Talk:International Military Tribunal for the Far East

message: Moved from article to talk page as recommended on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion by Philip Baird Shearer. Original history entry for adding the templage to the article page "01:46, 26 August 2005 Miborovsky (added table of charges leveled against defendants)"
Comment on Wikipedia:Requests for expansion reads:
:Japanese war crimes in the Pacific. Even with my limited knowledge, I know this article only scratches the surface. JW 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The number was added  here perhapse you would like to ask user:Preaky on his/her talk page for the source of 300K. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Can it really be said (at the beginning) that the tribunal was convened to try the leaders of Japan, if the imperial family was immune from prosecution?  Although it is mentioned later in the article, it seems like this would be a good place to point out that it was only leaders who were not in the imperial family.  MaskedEditor 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i belive that this was alike to the idea of lowering charges if a criminal confesses as the emperor was crucial to the surender process of the japs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about wording...

message: Since the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed aggressive war and Japan was a signatory to it, did that figure into the tribunal's legal justification?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kellogg-Briand Pact 

message: I added the "weasel words" citation here since this paragraph is full of weasel words.... and is unsourced... Ought I remove it?
"Okawa Shumei had a nervous breakdown during the trial and was removed. One of the erratic things he did was, hitting the bald head of the former prime minister Hideki Tojo, shouting "Inder! Kommen Sie!" (Come, Indian!) in German, and the list goes on. Therefore, the presiding judge Sir William Webb (The President of the tribunal) concluded that he was mentally ill and dropped the case against him[citation needed]. From the beginning of the tribunal, he said that the court was a farce, therefore, some people still believe that he was faking his madness in order to be released."
 
Actually, I'd like consensus to either delete this information since it is unsourced, interferes with the flow of the article and is only about one defendant. Failing that... another section might be needed V. Joe (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences

message: I'm not sure about this, but I saw something. There are eleven judges made up of the Allies. Yet in a part which lists the number of Death sentences handed out by each judge, it does not Mention Canada, India, Australia or New Zealand, but instead only mentions The Netherlands, The Philipens (sp?), The U.S., China, Britain, France and the Soviet Union.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective Information

message: The article writes:"The Japanese Emperor Hirohito, and all members of the imperial family such as Prince Asaka, were not prosecuted for any alleged involvement in any of the three categories of crimes. As many as 50 suspects, such as Nobusuke Kishi, who later became Prime Minister, and Yoshisuke Aikawa, head of the zaibatsu Nissan, and future leader of the Chuseiren, were charged but released without ever being brought to trial in 1947 and 1948."
This tribunal was only to punish powerless common persons.Hirohito ruled Japan as Hitler ruled Nazi Germany.But, during Cold war USA needed a peacefull Japan, not real justice for nobles of Japan.Real politick, instead of real justice."The past is decided in the future", someone wrote decades ago.Agre22 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Only for non rich or nobles

message: There is a question. There are Count 54 and Count 55. Which means Class B or Class C? Is there clear definition?--Bukubku (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count 54 and Count 55 

message: This section which I removed on 19 November was by editor "119.104.51 which was not vandalism or anything, but under WP:Bold, I removed as an egerious POV. The section also did not seem to mention any sources. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed POV/undocumented section

message: Under the "Defendants" section, I suggest we break the article into subsections of "Civilian officials" and "Military officers."  During the long time span the trials covered, several military officers held government positions concurrent to important military positions, so the overlap can confuse readers.  The decision to put such people in one subsection, but not the other, is arbitrary.76.89.141.150 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defendants 

message: "with initial encouragement from the Americans, began and soon ended a series of their own war crimes trials in the months before the IMTFE took shape" see : http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/tokyo-trial (from Pritchard) . Some more info on this ?Trente7cinq (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese own criminal trials ? 

message: I just found this , which could somehow take place in the article, couldn't it ?:"In September 1999, some 500 American WWII veterans filed suit against five Japanese corporations (including Mitsubishi and Kawasaki), seeking reparation for having been used as slave laborers during the war. According to the plaintiffs, these corporations built their postwar success on a foundation of American forced labor. The companies say they have been wrongly targeted, because the modern conglomerates have no relation to the wartime entities accused of these practices, prohibited now as then under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Holmes (4,000 Bowls of Rice), a respected historian and researcher who is part of a presidential panel working to declassify the records of Nazi war crimes, weighs in heavily on the side of the former American POWs. Using recently declassified documents, Holmes bolsters the vets' claims. (One formerly top secret Japanese cable read, "Due to a serious shortage of labor power in Japan, the use of the white POW is earnestly desired.") But the most emotionally charged evidence comes from the former POWs themselves. In interview after interview, Holmes chronicles the abuse of American captives, whose lingering medical and emotional problems are compounded by the belief that their suffering has been minimized by a postwar culture more moved by the plight of other groups of war victims. (Feb. 19) Forecast: A front-page New York Times article on October 2, 2000, broke news of the case on a national level. This book provides a foundation for further media coverage, and should be widely cited. Meanwhile, buffs and vets will find out about the book via newsgroups and the like."Trente7cinq (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath : american forced labor disclosed  

