# Talk:Iwane Matsui

After reading countless articles by history professors, newspapers and eye witnesses I understand to a great extent what occurred during the invasion of Nanjing, the atrocities  that were committed and a shallow understanding of who was involved. However i seem to have run into a problem; the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentenced General Mastui Iwane to death for war crimes on the basis that he deliberately and recklessly disregarded his duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities, this is clear but there is no evidence that anyone has clearly stated except for the fact that he was the commanding officer therefore he is responsible. There seems to be very few statements that he made regarding his orders given to the troops. How was he sentenced without any hard evidence such as letters, eye witness accounts or written orders to troops, commanders, etc. It's understood that the troops committed a very large number of atrocities however Matsui himself only committed that of not doing anything. For me this doesn't seem to account for a death sentence. Can anyone please give me references regarding any specific accounts, orders or evidence relating to General Matsui's involvement and any material regarding the War Crimes trial he underwent it would be greatly appreciated. thankyou—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.153.38.95 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 April 2005.

The Wikipedia convention is to list modern Japanese people with Western name order (personal name then family name), unless they are on record as preferring the other order. Matsui is a family name. I will move the page later if no one objects. --Carl 10:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Flipped it. --Carl 15:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first edition of The Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang, followed the IMTFE's lead in blaming Matsui for the massacre, as Matsui planned the invasion of Nanking and was Asaka's commanding officer during the Rape. James Yin and Shi Young's book of the same title, however, blames Asaka for the massacre, and portrays Matsui as a helpless figurehead stuck between a prince and an emperor. The truth is a matter of continued debate.
The article needs info on later editions. I read a non-first edition of The rape of nanking and Chang's argument seemed to me to be that Matsui took the fall for Asaka because Matsui was loyal-unto-death to the royal family. She says the worst of the violence and atrocities ceased once matsui arrived on the scene; she seemed to stop short of suggesting that if Matsui hadn't been holed up with tuberculosis miles away when the city fell, that there might not have been a massacre, but IMO only just short. Nateji77 08:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest expanding this section, or deleting it entirely. Chang's book has come under significant criticism, and I would suggest that this section should have other viewpoints, or else removed entirely. Furthermore, Chang was not trained as a historian, rather, a journalist. This makes any claims by her doubtful, but not necessarily incorrect, which is the reason for this post.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.62.147 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 

Iwane Matsui was a Class-A war criminal executed by hanging. Apparently, user CurtisNaito does not agree. Please tell why I am wrong. STSC (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from the body of the article itself, Matsui was declared not guilty of Class A war crimes. The sources for this are already appropriately cited in the article, but it should be obvious that he was not guilty of Class A war crimes simply on the basis of the fact that he was convicted only under Count 55, which dealt with negligence in preventing breaches of the conventional laws of war. Class A war crimes refer to involvement in a conspiracy to commit "crimes against peace", and obviously failing to prevent breaches of the conventional laws of war is not a conspiracy to commit "crimes against peace". Although the IMTFE did not formally distribute its counts into the categories of "Class A" and "Class B/C", the sources cited in the article did note the fact that Count 55 clearly falls under the broad category of "Class B/C" war crimes. Whether or not Matsui was a Class A war criminal probably depends on who you ask, but if you are asking the IMTFE which tried him, then the answer is "no", he was not a Class A war criminal.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on RS; we just follow what the RS tell us because lots of RS widely classify Matsui as Class-A war criminal. STSC (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The sources currently cited in the article are reliable and they say that Matsui was not convicted of Class-A war crimes. The fact is that Matsui was convicted only under Count 55, which had nothing to do with Class-A war crimes. If you can find a source which can explain how exactly Count 55 had anything to do with Class-A war crimes, then I suppose we can add that as an alternative point of view.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
There are no links to the sources in the reference, you'll have to show us some texts of those sources that back up your argument. STSC (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is just one example of RS pointing Matsui as 'Class A' war criminal:[1]. STSC (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, for starters here's a few that I happen to have with me right now. "歴代陸軍大将全覧"(page 146) says "He was charged with Class A war crimes, but among the fifty-five legal counts he was declared guilty only of Count 55 which involved conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity." Class B/C war crimes are "conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity", Class A war crimes are "crimes against peace" or "conspiracy to commit aggressive war". "「大東亜戦争」はなぜ起きたのか "(page 510) says, "Matsui was charged by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East on counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 54, and 55, but evidence pertaining to conspiracy and the execution of aggressive war against China was rejected and Matsui would be convicted and sentenced to hang only on Count 55, failure to uphold the laws of war concerning POWs and civilians". "The Politics of Nanjing" also notes that Count 55 was a Class B/C charge. There is a difference in quality between these three sources, all written by specialist historians working at major universities, and your source which is just an article in the Daily Telegraph. Your article doesn't explain how exactly Count 55 had anything to do with Class A war crimes. Apart from all the historians who say that Count 55 had nothing to do with Class A war crimes, it's also just a simple matter of reading Count 55. Where in Count 55 does it say anything about conspiracy to wage aggressive war?CurtisNaito (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
He is commonly known as 'Class-A war criminal' according to the majority of RS but I would compromise not to use the 'Class-A' label in my edit. STSC (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to a recent change, the article now says that, "Iwane Matsui became one of twenty-nine individuals formally indicted before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East". I have a copy of the source cited for this sentence, and it clearly states that 28 individuals were indicted, not 29, so why is this change being made? There are other sources to confirm this. For example, Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking says, "The IMTFE commanded enormous media and legal attention, even though only twenty-eight Japanese military and political officials were prosecuted."Tessa Bennet (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the number is 28. And you should note that the same person is making this change in other places.[2]-AsianFire- (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There are citations that are pretty obviously by Nanjing Massacre denialists trying to paint Matsui as a more ambivalent figure, especially 47 and 48.

Sekai Shuppan is run by Moteki Hiromichi who is also the secretary general of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, a group dedicated to publishing low quality revisionist histories about Japan with the goal of denying or downplaying warcrimes. 'Toshiyuki Hayase, 将軍の真実: 松井石根人物伝 (Tokyo: Kōjinsha, 1999), 134–137.' is a '潮書房光人新社' publication (a subsidiary of Sankei Shimbun which publishes the same kind of warcrime denial content) rather than a Kojinsha publication as cited on the page. This is cited much more frequently. Almost the entire section which paints Matsui favorably are built off of these sources. A rewrite is in order. Relm (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hayase’s book is a major scholarly biography, so it is a reliable source. It’s published by Kojinsha, which is owned by Sankei Shimbun, but they publish a lot of different things. Based on the tone of your comment, I feel that your criticism is based on assumptions about what the book says, rather than what the book actually says. Hayase’s book doesn’t deny or downplay the Nanjing Massacre in any way. He merely argues that Matsui wasn’t directly involved. According to this Wikipedia article, Matsui was convicted based on command responsibility, which means that even the IMTFE never said that he was directly involved. He merely failed to stop the atrocity, which is also exactly what Hayase says in his book. If you know of a fact in the article that is incorrect, you can remove it, but only if you can present a more reliable source that says the opposite. Unless you can cite a more reliable source contradicting something in the article, then there’s no need to rewrite it. Hko2333 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)