In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A Note on Sources The validity of any history depends ultimately on the accuracy of its sources. Suspect sources produce suspect history. Although many of the sources I use are standard works in the field, some of them either are the subjects of controversy or present unique historiographic problems. I intend to discuss my use of problematic sources, such as the Tokyo War Crimes Trial transcripts and the International Prosecution Section (IPS) Exhibits from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) and first-person narratives (diaries, retrospectives, memoirs, group biographies, interviews, and oral histories). However valuable a trove of historical detail, these require careful, knowledgeable, and sometimes circumscribed use to provide sound information. Questions about Using the IMTFE Transcripts and IPS Exhibits There are fierce arguments among both jurists and Far East historians about the fairness of using the Tokyo Trial transcripts in any fashion. Critics argue over the Tokyo Trials' legitimacy, for example, in regard to the debate about command responsibility (along with making field commanders responsible for actions taken by their subordinates ). They also deplore the lack of Fifth Amendment protection for the accused — specifically, the right of the defendant, among other things, to face his accusers, particularly with the use of affidavits. This is perhaps the most troubling criticism in terms of this particular study because it addresses directly the questions about the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence. The defense section repeatedly charged that "the admission [into] evidence of depositions, statements (some unsigned), documents and hearsay (occasionally three times removed) violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and divested the trial of any semblance of fairness" (Piccigallo, 57). Indeed , in the earlier Manila Trials, Piccigallo notes that some correspondents in the courtroom were "shocked" by the "loose interpretation of the evidence" (57), especially in the case of third-hand depositions. The lack of a witness physically present to cross-examine, according to the defense, made any rebuttal impossible. Attacking specific allegations was equally unworkable because, with no direct response, the witness's nervousness, shifting eyes, or squirming body language was not available to cast doubt on his accuracy. My purpose in using the trial transcripts differs in some important ways from the overall purpose of the Tokyo Trials themselves. I do not intend to establish State responsibility for prisoner treatment in the internment camps so much as to investigate the nature of command structure in the Imperial Army and how it functioned (or did not do so). I also intend to determine what the "official" record says (flawed or otherwise ) so that I can, in turn, measure that sources answers against those of other interested parties concerning primarily civilian internee (but also on occasion POW) conditions . Finally, I want to use the transcripts to discuss a number of Imperial bureaus (for example, the Prisoners-of-War Information Bureau) set up to deal explicitly with 321 322 A Note on Sources prisoners, both military and civilian; to record any inspections of the camps by the Japanese, the International Red Cross, or foreign neutrals; and finally, to allow the Japanese themselves to present their own arguments concerning the state ofhealth and the lack of food in the internment camps. To avoid the more obvious pitfalls inherent in the deposition process, for example, I have done the following: restricted myself as much as possible to actual testimony, not depositions; used only firsthand, not hearsay, information; and made sure I used both defense and prosecution testimony. If I could not satisfy any one of these, I made sure that I used more than just the transcriptsas a source. When I used testimony from another trial (in one case, for example, I used indirect testimony from Yamashitas Manila trial), I also restricted myself to that information as it was read verbatim from the original transcript. Finally, given the controversial nature of the Tokyo Trials themselves , I have resisted using any testimony from the trials as the sole basis for information . I have tried repeatedly to find corroboration from other sources as well. However, even ifIwere to use onlyJapanese testimony, and only eye-witness evidence presented in person, there isa question about the accuracy of official translations. Reassurance on this point seems to lie in the structure of the International Prosecution Section itself. Out of five divisionsin the section, two (the Document Division and the Language Division) dealt directlywith evidence needing translationeither into English or into Japanese. No document—for either the prosecution or the defense — could be...

Share