This paper examines the stark disparity in postwar accountability between Japanese officials responsible for the Nanking Massacre and Nazi leaders convicted at Nuremberg. Drawing on Iris Chang's foundational work and tribunal records, the paper argues that a combination of weak prosecution strategy, U.S. political interests, Emperor Hirohito's immunity, and Cold War geopolitics allowed most Japanese officers to escape serious punishment. It further explores how Japanese educational censorship, historical denial, and cultural nationalism compounded this injustice — leaving generations of Japanese citizens largely unaware of the atrocities their nation committed against hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians and soldiers during World War II.
The televised proceedings of the Nuremberg trials forever haunted former Nazi leaders and officers. Yet former Japanese officers who committed comparable — if not worse — crimes than their European Axis counterparts were never met with the same fateful consequences. Due to a lack of sustained support from both China and the United States, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East failed to convict nearly as many Japanese officials as its counterpart had in Germany. This failure is attributable primarily to an incompetent prosecution, a fractured system of indictments, and confused ideas about who bore responsibility for atrocities such as the one carried out in Nanking, where over three hundred thousand Chinese and Korean civilians, refugees, and unarmed soldiers were murdered during the Japanese occupation of China.
Due to closer cultural ties with Germany, the international community held Nazi officers more accountable at the executive level, charging them with participation in broader conspiracies. The guilt surrounding the use of nuclear weapons, combined with the United States' interest in rapidly establishing Japan as a friendly economic partner, meant that many Japanese officials responsible for the Nanking Massacre were either tried as sole individuals who failed to restrain their subordinates, or not tried at all — as in the case of Emperor Hirohito. As an end result, former Japanese officers were allowed to hold public office and even migrate to the United States. Compared to Nazi Germany, Japan faced very limited consequences for the horrendous war crimes committed during its occupation of China in World War II.
The most enduring images of World War II remain the Holocaust and the death camps of Europe, for which many Nazi officials were later hunted down and convicted. Far fewer people have ever heard of the Nanking Massacre, carried out in 1937–1938 by the Japanese Empire, which has remained relatively unpunished. Although the massacre initially made worldwide news, it has largely slipped into forgotten global history (Chang 1997:201). Yet this event was responsible for the deaths of approximately three hundred thousand Chinese under Japanese occupation during the early years of World War II. As war spread across Europe, media coverage of the Pacific was overshadowed by Hitler's campaigns in neighboring countries — a pattern that affected many non-European atrocities. The American press covered Pacific events more thoroughly than any other international media, yet most Americans can only vaguely recall battles such as Midway and Okinawa, while most other nations remain almost entirely unaware of Japanese conduct in World War II.
Scholars believe the atrocities at Nanking arose from a variety of factors rooted deep within Japanese culture — factors not entirely unlike those within Nazi Germany that produced a belief in Aryan racial superiority. The Japanese had long regarded the Chinese as inferior and had engaged in conflicts with China prior to the outbreak of World War II. This presents a parallel to the early persecution and genocide of Jewish people under Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.
According to some scholars, the malicious violence of Japanese soldiers was partly a transmission of the humiliation those soldiers themselves were forced to endure within the rigid hierarchy of the Japanese military (Chang 1997:217). Having been treated harshly themselves, many soldiers unleashed their aggression on helpless Chinese civilians and unarmed soldiers — a way of compensating for their lowly status within a society acutely dependent on class ranking. On top of this, many Japanese soldiers had grown up with an ingrained hatred of the Chinese, a hostility rooted in generations of prior conflict and a generalized xenophobia toward a people the Japanese regarded as inferior (Chang 1997:218). This contempt fueled the violence that erupted in Nanking. Finally, some scholars also identify religious differences as a contributing factor (Chang 1997:218). With religion historically implicated in many violent conflicts, it is not surprising that it played some role in motivating the conduct of Japanese soldiers during their occupation.
Unlike their fellow Axis powers, the Japanese government was never fully prosecuted under the theory that its war crimes were part of a systemic governmental policy rather than the responsibility of particular individuals (Chang 1997:201). The Nazi regime, by contrast, was understood by postwar courts as having acted in accordance with state policy, with individual generals and high-ranking officers held personally responsible for atrocities on European soil. Nazi leaders were held accountable as active participants in the planning and execution of genocide. In the case of Japan, however, prosecutors at the Tokyo war crimes trials held conflicting views about the nation's broader moral responsibility. Many continued to argue that Japan had acted in self-preservation against invading Western powers (Chang 1997:201). Under this ideology, Japan was recast as the primary victim after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — a victimhood that Nazi Germany, of course, never claimed. Those who embraced Japan's victimhood narrative also tended to dismiss the Nanking Massacre, with some even characterizing it as a Chinese fabrication aimed at destroying Japan's innocent image (Chang 1997:201). Hitler's Holocaust could never be so easily dismissed. This dynamic generated considerable international and domestic criticism, and efforts were made to introduce more factual accounts into Japanese history education — though always at the cost of Japan's self-image as an innocent, defensive power.
