|
Post by Registrar on Apr 19, 2013 9:22:40 GMT 8
I wouldn't go so far as to call it "creepy" but your point does well illustrate how a film maker can, unknowingly, be a victim of his own bias - that of a preoccupation with what happened in Europe, fairly much to the exclusion of what occurred throughout Asia at the hands of the Japanese militarists. I do not want to get into any discussions of whether, and if so how WWII in the Pacific was a "racist war", for I consider that even the formulation of the question itself shows bias - in that it ignores the fact that Japan was involved in a vile and violent war of aggression against the Chinese race for a decade before they decided to strike out through the entirety of South East Asia.
So to an extent, I believe that it's easy to understand why Mr. Silvers might be more sensitive on the Nazi issue (he has right to be), yet shows an incredible naivete when it comes to what happened throughout Asia commencing 1931. It's not unique to him. The problem is that when he brings his New York Eurocentric bias and New York naivete into an involvement in the Philippine History (since when is a documentary film based upon Yamashita NOT an involvement in the country's history and vision of itself), he's got an added obligation to get things right. And in that respect, revisionism causes him to fail. Parroting the idea that Yamashita was an innocent dupe railroaded by a drumhead tribunal engineered by a vainglorious and vindictive MacArthur is so East Coast MacArthur Kicker's Club, it is cartoonish.
I keep on coming back to this point ( nag that I am) and it is that, until now, we've seen no historical authority which validates A. Frank Reel's view of the historical facts - because there is none,or because a closer examination discredits him entirely. By virtue of Allan Ryan's statement that his book is based on an exhaustive analysis of the War Crimes Trial transcript, his book is not a History book either. (It might be a history of the creation and development of a legal precedent book, but that doesn't make it a History book.) The most unfortunate part is that, being newbies in the area, they probably read the most readily available introductory book, that awful Connaughton book, the Battle For Manila. As long as that book is around and being quoted as an authority, it will continue to provide de rigueur reading for every tin-pot tosser who wants to find the Japanese High Command blameless for the responsibility of their deliberate use of atrocities as a tool of war - not just for Manila, but in Singapore, Sandakan, Thailand, Burma, Nanjing and a hundred places throughout China and Manchukuo.
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Apr 19, 2013 13:22:58 GMT 8
The following is from Marchal Anddrew D.G. Marin, to Mr. Silvers and Mr. Ryan
Dear Sirs:
I am just wondering what could be your purpose in coming out with your own version or analysis about the Yamashita trials. Why is there a need to do a documentary while using the same people who suffered in Manila on February 1945 making them as your source and anchor?
Have you found any new evidence that would make the Japanese look like victims during WWII in the Philippines? As a documentary and film enthusiast myself, I would also justify the need to create controversy or come out with an intriguing storyline especially if it were a well-funded production, and thereby able to move and agitate the sensibilities of people--who have largely forgotten our recent past history, such as the battle of Manila or even WWII. That sirs, is marketing strategy!
Please do not declare that you guys are well-informed and well-researched. There are more legitimate war historians, scholars and writers here who would not even think of revising the Japanese atrocities in the Philippines. Why? Because we were here and we know what happened. We know of Yamashita's character from first hand. 1) You found new evidence? What is that thing that you know that we don't know? You are examining the trial as if it stood alone, like a book, and is not embedded in the background of the butcher Yamashita and his henchmen. 2) Your attempt to twist history, and the skirt is showing, as I observe in your exchange with Mr Parsons, as Mr Ryan's book contends that Yamashita got an unfair trial. And it was simply bias because the Americans made the Tiger of Malaya a fall guy and it was necessary to make a rallying point to gain momentum with the Victory sign? You make a movie that says this and it will be booed here in Manila. 3) What is there to dignify in the first place? If you are that famous, dedicated and honorable, as you claim you are, why can't you send the preview of your intelligent analysis to the Filipinos you "used"? Why deny the first audience of your beautiful and convincing documentary? I think this will solve and pacify further animosities if you do. It is standard procedure in our industry to let the people preview the final edited material before it goes on air; this to make sure that the purpose and plan were well executed. Surprise endings should be avoided. You owe it to us esp those you interviewed (Memorare among others) and I pray that you are not guilty of setting them up just to elicit and further sanctify your trade as a well-decorated author and documentarist. Pls have a good day as we await for a preview. Very truly yours, Marchal Anddrew D.G. Marin. College of Engineering University of the Philippines - Diliman ______________________________
The following is from Amb. Juan Jose P. Rocha in response to Mr Marin's correspondence: Dear Sir: With regards to your (ie Peter Parsons ) email to Mr. Allan Ryan wherein you mentioned..