message: Ando Kizaburô (1879-1954), was a Lieutenant General of the Imperial Army and a Vice-President of Taisei Yokusankai. Between 1943-1944 he was elected to the Cabinet of Tôjo Hideki, becoming the Minister of Internal Affairs. After the war he was sentenced as Class-A War Criminal. Due to the outbreak of the Cold War he was later released. http://www.simplyhaiku.com/SHv5n4/features/Ito.html Can't find more info on him Trente7cinq (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ando Kizaburô ??? 

message: Could some one familiar with this literature find out which of the executed defendants were accused of "water torture" or "water boarding"?
As you know, the U.S. has been engaged in a discussion of whether or not water boarding consists of torture. Beginning with a claim by John McCain in 2007, it has been repeated that the U.S. after WW2 executed Japanese military personnel for using water boarding against American POW's.
It appears that in the major online sources, no specific defendants are named, nor are any accounts of Americans being water-boarded specified.
These specifics would be very helpful in establishing or denying clear legal precedent in this issue, and the research should be fairly easy for some one already familiar with the literature in this area.
Thank you for considering my request.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.215.41 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not what the TALK PAGES are for.  Please don't make posts of this nature (off-topic, requests) here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

text: None of the executed defendants were accused of water-torture/waterboarding. McCain spoke in error in 2007. There was one case of a Japanese (Non-commissioned) officer being charged with major abuses of US POWs, such as beating and starving, and in addition to that he was charged with less severe abuses such as water-torture. He was jailed for a few years and then released in the 1950s. Walterego (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "War Crimes" and Waterboarding -- Research needed to clarify precedents pertinent to current torture debate. 

message: First, it says that 28 were trialed, with some as Class A and some not Class A.
Later, in "Aftermath" section, it says that there were three groups of Class A criminals, while the first group includes 28. 
Are those 28 all Class A, or not?
--Mongol (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It says they tried 70 in class A but only 28 (the first group) were charged. HotshotCleaner (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems that the "Class A" war criminal counts are not consistent within this article 

message: An image used in this article, File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TanakaMemorial1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" is not the common parlance.  If we are to follow policy, something along the lines of "Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal" or "Tokyo Trials" should be used, although I would personally prefer the former.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a point. However, "Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal" sounds like the proper name of the tribunal, which it is not, and "Tokyo Trials" is too vague. "Tokyo war crimes trials" is closer, perhaps. The title should convey the idea that the article is about the war crimes trials that took place in Tokyo, and the capitalization should not suggest that the article name corresponds to the formal name of the trials. Some thought needs to go into this if we're going to make the trouble to change it.  --Yaush (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:COMMON NAME - the current article title is hardly what the Tokyo Trials are known as 

message: "The number of death sentences by country is as follows: the Netherlands 236, Great Britain 223, Australia 153, China 149, US 140, France 26, and Philippines 17". This is meaningless as it stands and needs elaboration. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomprehensible statement

message: In the "Criticism" sction, on Justice Delfin Jaranilla's Bataan Death March - 121.92.80.6 (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  archived link on Delfin Jaranilla

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430071628/http://www.osg.gov.ph/index.php/-assistant-sollicitors-general/fsolgens/112-delfin-j-jaranilla to http://www.osg.gov.ph/index.php/-assistant-sollicitors-general/fsolgens/112-delfin-j-jaranilla
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: General Yamashita was not tried in Tokyo, as this article seems to suggest, but in Manila in an entirely different tribunal (see Tomoyuki Yamashita). Indeed, according to the dates in the two articles, Yamashita had already been executed on February 23, 1946, and the Tokyo tribunal did not convene until April 29, 1946. --128.186.121.60 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Yamashita was not tried in the Tokyo tribunal, but earlier in Manila (he had already been executed by the time that the Tokyo tribunal convened) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522225940/http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/11/13/korean-war-criminals-cleared/ to http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/11/13/korean-war-criminals-cleared/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521130112/http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/27-4/ZHANG.WEBSITE.pdf to http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/27-4/ZHANG.WEBSITE.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 154.184.148.174 (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  International court of justice