"Would Yamamoto have been tried & executed?" Topic

As we know, the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was ambushed & killed in 1943.

I am reading a bio of US naval commander Chester Nimitz, who expressed regret for his death, saying he had been looking forward to leading him down Pennsylvania Avenue in chains whilst his (Nimitz's) aides followed , kicking him in the a$$.

I wonder, if he hadn't died in the plane wreck, would he have joined Tojo, Homma, Yamashita & 1000 other Japanese on the gallows?

Hope not but depends on American need for blood.

The only possible war crime that comes to mind is his planning of the attack on Pearl Harbor. My understanding is that the Japanese intended to declare war just before the attack but failed to do so. A sneak attack with no offical declaration of war would be considered a war crime back then, but I can't see blaming him for the failure to declare war.

Whilst the Japanse army comitted numerous horrific war crimes at the command of senior leaders, I'm not aware that the navy did anything like that. I could just be ignorant of it. I don't think Yamamoto would have been executed. Admiral Dönitz wasn't executed and would seem more of a war criminal to me than Yamamoto.

Most Japanese war criminals weren't even prosecuted -- the US had to quickly turn Japan into an ally/buffer against Russian expansion. I think his execution would have put a damper on that.

Unless he was involved in actual war crimes of crimes against humanity (and I'm not aware that Yamamoto ever was), it has hard to see what you'd charge him with.

The 'Crimes Against Peace' charges were mainly levelled at Tojo and other high level leaders for aggressive prosecution of warfare, whereas Yamamoto actively opposed both the war with China and the USA.

I suppose they might have wanted to hang him anyway just because he was good at his job, but that all seems a bit medieval. I suppose he was assassinated for being good at his job, but lots of Germans good at their jobs were employed with the Allies after the war, including SS and Gestapo men.

If anyone is not aware of any atrocities committed by the Japanese navy, I recommend you listen to, or watch, this episode from the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War podcast. It goes into great detail about Admiral Iwabuchi and his naval infantry who set out to exterminate as many Filipinos as they possibly could. Mainly in retribution for their desire to be rid of the Japanese. I realize that Yamamoto was already dead when this happened.
link

I don't think he would have, but who will ever know.

Yes, the Japanese Navy committed atrocities, at the order of higher ups or on their own. Case in point:

"Bruno Peter Gaido (March 21, 1916 – June 15, 1942) was an American sailor who served in the United States Navy as an Aviation Machinist's Mate during World War II. While flying as a gunner for pilot Frank O'Flaherty in a Douglas SBD Dauntless during the Battle of Midway, he was shot down and captured by the Japanese whilst waiting for rescue from American forces. Gaido, along with O'Flaherty were taken P.O.W. and subsequently tortured, interrogated and executed by being thrown overboard."

I do not see how the American public could ever give Yamamoto a pass for planning and carrying out the sneak attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. It would not have mattered that they planned to give minimal notice. That said, who knows what mischief he may have caused had he not been assassinated. Alternatively, he may have hastened the end of the war with a few more operations such as Midway? I have never studied the man, was he really as good as he has been portrayed or did he simply get lucky with Pearl Harbor? He was successful with post Pearl Harbor operations (raid on Australia and Indian Ocean raid) but he never "won" a pitched battle against a relatively prepared adversary, of which I am aware. Granted, we were reading his mail while trying to counter his movements.

Defeating an enemy by repeatedly hitting them when and where they were not prepared is the sign of a brilliant commander. Playing 'fair' by giving then opportunities to prepare has no practical use in warfare if it can be avoided.

It is interesting to hear American anger over an event that happened before they were born – Pearl Harbour.
Equally revealing is Nimitz's views (above). I did not expect this of a gentleman of his calibre, which is why I asked the question.

And if some Japanese war criminals got off, some more innocent figures were executed. It did not help to have been a Japanese who commanded in the Philippines where Dugout seems to have taken it personally. (obviously, the atrocities committed there *were* horrendous).

No, Unless he was killing prisoners.