I am the President of Memorare-Manila 1945 Foundation and we cooperated fully with Mr. Allan Ryan during his stay in the Philippines and were among those he interviewed for the documentary on the Liberation of Manila.
I was likewise alarmed by the information given me by Peter Parsons alleging the use of this documentary to support Ryan’s position on a mistrial of the Yamashita judgment. I therefore emailed Mr. Allan Ryan to ascertain if this is true and his response was as follows which I found satisfactory: However, please rest assured that we will not permit ourselves to be used for a Yamashita trial whitewash in any form or manner.
Since Memorare-Manila’s principal trust is to create awareness of one of the greatest tragedies of the Pacific war, we therefore support Ryan’s documentary to bring knowledge of the tragic Battle of Manila to the American public and also to counter the misinformation contained in Japan’s NHK documentary on the Liberation diminishing if not absolving the heinous comportment of the Japanese in Manila during February 1945.
Thank you for your interest and please keep in-touch.
Regards, Amb. Juan Jose P. Rocha President Memorare-Manila 1945 Foundation, Inc.
_________________
To this response, Mr. Marin has written the following reply:
Thank you sir, for your quick response.
Item one is the only issue that disturbs a lot of people, including myself, who also read a lot of history books about WWII.
While it is true that all of us Filipinos (You, sir, and Mr. Parsons among others) share the same sentiment on this matter, I can't help noticing now that our stands don't jibe.
With it alone, the emails and assurances of Mr. Ryan to you may have really been satisfactory for me as well. After all, it is the author of an acclaimed book- "Yamashita's Ghost" himself who is speaking to you, giving assurances that the content of the documentary being produced by Mr Silvers shall not deviate from what we all want to tell the world about -- The Atrocities of Manila 1945.
Unfortunately, I cannot make myself at ease with such verbal assurance alone.
In lieu of our vigil to prevent "whitewash Yamashita", I courageously compel Mr. Silvers & Mr Ryan to preview the final edited material with the Interviewees first before it is aired on U.S. TV. But as I read from one of the emails of Mr. Silvers, it seems that they are firm on not letting the interviewees see the preview because their producers and networks don't allow it.
Also, it was clear as morning from the book of Mr. Ryan that he claims the Yamashita Trial as unfair and biased. Therefore giving the nuance that Yamashita is actually innocent and his hands clean of guilt from all of the heinous transgressions of the Japanese in the Philippines.
Colliding Mr. Ryan's statement in his emails to you in contrary with his stand stated on his book, plus the fact that Mr. Silvers doesn't want to preview the final material to the interviewees, it all the more made me very very wary of what could be happening behind our backs.
In fairness to Mr Ryan, and you, sir, I surmise that no one among us could claim that we got a copy of the book. I must have read all significant entries about the same book in the internet. However, may I know if you have read the book? I just surmise that the book is about the unfair trial of Yamashita as it suggests even on the title itself.
How can you reconcile the fact that Mr. Ryan intends to honor the victims of the Battle of Manila and Filipinos of WWII as a whole and yet he has titled the project using Yamashita as his peg? I find this rather disturbing. I hope you did not commit a mistake in allowing your group Memorare-Manila 1945 to take part in the project of Mr. Ryan (who uses the name Yamashita as his anchor) while majority of the victims in Manila and the entire country remain unnamed and unsung even up to now. Good for you, Mr. Rocha, because you have an organization that celebrates every February.
