The War Criminals Issue and Japan's Path to Legal Closure

このページを日本語で読む

Eighty years have passed since the end of World War II. Yet despite this major milestone, public debate over whether Japan's prime minister should visit Yasukuni Shrine has been unusually subdued compared to previous years. Opinions on the matter remain divided, and a national consensus is still lacking. However, there is one fact all Japanese should recognize: our predecessors settled the issue of war criminals.

On August 15, 1945, the war came to an end. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951. As Professor Kazuo Sato, emeritus of Aoyama Gakuin University, writes in The New Edition of Collected Essays on Yasukuni:

"Strictly speaking, war crimes trials — those dealing with violations of the laws of war — are conducted as part of a state's wartime actions (military operations). Typically, once a peace treaty comes into effect, the rulings of such tribunals lose their validity, unless the treaty contains specific provisions to the contrary."

However, Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty was crafted precisely to override that norm. It stipulated that pardons, sentence reductions, or parole for convicted war criminals could not be determined by Japan alone. They required the approval of the Allied powers, along with a formal recommendation from the Japanese government.

*Visitors queue up in the summer heat to pay their respects. Yasukuni Shrine, August 15, 2024 (© JAPAN Forward by Daniel Manning)*

Still Imprisoned After Sovereignty

The peace treaty took effect on April 28, 1952, officially restoring Japan's sovereignty. Yet even then, 927 individuals remained imprisoned at Sugamo under Japanese control.

Another 111 were still held in Muntinlupa Prison in the Philippines. In addition to these, 206 more were held on Manus Island in Australia, bringing the total to 1,244 people.

"Why are these men still serving time if our sovereignty has been restored?" That question resonated with the public, sparking a nationwide wave of sympathy and calls for the release of war criminals.

Leading the charge was the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA). On May 27, it established a Special Committee on War Criminal Releases. Less than a month later, on June 21, it issued a formal opinion titled Opinion regarding the recommendation for amnesty under Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, urging the reluctant Ministry of Foreign Affairs to act swiftly and advocate full pardons to the relevant Allied nations.

National Mobilization for Pardon and Rehabilitation

A nationwide signature campaign followed, reportedly gathering nearly 40 million signatures. In parallel, the National Diet overwhelmingly passed a series of resolutions: Resolution on the Release of Incarcerated War Criminals (June 9, 1952), the Pardon of Those Convicted of War Crimes (August 3, 1953), and the Release of Those Imprisoned for War Crimes (December 9, 1952).

These coordinated efforts pushed the Japanese government to begin formally recommending full pardons to the Allied nations starting in June of that year.

Legislative changes soon followed. The Act on Relief for Wounded and Sick Soldiers, War Bereaved Families, etc., was amended to classify the deaths of convicted war criminals during imprisonment as "deaths in the line of duty." As a result, their families became entitled to survivor pensions and condolence payments. In addition, the Pension Act was also revised, allowing time served in prison to count toward pensionable service and improving benefits for both the inmates and their families.

Below is an unofficial English translation of the full text of the House of Representatives resolution passed on August 3, 1953, titled Resolution on the Pardon of Those Convicted of War Crimes. Quoted as recorded in the official Diet proceedings, with original wording preserved, it captures the depth of public sentiment in Japan at the time.

The People's Resolution

"As we approach the ninth anniversary of the end of the war on August 15, and more than fifteen months have passed since regaining independence, it is unbearable to the public's emotions that the heartfelt wish of our people, to see all those convicted of war crimes fully pardoned, remains unfulfilled. From the perspective of international friendship, this is truly regrettable.

"Looking back on the progress of the war crimes issue since the peace treaty took effect, China, upon the enactment of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty last August, executed a full pardon. France, in early June of this year, carried out a major commutation of sentences, releasing nearly all prisoners. Furthermore, on July 22, the Republic of the Philippines, through the resolute decision of President Quirino, welcomed home all Japanese prisoners. We celebrate these actions and express our heartfelt gratitude to the Australian government, which is set to repatriate all 165 prisoners from Manus Island on August 8.

"The greatest obstacle lying across the path to resolving the war issue has thus been completely removed. We now find ourselves in a pivotal autumn, with the matter entering its final phase. Should we miss this opportunity to take appropriate and effective measures, we fear the psychological well-being of the remaining prisoners may deteriorate.

"Therefore, for the sake of our nation's complete independence and in the interest of global peace and international amity, we firmly believe it is of urgent necessity to reach a full resolution.

"Accordingly, we hereby strongly request the government to implement forceful, appropriate, and swift actions to bring about the full pardon of those convicted of war crimes.

"We so resolve."

A Monument to Forgiveness

The Allied nations responded differently to Japan's recommendations for full pardons. Both the United States and the United Kingdom, however, were not especially lenient. By contrast, the decision by Philippine President Elpidio Quirino to grant a full pardon left a profound impression on the Japanese people.

In recognition of his act of compassion, a monument honoring Quirino now stands in Tokyo's Hibiya Park. It was the site of a national rally held to express public gratitude.

*Monument to Philippine President Elpidio Quirino in Tokyo's Hibiya Park (©Sankei by Makiko Takita)*

Inscribed on the monument are his words:

"I should be the last one to pardon them as the Japanese killed my wife and three children and five other members of the family. I am doing this because I do not want my children and my people to inherit from me hate for people who might yet be our friends for the permanent interest of the country. After all, destiny has made us neighbors."

All remaining prisoners at Sugamo were released on May 30, 1958, just ahead of the seventh anniversary of the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Their release, made possible only through the unanimous consent of all concerned nations, marked the formal resolution of the war crimes issue. The wartime classifications of Class A and B/C war criminals — imposed unilaterally by the victors — were, in effect, rendered null and void.

A Matter of Japanese Culture

Debate continues to surround the prime minister's visits to Yasukuni Shrine. They are often framed in terms of constitutional concerns or objections from China. But at its core, the issue is far more fundamental. It concerns how the living relate to the dead, including those who died in war.

This deeper perspective was powerfully expressed by Jun Eto, a literary critic. Eto served on a private advisory panel on Yasukuni Shrine visits during the Yasuhiro Nakasone administration. In The New Edition of Collected Essays on Yasukuni (Kindai Shuppan, Yasukuni Ronshu – Shinpan, in Japanese), Eto later revealed that he regretted not resigning from the panel, having sensed from the beginning that its approach was fundamentally misguided.

Honor and Remembrance

Eto argued that in matters such as official visits to Yasukuni, the central question should be: "The very nature of the nation itself — embracing its culture, traditions, and customs. It is about the accumulated way in which the Japanese people have lived and died in this country. In both the broadest and deepest sense, this is a question of Japanese culture."

He continued:

"Within that cultural framework, how have the dead been honored, and how have the living treated them? The real issue is whether those customs can still be carried out seamlessly today. In comparison, debates over how to interpret the current Constitution are nothing more than superficial distractions.

"Even viewed as a political matter, the true responsibility of statesmen is to preserve and nurture Japanese culture.

"If we understand the Liberal Democratic Party's call for official visits to Yasukuni Shrine in this light, then a government that refuses to take up that demand sincerely cannot be considered a legitimate government of Japan."

Honoring and remembering those who died in war is a duty we bear as Japanese people. There should be no hesitation, no sense of guilt. We must not allow the tireless efforts of those who resolved the war crimes issue to be forgotten or cast aside.