|
Homma
May 18, 2012 14:06:19 GMT 8
Post by EXO on May 18, 2012 14:06:19 GMT 8
The splitting of the forces in the Philippines into four commands (USFIP), with each command reporting to MacArthur, was intended to prolong resistance. MacArthur intended to compel the Japanese to defeat the forces seriatim.
The surrender of all four would be impossible to negotiate because he, as overall commander of each, would be in Australia.
Marshall assumed that Wainwright, as senior officer in the Philippines, was now in command. He began sending Wainwright messages addressed to "Commanding General, USAFFE." Wainwright did not clarify the position.
When Mashall got the details of MacArthur's plans for the creation of USFIP (the four commands) he was "Not impressed." He failed to see the implications that Wainwright would thus be placed into a position where his own surrender would have implications on the other commands.
When Wainwright began reporting directly to Washington, and not through American HQ in Melbourne, MacArthur protested strongly to Washington. Ultimately, this caused friction and Marshall actually chided MacArthur.
MacArthur even went to the extent of ordering Sharp that "orders emanating from General Wainwright have no validity. If possible, separate your force into small elements and initiate guerilla operations."
MacArthur remained convinced that his 'four separate forces' would have averted the wholesale surrender throughout the Philippines.
(info based primarily upon The Years of MacArthur, 1941-1945 by D. Clayton James.)
There are plenty of other reasons to criticise MacArthur throughout the war, but I think that this isn't one where he carries the can. I think that this particular can belongs in Washington, which overruled the structure put in place by a local commander who knew the Japanese better than they did.
The more things change, the more they remain the same, for Washington's politicians still hold as gospel that their civilian wisdom is better than that of the military commanders on the spot.
|
|
|
Homma
May 19, 2012 5:26:28 GMT 8
Post by The Phantom on May 19, 2012 5:26:28 GMT 8
An excerpt from the book "A TRIAL OF GENERALS" "HOMMA YAMASHITA MAC ARTHUR"
BY LAWRENCE TAYLOR 1981
DUST COVER TEXT.........
"A TRIAL OF GENERALS TELLS FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ENTIRE STORY OF ONE OF THE MOST TRAGIC MOMENTS IN AMERICAN JUDICIAL HISTORY---THE TRIALS, CONVICTIONS, AND EXECUTIONS OF TWO JAPANESE GENERALS, WHO NOT ONLY DIDN'T ORDER OR PERPETRATE THE CRIMES WITH WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED---THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THESE CRIMES UNTIL THEY WERE ARRESTED."
DUST COVER TEXT....
" Victor's Justice" is the term sometimes applied to the American War Crimes trials of the defeated Japanese a generation ago.
The Term applies particularly well to the judgements passed on General's Homma and Yamashita.
The fascinating accounts in this book of the trials of these two men and of their war records is drawn in a large part almost verbatim from official American records making it all the more vivid and convincing.
The title "A TRIAL OF GENERALS- HOMMA YAMASHITA MAC ARTHUR", suggests that three men were on trial, in a sense they were. The first 2 showed themselves to be honest, straightforward even noble figures. MacArthur instead displays some of the seamy side of his duel character. He shows how bombastic, petty and vengeful he could be.
American justice was also on trial, and it proved to be the greatest loser. History's verdicts on these trials will certainly differ from those of the military courts."
By Edwin Reischauer Harvard University ( former Ambassador to Japan.)
An interesting read...........
|
|
|
Homma
May 20, 2012 1:27:08 GMT 8
Post by chadhill on May 20, 2012 1:27:08 GMT 8
It is my understanding that he was sentenced to be hung, but Mac changed that to death by firing squad. Yes, xray, according to Lawrence Taylor in "A Trial of Generals" (p. 171-172) MacArthur changed the manner of execution from hanging to firing squad after Mrs. Fujiko Homma came and spoke to him at his HQ.
|
|
|
Homma
May 20, 2012 1:51:02 GMT 8
Post by JohnEakin on May 20, 2012 1:51:02 GMT 8
He would have had to change it to hanging, drawing and quartering if my Aunt would have had an opportunity to speak to him.
|
|
|
Homma
May 20, 2012 5:08:42 GMT 8
Post by xray on May 20, 2012 5:08:42 GMT 8
I do recall Mac telling Sharp than any orders coming from Wainwright [after his parlay with the enemy] were void. I think Exo is correct, the lions share of the blame for this poor command arraignment lies with Washington. I think they were trying [too hard] to build another national hero ,,, Unless they were expecting him to fall on his sword, which is possible, its hard to see how they imagined things could end up any differently than they did. As per the topic, I don't think Homma can be censured either, for taking advantage of this muddled command.
