The case of Major Houck is getting more interesting. It seems as though he commanded the 118 th Tactical Wing, was shot down over Hong Kong on Jan 15, was executed by the Japanese on April 6. The execution seems to be largely forgotten to history. I can't find any information indicating his body was ever recovered and he isn't listed as MIA. I also can't find him on the normal memorial plaques etc.
Below find part of the prosecution of the Japanese invovled in his trial and execution.
Can onyone shed any light on this ?
Today at 06:58 AM
#13
Here are the Houck prosecution details. CASE No. 33 TRIAL OF GENERAL TANAKA HISAKASU AND FIVE OTHERS UNITED STATES MILITARY COMMISSION, SHANGHAI, 13TH AUGUST--3RD SEPTEMBER, 1946 A. OUTLINE OF THE PROCEEDINGS 1. THE CHARGES
The Charge against General Tanaka Hisakasu was that, as Governor General of Hong Kong and Commanding General of the Japanese 23rd Imperial Expeditionary Army in China, he “ did, at Canton, China and/or Hong Kong knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and wrongfully commit cruel, inhuman and brutal atrocities and other offences against ” a named United States Major, “ by authorizing, permitting, participating in and approving of the illegal, unfair, false and null trial and the unlawful killing ” of the Major, in violation of the laws and customs of war.
Major-General Fukuchi Haruo was charged of violations of the laws and customs of war in that, as Chief of Staff of the Governor General of Hong Kong he “ did, at Hong Kong, wilfully, unlawfully and wrongfully commit ” offences described in the same manner as those charged against Tanaka.
Lieutenant-Colonel Kubo Nishigai, Major Watanabe Masamori and Captain Yamaguchi Koichi of the Japanese Army of the Governor General of Hong Kong were charged of having “ as members of a purported Japanese Military Tribunal,” committed offences of the same description at Hong Kong by “ acting in, participating in and permitting the illegal unfair false and null trial and the unlawful killing ” of the same victim.
Captain Asakawa Hiroshi of the Japanese Army of the Governor General of Hong Kong was charged with committing a violation of the laws and customs of war in that “ as Prosecutor of a purported Japanese Military Tribunal ” he permitted, prosecuted in and participated in the same illegal trial.
The offence was said to have been committed during April, 1945.
The accused pleaded not guilty.
2. THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The evidence showed that on 5th January, 1945, a United States Major, Commanding Officer of the 118th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron (USAAF), took part in an air raid on shipping and docks in Hong Kong harbour. (Other pilots in the same mission stated that only military targets were attacked.) He was shot down and captured by the Japanese. During interrogations by the Japanese Prosecutor at Hong Kong, Shii (who
p.67
committed suicide while awaiting trial), the Major repeatedly stated that , he had no intention of attacking any civilian vessel. On being approached by Shii, the legal bureau of the War Ministry in Tokyo replied that prosecution should take place “ if it is clear that a civilian steamer was bombed.”
Following this, the Major was placed on trial on 5th April, 1945, at Hong Kong. The Court was a Japanese Military Tribunal composed of the accused Kubo as chief judge, and Watanabe and Yamaguchi as associate judges, Yamaguchi being the law member, with the accused Asakawa as acting prosecutor. The Major was charged with having bombed and sunk a thirty-ton Chinese civilian vessel in Hong Kong harbour, on 15th January, 1945, resulting in the death of eight Chinese civilians. This was alleged to be in violation of the Japanese law commonly referred to as the “ Enemy Airmen Act.” This act had been promulgated in occupied Hong Kong in the year 1942 by the then Governor General Rensuke Isogai, whom the accused Tanaka succeeded in December 1944. In particular, it was charged that the Major had bombed and sunk the Chinese ship in violation of Article 2 of the Act :
“ Those having committed the following acts will be subjected to military punishment : (b) bombing, strafing or attacking in any manner with intention of destroying, damaging or burning private property of non-military nature.” (Italics added).
According to the prosecution witness, Nakazawa, who acted as interpreter at the Japanese trial, the Major testified in answer to questions by the law member of the court (Yamaguchi) that he was piloting his plane over Hong Kong harbour and “ went into a dive to attack one destroyer,” during which he released his bomb ; that the anti-aircraft fire was very intense and while in the dive, the plane was hit and crashed into the sea. He had denied
intentionally bombing any civilian boat, or seeing such a ship sunk. The witness Nakazawa also testified that the Major had no defence counsel at his trial, and that there were no witnesses excepting the Major himself.
It was shown that the evidence before the Japanese tribunal consisted of three documents, a report on damage submitted by the Chief of Staff, the Gendarmerie report and the prosecutor’s statement, in addition to the testimony of Major Houck. The report of the Chief of Staff contained information such as to the date, location, type of ship sunk, and the number of persons killed. This report was submitted over the signature of the Chief of Staff (Fukuchi) in answer to a request by the prosecutor. The report of the Gendarmerie consisted of a “ statement of damages suffered in the air raid ” and a statement from the Major. The prosecutor’s statement consisted of two documents, one based on a questioning of Houck, in which he denied the correctness of the Gendarmerie report and the other a detailed “ investigation of the case.” Both of these documents were written in Japanese and were purportedly signed by the Major, with his thumb print affixed. These statements were prepared by the deceased Major Shii who investigated the case as prosecutor.
p.68
The accused Yamaguchi, however, testified before the Commission that in his opinion the entire trial was conducted properly according to Japanese law.