Ochoin,
It is easy to have an opinion when you had uncles who served in the war.
2 brothers killed, one in France and Italy, one uncle who we would consider mentally challenged challenged by todays standards was wounded twice. His brother was wounded in April 1945 and lost an arm and the use of both legs with a severed spine. Another three who were not wounded in the war. One in Philippines and Okinawa, and another was an MP and a brother of the two killed who was in Italy.
So we are entitled an opinion. Especially since we are veterans in my family. Fathers brothers, uncles continued to serve after the war.

Ochoin,

There are certain events in US history that will never be forgotten. One is the Civil War. Another is Pearl Harbor. Then you have 911. Americans have a great ability to forgive and forget but these events will always be remembered by Americans.

TimePortal

Yikes. That's quite the roll call.

Yep, that does not include cousins that I see at the Nelson family reunion. Gamers would go nuts over the photo albums of the war.
I have a large collection of photos from bomber and fighter airfields taken in Britain by my uncle as a MP before he served in the Armored Infantry of the 7th Armored Division. The variation of uniforms always amazed me. As a censor he had photos of B17, Mustangs (Reluctant Rebel), Thunderbolts and even a Dauntless. I let the US MP Museum make copies in 1981. I still have the negatives.
My son have an even larger collection of Veterans from his mothers family. One was a Seebee, a couple of infantrymen and several Korean War veterans. From that group I got a lot of photos from action in the Philippines.

Well, TP I'd guess there are many on this site with a family military roll call. There's keepskakes from India where some ancestors supposedly served in the Indian army in the mid C19th but it's more definitive with my Great Grandfather, a career soldier, who fought in the Boer War. Both grandfathers in WW1 – one in the trenches & one in the RN where he served on a dreadnought during Jutland. Jock had a camera & I now have an album of photos taken during the battle.
Five uncles in the military in WW2 – air gunner in the RAF, Commando, HLI, Ally Sloper's Cavalry & Black Watch. Dad's two brothers were in the merchant navy – both torpedoed, both survived. Dad built naval ships on the Clyde & Mum made bombs Uncle John later dropped on Cologne.
Oh & brother was a signaller in Vietnam.
I could give you a lengthy death toll too – suffice with a great uncle killed by a sniper at Ypres & my aunt killed in the bombing of Glasgow.

I guess we're a military/naval family. I feel that in your definition, I'm entitled to an opinion too. I certainly can't see the point, beyond affectation, of "hating" the Germans or remembering Bannockburn. My Goddness, how I loath those Romans for what they did at Mons Graupius!! Letting go is an option.

link

From a postcard from Uncle Donald:

"They say old Britain's in a war

Right bang up to the eyes,

With fighting men and women

On land and sea and skies.

But there's a bunch of soldiers

That are all forgot about -

For we're the old RASC,

They call us Ally Sloper's Cavalry.

The R just stands for rations,

That all the troops require:

A is for ammunition

That you fire at Jerry men:

S stands for sausage

And sugar for your tea;

And C is for the comforts you never get

In the bleeding RASC.

Now when this war is over

Into Berlin we'll all go;

There'll be Hitler,Goering, Ribbentrop

All there to watch the show.

Hitler unto Ribbentrop

Will say: "What's that mob there?"

Ribbentrop will answer

"I am guilty, oh mein herr:

Ribbentrop will say: "You see

Why, that's the old RASC

In the last world war

They were very good to me."

Then Hitler will say to Goebbels:

"I asked for information -

You never told me they

Had shock troops in the British nation;"

"Why we have taken the count

It's quite plain to see

I'd bargained for the army, navy air force

But forgot their RASC!"

It's not just having family involved. It's the stories of what they went through. My grandfather was in the US Army prior to Pearl Harbor. He was one of the first sent to the Pacific. He spent over a year in New Guinea. He fought in the recapture of Manilla. He told me what it was like. He had immense respect for the Japanese soldiers he fought in terms of hard they fought. He forever hated them for the war crimes they committed. Yamamoto and Erwin Rommel are lionized because they didn't agree with their leadership…while they carried out their orders. In my opinion both would deserve to hang.

Ochoin, Quite the conversation you started.