|
|
|
Homma
Jul 22, 2014 21:16:28 GMT 8
Post by Karl Welteke on Jul 22, 2014 21:16:28 GMT 8
Sometime I’m late at looking at all the information in this forum. Very interesting reading and I agree with most of you. I do have problems with "A TRIAL OF GENERALS" "HOMMA YAMASHITA MAC ARTHUR" BY LAWRENCE TAYLOR,1981 and the quote from Edwin Reischauer American justice was also on trial, and it proved to be the greatest loser. History's verdicts on these trials will certainly differ from those of the military courts." By Edwin Reischauer Harvard University ( former Ambassador to Japan.) What is a thread or reply without an image? Here is one! Z601---Lt. General Masaharu Homma with his Lawyers and Translator, at his War Crimes Trial in Manila. Gen. Homma led the Japanese Invasion Force which captured Bataan and the rest of the Philippines. Gen. Homma was found guilty of the War Crimes which stemmed from the bombing of Manila, while it was declared an "Open City", the Atrocities Committed during the Death March, and for the mistreatment of American and Filipino Prisoners, during the Time Frame of his Command. Gen. Homma was executed by Firing Squad. This above picture and description came from this Battling Bastards of Bataan web page. www.battlingbastardsbataan.com/bbbpics5.htm
|
|
|
Post by EXO on Jul 23, 2014 6:55:35 GMT 8
Karl, Within the last 24 hours, I saw an exchange between two former Harvard people who were commenting about the unreality of the atmosphere of academia there, agreeing that Harvard has a tendency to see the world (and implicitly criticize it) as they want it to be, unable at the time to look at the world and examine it for what it is. There's also a built in left of center shading, which does tend to tip over into revisionism from time to time. There are multiple authors from Harvard (Reischauer is one, Ryan another) who have written legal texts (note, I describe them as legal texts, not as history books), critical of the military tribunals and courts, arguing that they have offended the purity of the American legal system (for which the respective author takes up his cudgel.) It's almost a Harvard craft industry, where junior staff members get to climb the ladder by proving their liberal credentials by publishing on darling causes, particularly to re-argue the minority view of the U.S. Supreme Court's Yamashita decision. This is a darling cause of the Eric Holder's version of the Department of Justice, which has been on a mission from God (oops, there is no God now), to diminish - or ideally destroy - any role which military tribunals might have in trying terrorists incarcerated at Guantanamo. The DOJ wants all prisoners to be tried in Federal Courts instead. They would rather extend to those detainees (I'm not even sure the word police want us to call them prisoners) the benefit of being tried as an American citizen (and have Harvard men hired at Government expense), than have them dealt with under Military Law. The liberal-minded preoccupation for liability for mistreatment during interrogation of prisoners captured in the "Global War On Terror" is seeking a development in the law of command responsibility arising from liability for orders allegedly given to protect liberal western democracies from criminal acts of terrorism by medieval terrorists who scorn the very laws which protect them. (Sometimes, in a war, it is best to save the cost of a trial.) As a part of this, certain wealthy donors have even been supporting film makers in crafting propaganda pieces which re-argue against the Yamashita Standard, summoning up Yamashita's Ghost. I have taken a stance against such things, as I believe that "Justice administered according to the law" has become a Holder-ism. Frankly, I don't think it is at all significant that two dissenting Supreme Court Justices, hot on their own rhetoric, called the trial a miscarriage of justice, an exercise in vengeance, and a denial of human rights because the majority said they were wrong. Sometimes the application of law can be flagrantly contrary to common sense, and that is why the phrase "the law is an ass" has been accepted as constant of the English language since at least 1654. I am against any stupidly rigid application of the law which might be used to allow Yamashita's ghost to rise again. If one wants to look at kangaroo courts, patently unfair trials, and corruption of the law, the Harvard Illuminati need only turn to the trials which the Japanese, under Yamashita, conducted of thousands of Filipinos late in 1944. But that would have spoiled their circus. Peter Parsons, Lou Jurika and I have dealt with these revisionist elsewhere. It is a topic that Peter and I (again) revisit in MANILA 1945 - AFTERMATH - which I hope can be released in Manila next year. I am not against everything that Yamashita is, was, or became. In his last words, he made no excuses for the atrocities that his soldiers committed against the people of the Philippines. On the contrary, he clearly accepted responsibility as commander and the judgment "by rigorous but impartial law." I was moved by his reflections upon the future of Japan, where its hope really lay. If he felt that his own trial had legal validity, then why should I demur?
|
|
|
Homma
Jul 23, 2014 22:51:53 GMT 8
Post by fortman on Jul 23, 2014 22:51:53 GMT 8
If Homma and Yamashita had given clear orders to their troops to deal with prisoners according to the Geneva convention and saw to it that the orders were obeyed, they should have been off the hook. The atrocities were so widespread that denying knowledge of them was ludicrous. I have never read or heard of such orders, so it seems as if Homma and Yamashita simply didn't care. They may not have been responsible but they certainly were accountable.
fortman
|
|
|
Homma
Jul 24, 2014 3:20:05 GMT 8
Post by okla on Jul 24, 2014 3:20:05 GMT 8
Hey EXO/Fortman.....Very well said. You nailed it squarely on the head in my humble. As for Atty Genl Holder and his present day view of terrorists and their atrocities/crimes,it would appear he is lost in a legal jungle. I, fully realize, that I am over simplifying, but he prefers to treat/prosecute these people as if they were guilty of sticking up a liquor store rather than atrocity committing POWs. Just sayin'.
|
|