I am sure that the good author will show and honor the victims of WWII. However, I ask you, sir, to withdraw your consent and support of such documentary if indeed Mr. Ryan and Mr. Silvers will vindicate the Tiger of Malaya. And the only time to do this is a preview of the docu before it is being aired.
Please invite me to sit down on the said preview.
Very truly yours, Marchal Anddrew DG. Marin
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Apr 20, 2013 9:18:34 GMT 8
Marchal Anddrew Marin has followed up on his earlier correspondence with the following:
________________________
A call for Mr. Ryan & Mr. Silvers
I believe that there are only two major factors of information here in the Philippines, the media - print and broadcast alike, and the social network. If both don't pick up the news, it will never be known to a single soul anymore. Take Mr Ryan & Mr. Silvers for example, would claim their documentary will only be shown in the U.S., not even a preview for the interviewees. Sadly, this is the same situation of the NHK trickery. It is unfortunate that we were put in the dark as per NHK's documentary despite our hospitality extended to the Japanese production crew that came to Manila to interview war survivors.
With this end, I pray that Mr. Ryan & Mr. Silvers will change their mind about continuing their documentary project because the Japanese Occupation in the Philippines is so sensitive that even up to now, my grandmother Ligaya trembles in fear every time she remembers her youth when her older cousins were raped and bayoneted by three Japanese soldiers in the stream where they used to wash clothes. I am sure not just my Lola had experienced this unforgivable ordeal, there are more who had perhaps forgotten and brought their agony silently to their graves.
The OTHER Story
I have nothing against Mr. Ryan & Mr. Silvers trying to destroy the credibility of the U.S. Military courts now and then. In fact, it doesn't concern us at all; whatever they do in their own trade and field is their problem, NOT OURS.
I only reacted because they are using Filipino victims and survivors again and again, and now they even use the cruel Japanese general to justify and promote their trade and schemes. Looking back at the trials of Yamashita in the Philippines, in which the Military court found him guilty of war crimes, he appealed to both Supreme Courts of the Philippines & U.S., where both courts denied and even affirmed his conviction. What is there to discredit if all the three courts denounced his crimes, the proceedings itself?
If the purpose of Mr. Ryan & Mr. Silvers, is indeed to discredit the U.S. Military courts, why don't they just use another instance (not the Filipinos) where a potential contradiction between the U.S.Civil and Military courts may just surface for their benefit?
The Summation
In our country, hospitality is a traditional family custom. Mr. Ryan & Mr. Silvers have just violated this Filipino value under the guise of honoring the war survivors, all for the purpose of serving an end that doesn't concern us at all.
In the long run, all of these issues on the table - the contents of Mr. Ryan's book, the purpose of the documentary, the deprivation of a preview to the interviewees, the Yamashita mistrial claim - were just minor concerns actually.
The only thing that makes me angry and sad is the fact that no matter the promise of honoring our victims, dead and still alive, I reiterate my claim that majority of them were not entirely honored, lest named or mentioned even up to now. Even with your announced approval by a certain group in Manila does not license you to exploit our dead. I cannot allow this. The memory of our survivors and dead have only been considered as a free commodity for pseudo-historians, researchers, documentary producers and writers to feast on. Please stop dragging them to the kitchen of your production and editing rooms, because it is no longer moral and it lacks courtesy and respect to us Filipinos.
I wish you all a pleasant day.
