² This survey is based on a study of IMTFE materials presented to the University of California, Berkeley, by Yale Maxon, formerly chief of the Document Division of the International Prosecution Section of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. The writer is grateful to Mr. Maxon for also supplying much valuable information concerning the function, authorship, special characteristics, and deficiencies of each of the research aids discussed in this paper. Most of the materials in the University of California collection are available at the Library of Congress [see The Library of Congress Journal of Current Acquisitions, V, No. 4 (Aug., 1948), 29Google Scholar] and at the Hoover Institute and Library on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University [see “Activities of the Tokyo Office of the Hoover Institute and Library on War, Revolution, and Peace for 1948” (mimeographed report), 4].

³ The Prosecution opened its case on June 3, 1946, and the reception of evidence was terminated on February 10, 1948. Closing arguments and summations of the Prosecution and Defense opened on February 11 and closed on April 16, 1947. The Judgment of the Tribunal was delivered on November 9 through November 12, 1948. Judgment of the Military Tribunal for the Far East, [hereafter cited as Judgment], A, 1 and 12–13.

⁴ Twenty-eight men were named in the Indictment as defendants, but during the trial two (Matsuoka Yōsuke and Nagano Osami) died and one (Ōkawa Shūmei)was declared “unfit to stand his trial and unable to defend himself.” The other defendants were: Araki Sadao (General and War Minister); Doihara Kenji (General); Hashimoto Kingorō (General); Hata Shunroku (General and War Minister); Hiramima Kiichirō (Premier); Hirota Kōki (Premier); Hoshino Naoki (President of Planning Board); Itagaki Seishirō (General and War Minister); Kaya Okinori (Finance Minister); Kido Kōichi (Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal); Kimura Heitarō (General and Commander of Forces in Burma); Koiso Kuniaki (General and Premier); Matsui Iwane (General and Commander of Central China Expeditionary Force); Minami Jirō (General and War Minister); Mutō Akira (General and Director of Military Affairs, Bureau of the War Ministry); Oka Takasumi (Admiral and Chief of Bureau of Naval Affairs); Oshima Hiroshi (General and Ambassador to Germany); Satō Kenryō (General and Chief of the Military Affairs Bureau of the War Ministry); Shigemitsu Mamoru (Foreign Minister and Ambassador to Great Britain); Shimada Shigetarō (Admiral and Navy Minister); Shiratori Toshio (Ambassador to Italy); Suzuki Teiichi (General and Director of Cabinet Planning Board); Tōgō Shigemori (Foreign Minister); Tōjō Hideki (General and Commander-in-chief of the Kwantung Army). For personnel records of the defendants, see IMTFE, “Exhibits,” 103–129.

⁵ IMTFE, “Proceedings,” 32.

⁶ Ibid, 33–34. There were 55 counts in all, 36 under the heading of “crimes against peace” and 19 under “murder.” For a full text of the Indictment, see ibid, 27–73.

⁷ Phase I (Japanese Constitution and Government Structure): IMTFE, “Proceedings,” 518–683; “Exhibits,” 1–129.

Phase II (Preparing Japanese Opinion for War): “Proceedings,” 807–1679, 3122–3209; “Exhibits,” 130–168.

Phase III (Manchurian Military Aggression): “Proceedings,” 1679–2297, 2693–3121, 3209–39, 3945–4406; “Exhibits,” 169–199, 210–246, 278–305.

Phase IV (Military Aggression in the Rest of China): “Proceedings,” 2298–2517, 3239–68, 3286–3364, 3376–85; “Exhibits,” 200–3, 247–9, 251.

Phase V (Atrocities in Connection with Military Aggression in China and Opium and Narcotics in China): “Proceedings,” 2527–2692, 3270–84, 3369–75, 3886–3943, 4407–24, 4451–4993; “Exhibits,” 204–9, 250, 252–77, 306–435.

Phase VI (Economic Aggression in Manchuria and China): “Proceedings,” 3852–83, 4424–50, 4999–5347; “Exhibits,” 436–471.

