburg!
 

Similar History Discussions