Marchal Anddrew DG. Marin
|
|
|
Post by pdh54 on Apr 20, 2013 11:05:10 GMT 8
I came across a first person account of the Japanese surrender at Baguio written by Robert Gerwig on 3 September 1945..Since Yamashita was one of the surrendering parties I decided to post this link here. It is from the Witness to War web site. www.witnesstowar.org/content/materials/Robert%20Gerwig.pdf"Three hours after the surrender ceremony, Yamashita and his ranking subordinates were driven to the Luna airstrip from which they were flown to Nielsen Field, Manila, and thence transported Monday evening to New Bilibid Prison, 36 miles south of Manila, where they arrived at 2000 hours. Thus ended the ceremonies that brought to an end in the Philippines active hostilities which had begun with the bombing by the Japanese of Clark Field shortly after the notorious Pearl Harbor raid forty-four months earlier." Patty
|
|
|
Post by Pei Yu on Apr 21, 2013 3:59:08 GMT 8
Again, what bothers me in this whole affair is that it just ends in trying to "sanitize" Yamashita, but it never goes further in getting the public, especially the US public to scrutinize the role of Tokyo itself. I mean the imperial family. If one would read about what happened in Nanking, you will find out that certain people in the imperial family participated in the debauchery of the Chinese people.
So, if they're gonna question the sentence of Yamashita, they might as well bring up the issue and the evidences proving that a lot of Japanese politicians(nowadays) and the imperial family had participation on the atrocities.
But then again, in the Euro-centric and politically correct world, the Japanese will always be victims of the west but never the Asian victims of the Japan. One could even point out that the Japanese invasion was the defining point of Philippino-American relations, at least the non-politicians, as not any event made Philippinos even more pro-American. Will this point out how many Philippinos risked their lives to save one American knowing that the punishment is death?
Has these people, authors and journalists, ever wondered how Asians feel about the "end result" of the war? How the US let go of many Japanese war criminals or that the US is so complacent of Japan erecting a shrine for their WAR CRIMINALS? I'm sure the US will be hell bent if Germany erects a shrine for the Nazi(in which they will interpret Germany just regaining its "former territories"?
Here is the problem: even in documentaries and books, we Asians, are merely pawns for the West and Japan. Why do I say this? We're always pained as just "ornaments" when discussing. No one from the mainstream West and Japan ever took seriously the non-Japanese Asian view on this matter. It's always what the US thinks and what Japan thinks.
Better documentaries about Japanese atrocities in the Philippines are:
Colors of Courage, Sons of New Mexico, Prisoners of Japan -- this primarily focuses on the New Mexican Bataan Survivors but they also had a Japanese soldier interviews in which his views were not sanitized (at least it seems to me) and that there are also Filipino interviewees and their interview is just "raw". All participants are accorded their POV. The only tone I didn't like was the Pearl Harbor conspiracy but then, that does not white wash the Philippino-American experience under Japanese occupation
Rescue in the Philippines -- basically, the theme is the act of the Philippines in taking in Jewish refugees at the time when countries are pushing away the European Jews. It partly covers the Japanese occupation and what these Jewish refugees say about the Japanese occupation are not different from Philippino testimonies.
I have read some articles from Philippino Historians Ricardo Jose and Benito Legarda. WHY IS IT THAT THESE PEOPLE DO NOT INCLUDE THEIR FINDINGS? I guess it is because it negates the claim to Yamashita's innocence, therefore it botches their whitewashing propaganda.
It is no wonder why the Jews or non-German Europeans do not whine about German crimes anymore, while in Asia, a lot of people still whine about Japan's participation. There is no sincere confrontation both from Japan and the US about Japan's participation.
But should we be surprised? American survivors of Japanese atrocities are brushed away by the US government, what more with the non-Japanese Asian victims of Japan's imperialism?
On a side note: Why is there no documentaries on non-Japanese Asians who aided the allies esp the Philippinos? To think of it, most of the Japanese brutality to Philippinos came as a result of loyalty to the US. The Philippines could have avoided the wrath of the Japanese like Thailand if they were fully cooperative. But no, they didn't. But all the US gave back was burying the Japanese war crimes, spending luxuriously to rebuild Japan while strangling the Philippines in exchange for "aid"(Bell Trade Act) and the broken promise to Philippinos veterans and civilians who sacrificed many just to keep one American safe(Rescission Act).