Phase VII (Relations with Germany and Italy): “Proceedings,” 5848–6707; “Exhibits,” 477–611A.

Phase VIII (Relations with France and Thailand): “Proceedings,” 6708–7212; “Exhibits,” 612–665.

Phase IX (Relations with USSR): “Proceedings,” 7213–8181, 31825–32201, 32557–77; “Exhibits,” 666–839A, 3371–4, 3392.

Phase X (Preparations for War, Naval and Military Fortifications, Finance and Production): “Proceedings,” 8182–9263, 11166–225; “Exhibits,” 840–919, 1249–64.

Phase XI (Relations with US and British Commonwealth): “Proceedings,” 9264–11, 393; “Exhibits,” 920–1283.

Phase XII (Relations with Netherlands and Portugal): “Proceedings,” 11632–12347; “Exhibits,” 1284–1354.

Phase XIII (Class C Offenses): “Proceedings,” 5351–5847, 12348–853; “Exhibits,” 472–6, 1355–1489.

Phase XIV (Class B Offenses, including offenses against prisoners of war, crimes against humanity, and offenses committed at sea): “Proceedings,” 11403–627, 12854–15554; “Exhibits,” 1490–2176.

Phase XV (The Accused): “Proceedings,” 15555–16995; “Exhibits,” 2177–282.

⁸ Division I (General Problems): IMTFE “Proceedings,” 17115–18629, 23930–62; “Exhibits,” 2283–379, 2717–20.

Division II (Manchuria and Manchukuo): “Proceedings,” 18630–20484, 28075–84; “Exhibits,” 2380–2476D, 3158.

Division III (China): “Proceedings,” 20485–22399, 23963–24162; “Exhibits,” 2477–2610, 2721–21H, 3154–5.

Division IV (USSR): “Proceedings,” 22404–23929, 28063–64, 37104–62; “Exhibits,” 2611–2716C, 3156–7E, 3724–31.

Division V (Pacific War): “Proceedings,” 24165–28052, 28065–88; “Exhibits,” 2722–3153, 3158–3160.

Division VI (Individual Defense): “Proceedings,” 28108–37167; “Exhibits,” 3160–3734.

* Titles marked with an asterisk (*) are in the University of California collection and have been consulted in the preparation of this paper.

⁹ Judgment, A, 20–21.

¹⁰ These documents were introduced in Phase XI of the Prosecution's case and in Division V of the Defense case.

¹¹ Most of this evidence was introduced in Phase II of the Prosecution's case.

¹² IMTFE, “Exhibits,” 485.

¹³ See Phase VII of the Prosecution's case and Divisions I and V of the Defense case.

¹⁴ The IPS Document numbers run as high as 8279 (IPS, “Numerical List of IPS Documents Introduced as Court Exhibits,”* 32), but not all the numbers were assigned. Of the 4336 exhibits, over 2200 were submitted by the Prosecution.

¹⁵ One document produced by the Defense created quite a sensation: the “Kido Diary,”* which was kept religiously for fifteen years by one of Japan's most influential political figures. Many extracts from this “Diary” were submitted as evidence by both the Defense and the Prosecution. The “Diary” was designated as Defense Doc. No. 1632.

¹⁶ “Nihon Kakushin Undō Hirohu.”

¹⁷ International Prosecution Section of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers [hereafter cited as IPS], “Analyses of Documentary Evidence,” IPS Doc. No. 12.

