Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, China and Japan, Volume XIV, Part 2

694.0026/5–2154

No. 767
Memorandum by the Deputy Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (McClurkin) to the Ambassador to Japan (Allison)

confidential

[Washington,] June 7, 1954.

Subject:

• Japanese War Criminals

NA fully concurs in your recommendation set forth in Tokyo’s 2876¹ that a large bloc of Japanese war criminals be immediately released. Only those who committed the most heinous crimes would be left in Sugamo. This, of course, applies only to the 293 war criminals convicted by United States courts.

The rest of the Department opposes amnesty for Japanese war criminals for the reasons set forth by L in your meeting of February 16, 1954² with Mr. Robertson, L and EUR.

Expediting release of war criminals is not anticipated by the Parole and Clemency Board because of the serious nature of the crimes committed by the 293 war criminals convicted by the United States. 145 of these have life sentences and 30 have sentences of over 30 years. The fact that the President recently disapproved 4 recommendations by the Board for parole reflects his strong feelings and acts as a deterrent to more rapid action by the Board. The Board is, however, considering a change in its rules whereby all prisoners would be eligible for parole after serving 10 years. This would mean that most of the war criminals would be eligible for release in 1955–56 rather than some years later as would now appear to be the case. HICOG’s views regarding this change in rules is now being sought. To cut through this morass of legal and technical problems I think an approach based on overriding political considerations is required.

1. The continued incarceration of a large number of Japanese war criminals is hardly consistent with United States policies of dealing with Japan as a sovereign and responsible ally and constitutes a continuing source of friction between this government and Japan.

2. This issue creates a psychological resistance among the Japanese to full cooperation with the United States on defense measures and other questions. It is a major obstacle to Japanese rearmament.

3. While a number of problems involving Japan are beyond resolution by the United States alone, i.e., Japanese-Korean relations, Japanese relations with Southeast Asia etc., this question is one on which the United States can take constructive action without cost to the United States.

4. The grant of amnesty by the Philippines and China places the United States and other “white powers” in an embarrassing and anomalous position.

5. The Japanese do not understand western concepts of law. They consider the Communists equally guilty of war crimes, but see these persons go unpunished while Japanese war criminals remain incarcerated.

Recommendation:

I recommend that you stress the above considerations to the appropriate officials and that you propose:

1. Immediate release of Japanese war criminals not necessarily on the basis of amnesty, excluding perhaps a few guilty of the most heinous crimes.

2. In the alternative, expeditious release by shortening the period for eligibility for parole perhaps to 8 or 9 years, of most of the war criminals. This could enable substantial numbers to be released in 1954 and 1955. I think that by the end of 1955 all but a very few should be released.³

1. Dated May 21. In reporting on a renewed request by the Japanese Foreign Ministry for an accelerated release of Class B and C war criminals, the Ambassador had in part commented: “In wake of Fukuryu Maru incident and with Japanese attitude hardening perceptibly on a number of fronts, failure to attack this problem effectively is bound to cause our broader interests here to suffer increasingly. Yoshida visit may offer us last opportunity to derive benefit from a US offered solution of war criminal problem and at same time to deprive Japanese of issue which they can exploit when it suits their purpose.” (694.0026/5–2154)
2. For Dunning’s memorandum of this conversation, see Document 735.
3. No record of any representations in the matter made by Ambassador Allison during his June visit to Washington has been found in Department of State flies.