740.00116 PW/2–1446: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
[Received 6:57 p.m.]
1859. From Hodgson. At meeting of War Crimes Commission held on Feb 13 Prof Bailey40 of Australia urged that War Crimes Commission prepare and adopt list of major Japanese war criminals using Australian list as basis. Please refer to Emb cable 1410, Feb. 5.41 He based his argument on decision made at Commission meeting of Sept 24, 1944, lists 7 and 9 of War Crimes Commission, recommendations contained in C. 145 (1),42 and contention that Commission will fail to discharge its responsibilities if it does not do so. I pointed out that Commission did not have sufficient evidence before it to take proposed action and urged that Australian list be referred to Far Eastern Commission at Tokyo,43 which presumably had such evidence available to it, with a note stating that while War Crimes Commission had jurisdiction it was felt that due to the circumstances Far Eastern Commission was appropriate body to act upon Australian list and requesting Far Eastern Commission to examine the list and furnish report to War Crimes Commission. It was also stated that if Far Eastern Commission declined to act that then War Crimes Commission could attempt to prepare list as best it could. This view was supported by Netherlands, France, China and UK and was adopted by Commission over Australian objections.
Australians finally requested Commission to furnish Australia with advice as to list on basis of evidence available in London, namely which of the persons named on Australian list it believes are probably war criminals and which of them it does not believe are war criminals and which of them it does not have sufficient evidence upon which to base an opinion, etc. This proposal was opposed by me, but will be considered at Commission meeting to be held on Feb 20.
My contention was based on view expressed in Dept’s cable 678 of Jan 22 where it was stated that Commission should not act because of Australian proposal that Far Eastern Commission should deal with matter. No dissent from Australian proposal was expressed by Dept and context of wire clearly implies that it had Dept’s approval for otherwise I would not be advised to maintain such a position. I was therefore surprised to receive on Feb 15 Dept’s cable 1423 of Feb 1244 [Page 412] stating that US Govt had informed Australian Govt that US did not believe that Far Eastern Commission is the appropriate agency to determine finally the list of Japanese accused.
Australian rep will be advised of Dept’s position expressed in note to Australian Govt very soon and entire matter will probably be reopened at Commission meeting to be held on Feb 20 or perhaps before then. In view of Commission’s jurisdiction, Australian desires and Dept’s note to Australian Govt, in my opinion there is very little possibility of preventing Commission from preparing or adopting list if matter is reopened.
Inasmuch as Commission must take some action even if it is only to refer matter to another Commission will you please furnish clear instructions stating precisely the position of the US and the action, if any, it desires the War Crimes Commission to take in respect of list which Australia is urging Commission to adopt. Such instructions were requested in Emb’s 177 of Jan 7.
Please advise immediately name and address of Commission in Tokyo which has jurisdiction to prepare lists of major Japanese war criminals in order that War Crimes Commission can send Australian list and mentioned note to it.
Also please send charters or agreements setting forth respective jurisdictions of several commissions or committees dealing with Japanese war crimes. [Hodgson.]