It is very cruel, I think that the US will do such things to a former territory but babysit an enemy country. Even former American guerillas in the Philippines have been appalled by the post war treatment of the US to the Philippines.
|
|
|
Post by Pei Yu on Apr 21, 2013 4:29:18 GMT 8
I would like to add that the person who administered the Kempeitai during the Sook Ching Massacre was spared and very much alive. Unfortunately, his name escapes me but his last name starts with K and this happened when Yamashita was in Singapore and happened pretty much under his nose.
If these authors and journalists are seriously seeking justice, why aren't they EQUALLY pointing out the war criminals who never served any sentence? Who sob about a Japanese General who seems to be always "oblivious" of the crimes of his subordinates? What happened in Manila was not the first atrocity under Yamashita. Remember what immediately happened when he occupied Singapore - purging of ethnic Chinese!
Now, which makes me point our what Mr. Marin suspects -- to discredit the US Military. The Yamashita trial is a perfect choice especially that the trend today is the "we hate MacArthur"(not that I adore this man. I don't. I don't feel much about him, to be honest). Ever notice the constant comparison of the current US occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan? (Apples and Oranges -- especially since the US has been prosecuting its own bad soldiers -- this NEVER happened under Japanese occupation. Japan never punished the bad soldiers who did atrocities in Nanking, Singapore, Bataan, Burma, etc).
Just because you go against your government does not make you automatically honest.
Why also, are these people not referencing honest Japanese writers and historians, as well as soldiers who admits to Japanese atrocities?
|
|
|
Post by Pei Yu on Apr 21, 2013 7:39:24 GMT 8
Just a quick question: Has anyone in contact with the author and journalists "in question" sent proofs or even materials that challenges Yamashita's innocents and "gallantry"? I say, we bombard these people with evidences that counters the claims because it seems they only have two sources -- the Reel and Connaughton books. It seems that they hardly have dug up post battle reports and testimonies from civilians, Philippino historians, authorities and even Japanese collaborators. It seems to me that including these will negate their vindication of the Japanese General. And not only that, it would even likely drag the role of the Imperial family into question. (In other words, these guys are sealing the can than opening it) Also, it would be nice to "patch him up" with Philippino HISTORIANS. If they refuse, you know they have an agenda beyond "honoring" the victims of the Massacre in Manila. It's rather funny. They want to bring out the the US was unfair to the Japanese but never the issue on how the US, for the sake of protecting Japan from communism, let Japan get away with its horrible war crimes that has definitely rivaled Hitler. Hirohito is the Asian Hitler And here is something I dug a few minutes ago. Japan plans to have another statement regarding WW2. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9842271/Japan-may-revisit-Second-World-War-statement.htmlenglish.sina.com/world/2013/0318/572801.htmlwww.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i9YHMZavfWJTnFmE2nNctGl9ue1A?docId=CNG.bf7138e37d4cb14dba220e58be70d6a9.361Is this a move to convince Japan of its Asian neighbors against the rising threat of Communist China imperial expansion and get support for itself? To justify the "changes" in their constitution regarding arms? Is Japan ready to tear down its Yasakuni shrine for war criminals in lieu of an Asian Holocost memorial in order for its neighbors to feel a SINCERE apology?
|
|
|
Post by Registrar on Apr 21, 2013 10:26:27 GMT 8
The book is essentially a follow-on progression based upon the arguments made by A. Frank Reel, Yamashita's counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court, and is based upon the author's examination and interpretation of legal transcripts. It then goes on to trace the Yamashita Principle through a series of other legal cases which develop it in some respects, and knock off its rough edges in others. The author prosecuted some war crimes trials during his time with the military (in the Kosovo period), and now teaches law at Harvard. He is not a historian, and thus I am concerned that in making his law book into a documentary, it may influence low information viewers into believing that it is a historical treatment. Hence, my very great concern that in attempting to establish a narrative in which to justify his attack upon the legal outcome, he readily promotes a revisionist view of the Battle of Manila. How could anyone who has only read legal transcripts consider that they know of the reality of the Battle of Manila?