Was the quote from Adm. Nimitz taken from what he said during the war? If yes, then I would assume that he was trying to call to mind the much sited statement by Yamamoto that he would dictate terms while sitting in the White House. I assume that both statements (if Yamamoto actually made the state attributed to him) were nothing more than war-time bombast. Any such statement would be irrelevant to any post-war prosecution of Yamamoto, if he had not died. Wasn't it Admiral Halsey that said he was going to "kill Japs, kill Japs and kill more Japs"? I assume that it was the same sort of thing.

From the little I have researched the topic of war crimes prosecutions, the political leaders of the allied countries did not consult with and actually ignored attempts by allied military leaders to influence prosecutions. Hirohito, Tojo and Yamamoto were the only Japanese leaders widely known to the American public, as I understand the times. I do not see any scenario where Yamamoto would escape "victors justice."

Even if he intended that the attack take place after a declaration of war was made, the fact is that the attack was on a country that was not at war with Japan. Such a surprise attack was held to be a violation of the 1907 Hague Treaty, of which Japan and the U.S. were signatories. The treaty provided that no country may attack another country, then at peace, without a declaration of war or an ultimatum with a state of war to exist if the terms of the ultimatum were not met, by a stated time.

Eighty years after the fact, it is easy for me to sit in my armchair and believe that some military leaders should not have been prosecuted because they were just obeying orders. I have always had an issue about holding military leaders to a standard where they must forfeit their own lives in order to refuse to obey an order that was morally repugnant. I would like to think that I have the moral courage to live-up to that standard, if ever tested (as a civilian), I just do not know if it is realistic. That said, we have been taught that Yamamoto opposed the war and was certain that the war against the U.S. would be lost. If he had those beliefs, he could have certainly resigned. He decided to "do his duty" to plan and command a series of attacks against countries that were at peace with Japan. The timing relied on everyone (military and political) adhering to a strict schedule. Once he agreed to the schedule, he bore the responsibility of the schedule not being met. Sneak attack equals treaty violation equals war criminal. Add in American public opinion regarding Japan, he would have hung, regardless of him being a good guy. I doubt that anything said by Nimitz would have impacted any decision on prosecution.

I do not know whether the Allies would have had a strong opinion on Yamamoto. He was an American villain and as such, the U.S. would have extracted its "pound of flesh." I am certain that I would have agreed at the time and frankly am not certain that my opinion would be any different 80 years later. For the sake of posterity, it is probably a good thing that his plane was shot down. We can speak in the hypothetical. I do not doubt that had the Japanese been victorious, they would have had no compunction about executing Allied military leaders. I think the difference would have been the Allied attempt at legalizing the killings while the Japanese would have had no such need.

As an aside, wasn't Nimitz uneasy about ordering the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane, or is that just Hollywood? I read or saw somewhere that the decision was kicked up to Adm. King or perhaps to President Roosevelt? I may simply be making that up???

Smithsco, I can identify with what you are saying. I had a cousin who survived the Death March. I have around a 10 page story he wrote. An uncle and cousin who were in the retaking of the Philippines, including Manila.

I had an uncle who served in Italy. Also a cousin who died while serving in the 80th Division, under Patton, while turning back a German counter attack in the Falaise Gap. He was killed at Morville-sur-Seille while manning a 57mm Anti-tank weapon.

My brother in laws dad served on an LST in many of the big Pacific invasions. Even took a few photos from his LST as they went in under fire at IWO. Awesome the fire you see. His dad's brother on the Saratoga. He was on board when the ship was hit by kamikazes, I think at Iwo. But both survived.

I used to talk and correspond with airmen from WW2, some GI's as well. From all theaters. Those who fought the Germans mostly forgave and forgot (except the SS). Some of the aces even had friendships with German pilots. But with the exception of 1 ace, I never had any who fought the Japanese, who had anything but hate for them. The Marines and Army Infantry being the worst.

Re Roll Call –
Mine isn't as numerous as others, but still am quite proud
5 of my great+ great grandfathers served in American Revolution. Two were killed (one was 64 at the time). Another great grandfather served with the Army of the Potomac from 1st Bull Run to Appomatix (Artillery) – I have his discharge papers listing all the battles he was in (something like 20+). My grandfather was wounded in trenches of WWI and my dad (US Airborne) was wounded twice in WW2. Dad's cousin was a POW in the Philapenes (left behind by big Mac), likely survived the death march, 2 years a POW only to have his ship torpedoed by an American Sub as they were being evacuated to another POW camp – lost at sea.