¹⁸ Judgment, A, 22. The International Prosecution Section prepared an “Index to the Saionji-Harada Diary.”*

¹⁹ With a few exceptions, IPS Documents with numbers ranging from 1 to 4100 have been analyzed, but the following blocks of numbers have not been analyzed: 4101–4500 (IPS Interrogations of War Crimes Suspects); 5001–5500 (Prisoner of War Affidavits and Summaries [British Empire]; 5501–6000 (Prisoner of War Affidavits and Summaries [Netherlands]; 6250–6500 (Preparations for War, Naval); 6900—— (Opening Statements); 7000–7100 (Japanese Propaganda and Censorship); 7501—— (Personnel Records); 8001–8500 (Prisoner of War Affidavits [U.S.]); 9001—— (Preparations for War, Economic); 9501—— (Opium and Narcotics); 11500–11600 (Preparing Japanese Public Opinion for War); and 11601–11900 (Recordings of Speeches by Tōjō and Other Defendants). Ibid., I, 1–2. “Analyses of Documentary Evidence.”

²⁰ At various times, a list of corrections to the “Proceedings” was made; the one in the University of California collection is entitled “Official Corrections of the Transcript, Cumulative List of, 19 June 1947.”*

²¹ Judgment, A, 13. Regarding the value of the testimonial evidence, the Tribunal made the following remarks in its Judgment: “A large part of the testimonial evidence which was presented has been a source of disappointment to the Tribunal. An explanation of events is unconvincing unless the witness will squarely meet his difficulties and persuade the Court that the inference, which would normally arise from the undoubted occurrence of these events, should on this occasion be rejected. In the experience of this Tribunal, most of the witnesses for the Defence have not attempted to face up to their difficulties. They have met them with prolix equivocations and evasions, which only arouse distrust.” Ibid. A, 19.

²² IMTFE, “Proceedings,” 1945–2177, 14285–14422, 15853–15951, 22713–22758, 22943–22968, 29030–29064 and 29406–29418. Tanaka opposed the Army officers who favored a “positive” policy toward the United States, and who were confident that, in case of war, Japan would gain a negotiated peace. Tanaka was convinced that Japan was not yet sufficiently powerful to cope with the military and industrial might of the United States and, consequently, when Tōjō came to power Tanaka retired (or was forced to retire) from active military service. During the trial he showed a willingness to reveal anything that would discredit the Tōjō clique. Tanaka insisted, however, that his major concern, even in exposing the stupidity of the Tōjō group, was to be of service to Japan.

²³ IMTFE, “Exhibits,” 180.

²⁴ The compilation of the “Narrative Summary” was discontinued with page 37167 of the “Proceedings,” and consequently it does not cover that portion of the defense case recorded in pages 37168 to 38947.

²⁵ IPS Doc. No. 0001.

²⁶ The material used for this summary was the oral and documentary evidence presented by the Prosecution up to December 10, 1946, and thus does not include the evidence submitted by the Prosecution between December 10, 1946, and January 24, 1947. Mr. Logan, defense attorney, objected to this summary being offered to the Tribunal as an aid, stating that there were omissions and factual misstatements; IMTFE, “Proceedings,” 16990–1.

²⁷ IPS Doc. No. 0004.

²⁸ Saikō Sensō Shidō Kaigi.

²⁹ IPS Doc. No. 0005.

³⁰ IPS Doc. No. 0008. (IPS Doc. No. 0006 is entitled “Rulings of the Tribunal”*).

³¹ This index was compiled from material found on pages 16998 to 24758 of the “Proceedings,” and therefore covers only about one-third of the Defense case.

³² IMTFE, “Proceedings,” 38949–42074. The reply of the Prosecution to the Defense summation is recorded in ibid., 48160–48412.

³³ Ibid., 42075–48158.

³⁴ The Judgment was read into the “Proceedings” (48415–49858) and has been published under the title, Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (U.S. War Department, 1948), 7 vols.

³⁵ The member for India filed a dissenting opinion (1,235 pp.); the members for France (23 pp.) and the Netherlands (249 pp.) filed dissenting opinions on part of the majority Judgment; the member for the Philippines filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority (35 pp.); and the President of the Tribunal filed a brief statement (8 pp.) of his “… reasons for upholding the Charter and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and of some general considerations which influenced me in deciding the sentences.” These opinions are a part of the record of the trial, but they were not read into the “Proceedings.” Judgment, C, 1212. A mimeographed copy of these opinions is available in the Library of Congress.