The Battle of Manila is a topic that is beset with revisionism on all fronts - there are the right-wing Japanese who want to revise the record of their bestial military conduct and civil mis-governance throughout Asia, the Sandhurst military lecturers authors who criticize everything American, parties of all anti-colonial critics, ultra-nationalists who preferred to side with the Japanese than the Americans, people who want to play down the role of the Makapili, and people who want to bring terrorists to trial in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals. All of these groups want to interfere in the interpretation of the facts, and for the inconvenient facts that cannot be interpreted, well they should be ignored. (Case in point the other massacres which occurred under Yamashita, and all the other war crimes perpetrated by the Japanese bushido class.)
No, I do not think that facts will change their mind. Facts don't change, they are only hidden or revealed. These fellows are professionally set in their molds, plugged into their respective money streams, social milieu and political patrons. They have their godfathers. They're ensconced comfortably, thank you very much, in their beliefs that everything America FDR did was good and noble, and that MacArthur, should have been castrated.
What I am about is trying to entice a group of people to become motivated enough to consider further learning in this area, of their own history and heritage, to equip themselves to nay-say the revisionists who come on to their front lawns and tell them how their gardens should grow. The documentary shouldn't be the culmination of visions by a Harvard Law Prof and a New York Activist Film-Maker set out to change the world. Isn't one Michael Moore one too many for this world? If they want to raise Yamashita's Ghost, they should pay their respects to why it was that a plan was made NOT to declare Manila an open city, and who made that decision, and who then arranged for it not to happen, and how far up the tree of command that responsibility went - and if that responsibility lays with those who exercised power in the name of the Emperor, then their names should be purged from any place of honor. What this world needs isn't another documentary about ruthless personalities who aren't legally responsible, it needs a documentary that establishes what a crime against humanity is, and makes that a crime against which there is no possible defense, even if the only possible punishment is infamy.
Sorry if I have gone off topic, but the preparedness of people to dress evil in fine legal clothing burns me up.
|
|
|
Post by okla on Apr 21, 2013 20:41:47 GMT 8
Hi All....If anybody has ever paid any attention to my past posts and remarks dealing with Japanese atrocities during the Asian/Pacific War, it is obvious that I am no defender of Japan's less than sterling behavior toward their captive peoples/POWs, but nobody, and I mean nobody, can approach what the Nazi's unleashed against the Jewish population of Europe that fell under Hitler's control. The fact that Japan behaved in brutal fashion is beyond question, but, to my knowledge, they didn't have a highly organized, diabolical system, designed to eliminate a whole ethnic segment of European society, the Jews. Japan's treatment of the unfortunates that came under their domination, in my view, was a result of their culture. This behavior is even evident in their brutalizing treatment of their own soldiers by those in higher rank/authority. Nothing in Japan's World War 2 actions approach the "Holocaust", methinks. Just my humble. Postscript...I will say one thing for the Germans in this matter. They have acknowledged, time and again, their wartime guilt. Japan continues to dance around their well documented crimes and it does them no credit, even at this very late date in history.
|
|
|
Post by Pei Yu on Apr 21, 2013 22:37:14 GMT 8
Okla, thank you for your insights but I have to disagree with you in some points. I believe what Japan has done is equivalent to the holocost esp if you look at the documents. The Japanese thought they a were superior race because the think they are the of their god. A lot of the atrocities were not a result of command breakdown but orders from the high command. The liquidation of the POWs were ordered. The massacre in Manila is traced to have been ordered by Tokyo in order to show the advancing Americans a fate they will suffer should there been an invasion. And unit 731? That sure is not a breakdown of command. Sook Ching massacre was an atrocity against overseas Chinese that is NOT a breakdown of command but an execution of a planned atrocities.
|
|