Quartermasters can also fight the devils

Hirota Koki's trial and conviction by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East showed that command responsibility included not only military commanders but also senior government officials.

The judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, in interpreting the issue of prisoners of war and holding government officials personally responsible, indicated that when fulfilling its obligations to prisoners of war, the government must implement them through individuals. In fact, in this sense, the responsible government refers to those who direct and control the operation of the government.

In this case, as in the foregoing, we are concerned with members of the Japanese Cabinet. The duty towards prisoners of war is not a meaningless responsibility based on a political abstraction. In cases of government obligations towards prisoners of war during wartime, those who constitute the government have the primary and continuing responsibility for their prisoners of war, even if they delegate the duty of maintenance and protection to others.

In general, the responsibility for prisoners of war in the Japanese government can be said to be borne by members of the government, military or naval officers who control the units holding prisoners of war, officials in those departments concerned with the welfare of prisoners of war, and civil, military, or naval officials who have direct control over prisoners of war.

Officials charged with these responsibilities have the obligation to seek the proper treatment of prisoners of war and to prevent their ill-treatment by establishing and pursuing a systematic, ongoing and effective programme appropriate to these purposes. They have failed in their duties and may be held accountable for ill-treatment of prisoners of war if they are found to have done so:

The first is that they have not established such a system, and the second is that if such a system has been established, they have not sought its continued and effective operation.

Each of these individuals has an obligation to ensure that the system works, and if these individuals neglect their obligations, they must bear the responsibility.

The officials charged with these responsibilities fail in their duty by merely establishing an adequate system without subsequently learning how to apply it. A military commander or a Secretary of War, for example, must be just as conscientious in securing obedience to his orders in this respect as he is in other orders issued on matters of the first importance.

From the above cases, we can see that the Tokyo Trial made a pioneering contribution to establishing the principle of "official status is not removable" in international law.

Based on the "Judgment" read out at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the actions and development of Japanese militarists can be clearly sorted out.

The first is "deification". In order to create momentum and courage for Japan's extreme militarism and to find a theoretical basis for the Japanese government to expand its territory, around 1920, Japan's "theorists" represented by Class A war criminal Okawa Shumei vigorously advocated the principles of "Eight Konkō One Universe" and "Imperial Way". The so-called "Eight Konkō One Universe" actually came from an ancient Chinese book, but was misinterpreted by Japan's extreme militarists as "putting the whole world under the rule of the emperor alone."

The second is "causing trouble". Around 1930, the Japanese militarist radicals were mainly middle and lower-level officers. These middle and lower-level officers conspired to create incidents, and then used the fait accompli to force the top brass of the Japanese military and the Japanese government to submit.

The "Huanggutun Incident" in April 1928, in which Marshal Zhang, the controller of Northeast China, was murdered, was fabricated by some militarist radicals in the Japanese Kwantung Army. At that time, the Tanaka Cabinet of the Japanese government wanted to punish the Japanese army officers who committed the murder, but it was strongly opposed by the Japanese Army Ministry and no corresponding punishment was made. From then on, the arrogance of Japanese militarists was greatly strengthened. From the "Wanbaoshan Incident" and "Nakamura Incident" created in China in 1931 to the "September 18th Incident", the "provocation" behavior of Japanese militarist radicals continued to escalate.

The third is "forcing the emperor to abdicate." In order to clear obstacles, the Japanese militarist radicals and the Army Department adopted the policy of "those who obey me will prosper, and those who oppose me will perish" towards the cabinet based on party elections.

On January 17, 1932, Japan's Class A war criminal, Hashimoto Kingoro, wrote an article advocating that "in order to build a brand new Japan, we believe that the first urgent thing to do is to make the existing political parties scapegoats and destroy them."

During the 17 years from 1928 to 1945, the Japanese government's cabinet changed as many as 17 times. Among these 17 cabinets, there were only seven prime ministers from political parties.

Among these seven Japanese cabinet prime ministers who came from political parties, Tanaka Giichi and Wakatsuki Sajiro were eventually forced to resign, while Hamaguchi Yukio and Inukai Tsuyoshi were assassinated by young radical officers in the Japanese army.

Among the nine prime ministers of the Japanese government from 1937 to 1945, six were of military origin. In October 1941, when Hideki Tojo, the head of the Class A war criminal of the Japanese government, served as the Prime Minister of the Japanese government, as the Prime Minister of the Japanese Cabinet, Tojo Hideki actually held important positions such as Minister of Army, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Education, Minister of Commerce and Industry, and Minister of Munitions. It can be said that he concentrated all power in one person.

The fourth is "fooling the people". In order to deceive and hijack public opinion, Japanese militarists implemented a crazy policy of fooling the Japanese people, especially the young people.

In June 1933, Japanese Army Minister Sadao Araki delivered a speech in which he declared that "Japan is destined to expand forever" and "the whole world, under the leadership of the League of Nations, is hindering Japan from fulfilling its sacred mission and that it is necessary to prepare for a national mobilization." In addition, military training was forced into all Japanese schools.

After the Japanese Kwantung Army successfully launched the "September 18th Incident" in Northeast China, in order to further encourage the militant spirit of young people in Japan, Japanese schools were completely under the control of military instructors sent by the Japanese Army Department, and all schools focused on military education.

Japanese militarism also spared no effort in controlling public opinion. On May 20, 1936, the Japanese Army Ministry established an Intelligence Bureau. The mission of this Intelligence Bureau was to guide and control all types of communications to the Japanese public and to use all organs of speech to promote the smooth passage of policies by the Japanese government cabinet.

The fifth is "military expansion". The "Judgment" of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East listed the industrial development plans and implementations of successive Japanese governments that were closely related to the military.

Since Japan is an island country with scarce resources, the Japanese militarists spared no effort to plunder the resources of China and other Asia-Pacific countries. The Japanese government militarists made it clear that Japan's goal was to launch a war against the Soviet Union, the United States and England.