The Nanjing Massacre (南京大屠殺)(四)

In 1999 Timothy Brook edited the book Documents on the Rape of Nanking. In the preface Brook pointed out that the stimulus for the Nanjing Massacre to come under attention was Japan's attempt to play down the atrocity of the Massacre in Japanese textbooks. Brook's book is a collection of major English primary source documents on the Rape of Nanjing. It has two parts. Part one is based on two sources: reproducing the details in the book Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone published in 1939, and reprinting the personal letters written by Dr. Robert Wilson. Part two consists of some judgements handed down by the International Military Tribunal of the Far East (IMTFE). Brook pointed out that one of the judges of the IMTFE, Radhabinod Pal, had held a dissenting view on some of the Tribunal's judgements.


Pal's major disagreement was on count number 55 of the charges against the Japanese war criminals and his argument was about the Charter that was used to press charge. Pal noted the Charter had merely stipulated that 'violations of the laws or custom of wars' was a crime, and therefore such a statement should not be understood to mean that it was also a crime if the defendants had failed to discharge 'legal duty to take adequate steps to secure the observance of and to prevent the breaches of the laws of war'. To charge the defendants for 'deliberate and reckless disregard of legal duty' was a matter outside the purview of the Tribunal.


Pal felt that there was insufficient evident to prove the sixteen Japanese defendants, including Araki, Hirota and Minami had ever ordered, authorized or permitted the crime that had taken place in Nanjing. And in his opinion these defendants, in the capacity of government officials, had no direct duty or power to control the troops in the field. (to be continued)


Reference
1. Timothy Brook ed., Documents on the Rape of Nanking (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999)