The acting prosecutor demanded the death penalty for the Major, the entire hearing having lasted not more than two hours. Following this case two Japanese cases were heard by the same court, which then adjourned for lunch.
In a deliberation held after the adjournment, Yamaguchi stated to the other two members of the court that “ the facts of crime are clear,” that the Major was guilty, and that he interpreted the “ Enemy Airmen Act ” to require imposition of the death penalty which could be commuted to life imprisonment or more than ten years imprisonment by Tanaka alone. All three judges voted that the Major was guilty and unanimously voted the death penalty, whereupon Yamaguchi prepared the “ draft of the verdict ” which was announced in open court.
Chief of Staff Fukuchi approved the death sentence and signed the order for the execution of the Major upon being assured by Prosecutor Shii that Houck had admitted attacking and sinking the civilian ship, “ resulting in some casualties.” Shii then personally directed the firing squad that carried out the order.
The evidence showed that a leading part in arranging the trial was taken by Prosecutor Shii. Further evidence regarding each of those actually brought before the Commission is set out in the following paragraphs.
Tanaka admitted that the court which tried and sentenced the Major to death was under his jurisdiction and that all persons connected with the trial and execution were subordinate members of his commands as Governor-General of Hong Kong and Commanding General of the 23rd Japanese Army at Canton. As early as February he knew that the case was under investigation. He also admitted again hearing of the matter on 20th March, and said that, before returning to Canton on 21st March, he gave Fukuchi full authority to act on his behalf in all matters of the Hong Kong command, leaving with him a number of sheets of paper signed in blank for this This action was permitting under military regulations and was done to empower the chief of staff to take proper defence measures in the event of Hong Kong being isolated by reason of enemy action. Tanaka was the only person who could have legally approved (or commuted) the death sentence or order the execution.
Before leaving Hong Kong on 21st March, Tanaka appears to have given Fukuchi a “ general caution ” about taking action in the case. Despite this knowledge of Tanaka, however, there was no evidence that he ordered the holding of the trial or knew in advance that the Major would not receive a fair trial or that he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that, if the Major should be convicted, the execution of sentence would be carried out without his personal order. The evidence was undisputed that
p.69
the record of trial was not submitted to him and that he did not personally order the execution, as was required by Japanese law. His first information as to the verdict and execution of death sentence, was obtained when he returned to Hong Kong about the “ middle of April ” after the execution had been carried out on 6th April.
Fukuchi admitted hearing of the case shortly after his arrival at his post in Hong Kong as Chief of Staff of the Governor-General, on 22nd February, 1945. Fukuchi transmitted Shii’s request to Tokyo for permission to hold the trial, over his own signature, and at his direction a report was prepared on the case which was offered in evidence at the Japanese trial. Prior to appointing the court, he had discussed the matter with Prosecutor Shii on numerous occasions. On the day of the trial, by his own admission, he approved the death sentence and ordered the execution. He did not submit the record and sentence for approval, as was required by the applicable Japanese military law, but acted independently but under the general authority to conduct military and judicial administrative matters, as delegated in a “ general order ” by Tanaka. Fukuchi seemingly relied to a great extent on the statements made to him by Shii to the effect that the victim had admitted his guilt.
Kubo and Watanabe, a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major respectively, were members of the court that sentenced the victim to death but were men of little or no legal training. Kubo had had no previous experience in serving on courts and Watanabe had only once served on a military tribunal previously. It appeared from the evidnce that they based their verdict and sentence on the views of Yamaguchi, the law member, and on his interpretation of the law. Nevertheless they were under no compulsion to find the Major guilty and both conceded that they could have voted “ not guilty”.
In a statement taken before his trial, Watanabe said : “ Yes, I think that was a very unfair trial “, explaining that he thought that the trial was not fair because the Major had no defence counsel, no witnesses and no opportunity to produce witnesses. In his testimony, Watanabe attempted to retract this part of his former statement.
Yamaguchi was a member of the Judicial Affairs Section attached to the 23rd Japanese Army, with wide court-martial experience, and, in acting as legal officer on the court which sentenced the Major to death, he apparently controlled and directed the actions of Kubo and Watanabe. It appeared that it was his interpretation of the law and his insistence that the victim was guilty that led the other two members of the court to agree to the finding of guilty and to the death sentence.
Asakawa was the acting prosecutor at the trial, but his actions were directed by Shii, although the latter did not actually prosecute.
p.70
3. THE FINDINGS AND SENTENCES
All of the accused were found guilty with the exception of Asakawa Hiroshi, and with the deletion of the word “ purported ” in the charges against the members of the Japanese Military Tribunal.
Tanaka and Fukuchi were sentenced to death by hanging.
Kubo and Yamaguchi were sentenced to imprisonment for life, and Watanabe for a period of 50 years.
The Confirming Authority approved the sentence of life imprisonment passed on Yamaguchi ; but disapproved the sentence passed on Tanaka, and commuted those meted out to Fukuchi, Kubo and Watanabe to periods of imprisonment for life, for ten years and for ten years respectively.
The findings and sentence on General Tanaka were disapproved for the reason that, although Tanaka had final authority in the matter, he was absent from command at the time of the trial, the passing of sentence and the execution of Major Houck, and there was not sufficient evidence of wrongful knowledge on his part of the acts of his subordinates upon which to predicate his criminal responsibility for their acts.
__________________
Tom