Criminal
04-18-2004, 08:19 AM
http://www.ukar.org/mclell18.html
The Japanese had motives for cannibalism beyond the prevention of starvation
It is undeniable that one of the principal reasons for the widespread occurrence of cannibalism in the Japanese-occupied areas was starvation caused by the lack of a food supply. Most incidents of cannibalism referred to in the War Crimes Section report occurred from mid-1944 to mid-1945, indicating that cannibalism was a desperate measure by Japanese soldiers whose supplies had been cut off. Yet many incidents cannot be explained in this way — for example, the incidence of cannibalism in the Kokoda campaign in the latter half of 1942. The first victims of such incidents were Australian soldiers, but incidents in which the bodies of Japanese soldiers were mutilated in a cannibalistic fashion appear as early as February 1943. How is it possible that such extreme behavior manifested itself at such an early stage, especially when the supply of rations to the Japanese soldiers was adequate, if not plentiful? Many Australian veterans of this campaign reported finding portions of rice and dried fish among the personal belongings of Japanese soldiers who were captured or killed in the same region that the acts of cannibalism occurred. These are clearly not cases of cannibalism brought on by starvation. Another explanation for such incidents must be found.
It is possible that the particular character of jungle warfare — in which the enemy is frequently invisible but at close range — created a degree of stress that rapidly became intolerable, and that such stress hastened the development of a sort of group madness in which acts of cannibalism and savagery took on a ritual dimension. It could be argued that gratuitous cannibalism took on different ritual meanings, depending on whether it was exogenous or endogenous. In cases of exogenous cannibalism (in which Japanese soldiers consumed Australian soldiers), the act of eating a slain enemy had a heroic aspect to it, the spoils of victory. In fact, one Japanese soldier who was tried after the war for cannibalism of an Australian soldier testified that he ate the human flesh because he hated Australian enemies. Endogenous cannibalism (in which Japanese soldiers consumed their fallen comrades) probably served to reaffirm group solidarity, to create a bond between the living and the dead within the group. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 128)
Japanese cannibalism has gone unpunished
There was no prosecution whatever for Japanese cannibalism in the high-profile A Class war crimes trials, and almost no prosecution in the B and C Class trials, and what little there was in the latter categories failed. Thus, one may conclude that Japanese cannibalism has gone unpunished, and for this reason might be a suitable field of investigation for Canada's war crimes unit.
It is clear from this cable that [Judge William F.] Webb was of the opinion that all those accused of war crimes in the B and C class involving murder, grievous bodily harm, cannibalism, or torture should be taken to trial and that there should be no compromise. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Webb had actually brought the issue of cannibalism to the attention of the A Class tribunal, of which he was president. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 111)
Australia was the only member of the Allied nations to recognize cannibalism and mutilation of the dead as specific war crimes, and this was probably because of the detailed investigations and reports gathered by Webb in the three reports on Japanese war crimes trials over which he had presided in the years 1944 to 1946. Nevertheless, it appears that Webb had no intention of revealing his knowledge of such crimes while participating in the A Class tribunals. ... Australia brought the most representative cases of murder, grievous bodily harm, and torture to the A Class tribunal but not those of cannibalism. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 112)
Yet despite the fact that Australian military officials collected a vast body of evidence to link the actions of Japanese Imperial Headquarters to the occurrence of cannibalism, and despite the fact that Judge Webb and others involved in the War Crimes Tribunal were aware of such evidence, no attempt was made to lay charges for these crimes in the A Class war crimes trials. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 130)
The Japanese had motives for cannibalism beyond the prevention of starvation
It is undeniable that one of the principal reasons for the widespread occurrence of cannibalism in the Japanese-occupied areas was starvation caused by the lack of a food supply. Most incidents of cannibalism referred to in the War Crimes Section report occurred from mid-1944 to mid-1945, indicating that cannibalism was a desperate measure by Japanese soldiers whose supplies had been cut off. Yet many incidents cannot be explained in this way — for example, the incidence of cannibalism in the Kokoda campaign in the latter half of 1942. The first victims of such incidents were Australian soldiers, but incidents in which the bodies of Japanese soldiers were mutilated in a cannibalistic fashion appear as early as February 1943. How is it possible that such extreme behavior manifested itself at such an early stage, especially when the supply of rations to the Japanese soldiers was adequate, if not plentiful? Many Australian veterans of this campaign reported finding portions of rice and dried fish among the personal belongings of Japanese soldiers who were captured or killed in the same region that the acts of cannibalism occurred. These are clearly not cases of cannibalism brought on by starvation. Another explanation for such incidents must be found.
It is possible that the particular character of jungle warfare — in which the enemy is frequently invisible but at close range — created a degree of stress that rapidly became intolerable, and that such stress hastened the development of a sort of group madness in which acts of cannibalism and savagery took on a ritual dimension. It could be argued that gratuitous cannibalism took on different ritual meanings, depending on whether it was exogenous or endogenous. In cases of exogenous cannibalism (in which Japanese soldiers consumed Australian soldiers), the act of eating a slain enemy had a heroic aspect to it, the spoils of victory. In fact, one Japanese soldier who was tried after the war for cannibalism of an Australian soldier testified that he ate the human flesh because he hated Australian enemies. Endogenous cannibalism (in which Japanese soldiers consumed their fallen comrades) probably served to reaffirm group solidarity, to create a bond between the living and the dead within the group. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 128)
Japanese cannibalism has gone unpunished
There was no prosecution whatever for Japanese cannibalism in the high-profile A Class war crimes trials, and almost no prosecution in the B and C Class trials, and what little there was in the latter categories failed. Thus, one may conclude that Japanese cannibalism has gone unpunished, and for this reason might be a suitable field of investigation for Canada's war crimes unit.
It is clear from this cable that [Judge William F.] Webb was of the opinion that all those accused of war crimes in the B and C class involving murder, grievous bodily harm, cannibalism, or torture should be taken to trial and that there should be no compromise. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Webb had actually brought the issue of cannibalism to the attention of the A Class tribunal, of which he was president. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 111)
Australia was the only member of the Allied nations to recognize cannibalism and mutilation of the dead as specific war crimes, and this was probably because of the detailed investigations and reports gathered by Webb in the three reports on Japanese war crimes trials over which he had presided in the years 1944 to 1946. Nevertheless, it appears that Webb had no intention of revealing his knowledge of such crimes while participating in the A Class tribunals. ... Australia brought the most representative cases of murder, grievous bodily harm, and torture to the A Class tribunal but not those of cannibalism. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 112)
Yet despite the fact that Australian military officials collected a vast body of evidence to link the actions of Japanese Imperial Headquarters to the occurrence of cannibalism, and despite the fact that Judge Webb and others involved in the War Crimes Tribunal were aware of such evidence, no attempt was made to lay charges for these crimes in the A Class war crimes trials. (Tanaka, 1996, p. 130)