Regarding the war crimes trials – today they might call it "Selective prosecution." What I mean is they ignored what the Soviet Union did to Finland – invaded without a declaration of war. But hey, they were on our side so it didn't count.

Everyone committed war crimes to some degree. My grandfather admitted that after a month on New Guinea his company didn't take prisoners.

He was in a signals battalion that operated radar. His company was taken off that duty and sent to the Kokoda track to help repair communications including phone lines. They were sent to patrol and look for infiltrators and repair any damage done to comms. A few men disappeared in a fire fight and were presumed captured. They found them on the next patrol. They were dead and had endured extreme torture including genital mutilation. They didn't take prisoners after that. Just kept shooting until nothing and nobody was moving.

If we are doing a roll call of our military ancestors (why? Is it relevant?), my Grandfather was captured on Java in early 1942 and died in captivity in 1944.

It still doesn't mean I can think of anything you might charge Admiral Yamamoto with.

RJ, you bring a lot of pertinent material to the issue.

Nimitz said that during the war. You make a good point that the stresses & strains of conducting war undoubtedly influenced him & that the gentleman that he was might regret such sentiments later.

Yamamoto is, of course, the "good Japanese" in popular opinion. Like Rommel, the "good German". I'm not so sure that such opinions are truly justified. Like Smithsco wrote above – they just benefit from being less criminal than their peers.

The long family histories are irrelevant. I write about my grandfather because he lived it. The fighting in New Guinea was incredibly brutal. The fighting in Manilla the same. Lots of war crimes. His stories still influence me and my perspective. That I had an ancestor who fought in the Pequot War is irrelevant (other than the fact that probably makes him an automatic war criminal…)

I doubt Yamamoto would have been executed as there isn't a specific war crime that I am aware of, including planning Pearl Harbor. The US had no compunction about hanging war criminals, but they did need clear crimes to spell out. Some wanted to try the Emperor but cooler heads prevailed.

He may not have committed war crimes while he was alive but this hypothetical requires him to survive to the end of the war. If we assume the same conduct then maybe not. But it would have been increasingly difficult to keep his hands clean.

Many evenings when I watch the PBS news program from Japan (NHK Newsline) I see stories about survivors (CIVILIANS, and an ever- dwindling number) and relatives of survivors from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They have just as many horrifying family stories to tell and the jury is still out on if those bombings were war crimes or not. But these people seem surprisingly free of a vendetta mentality. At what point do we need to not let history be our tyrant? And be compelled to live with past grievances and tragedies to the disruption of our own lives in the here and now?

Isn't our perspective also shaped by where we were born and who won the war?

Didn't General Curtis LeMay, the American bomber-in-chief, say candidly afterward that if the Allies had lost the war, he would have been prosecuted as a war criminal?

Everybody committed war crimes but not all war crimes are equal. Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison to Japanese actions in China and the Holocaust. I'm sorry I don't want to let bygones be bygones with the Axis powers. It doesn't feel right. Am I angry? No. Have I forgotten what they did? No.

piper909
+1

I quite agree with the "good German/good Japanese" point you make. In the next war, not too far off I fear, I hope the Japanese will be on our side but, I still won't buy a Japanese car, no matter how good they are.

Oh man, you're missing out, Shag! Japanese cars are typically well built -- American manufacturers could stand to imitate them, "best practices" and all. Good value for money.

War is just an ugly thing and breeds ugliness. It seems every noble action parallels an ignoble one. Some causes are more "just" than others, obviously, but many anonymous lives are scooped up in these vast conflicts and most of the individual stories are lost.

A little vignette in Lord of the Rings always stands out for me -- Tolkien put his finger on something melancholy and quietly profound. It's the scene after Faramir's ambush of the Haradrim and a dead Southron falls near to Sam and Sam recoils from the sight and wonders what the man's name was, and if he was truly evil, or how he came to be marshaled in this army and whether or not he would have preferred to remain at home in peace. (In the movie version, I think it's Faramir who voices these thoughts.)