These competing views angered the international community and brought renewed attention to the massacre. Initial international response had been relatively muted compared to coverage of atrocities in Europe. Many Japanese citizens reported never having heard of the massacre until those responsible were placed on trial before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Chang 1997:201). Some Japanese loyalists insisted the United States had used fabricated Chinese accounts to justify the decision to deploy nuclear weapons. However, after the war, American journalists documented their earlier on-the-ground reporting, demonstrating that coverage of Nanking had in fact been detailed and contemporaneous (Chang 1997:202). Later research confirmed that multiple American, Japanese, and international press outlets had reported on the massacre in real time. Japan's ongoing denials have continued to anger China; protests and demonstrations have erupted in response to Japanese officials publicly defending the nation's innocence and dismissing Chinese accounts as propaganda (Chang 1997:204).
The atrocities at Nanking were eventually brought to light at the war crimes trials conducted by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Several officers were charged with Crimes Against Peace, Crimes Against Humanity, and other war crimes — charges closely mirroring those brought against their Axis counterparts at Nuremberg. The Tokyo proceedings operated under a charter modeled on the Nuremberg Tribunal, which had convicted hundreds of former Nazi officers and officials. Yet only a handful of the Japanese officers involved in the Rape of Nanking were actually tried in the region (Chang 1997:170). Those trials encompassed over 460 cases of murder, rape, arson, and looting — all acts previously banned under international conventions. More than 1,000 Chinese witnesses came forward to testify in proceedings that continued until February 1947, after the Chinese government posted notices in Nanking requesting credible witnesses (Chang 1997:170). Unlike the Nuremberg Trials, however, much of the case against the Japanese unraveled due to faulty prosecution and a lack of genuine commitment to justice.
The events in Nanking violated several established bodies of international law protecting civilians, prisoners of war, and unarmed soldiers. According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, three classifications of war criminals were established based on the intent and nature of their crimes. This tribunal followed the model set by the coinciding Nuremberg Tribunal, defining war crimes as "violations of the laws and customs of war" (Alderman 1945:149). Class A criminals were those who had committed crimes against peace (Alderman 1945:149). These crimes formed the bulk of convictions at Nuremberg. Crimes against peace consisted of participating "in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances" (International Military Tribunal 1945:64). Yet in Japan, many individuals — including the Emperor himself — who had effectively admitted to doing precisely what this definition described were left unconvicted and later permitted to hold public office and freely enter the United States.
Another section of the shared charter addressed crimes against hostages and prisoners of war. According to the Nuremberg Charter, Nazi Germany "in the course of waging aggressive wars, the defendants adopted and put into effect on a wide scale the practice of taking, and of killing, hostages from the civilian population" (International Military Tribunal 1945:65). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 had established protections for civilian hostages and prisoners of war during occupation. The Japanese actions at Nanking were in direct violation of these conventions. Hundreds of thousands of civilian hostages, refugees, and prisoners of war were murdered — many through chemical and biological weapons testing. Japan's human experimentation programs resulted in the miserable deaths of hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians, in direct violation of Article 171 of the Treaty of Versailles, which outlawed the use of poison gas and other chemical weapons — a prohibition that Nazi Germany had also violated. All of these conventions had originally been signed by Japan, further demonstrating its awareness of the international laws it subsequently disregarded during its occupation of China.
Under the same charter, the Japanese were also guilty of Crimes Against Humanity — a category that emerged directly from the Nuremberg proceedings, unlike Crimes Against Peace, which had earlier precedents in international conventions. Crimes Against Humanity consisted of "maltreatment or atrocities committed against persons who were unprotected by law because of their nationality" (Moghalu 2008:185). Japan's strongest defense was that it had never ratified the Prisoner of War Convention before entering the war, despite promises to Allied forces that it would protect Allied POWs. However, this argument carried no weight with respect to the Japanese treatment of the Chinese. The new legal framework of Crimes Against Humanity explicitly included Chinese victims, since they could not be excluded on grounds of nationality. The prosecution also presented evidence that Japan had ratified the Fourth Hague Convention in 1907, which stipulated the protection of prisoners of war during wartime. Among the most blatantly criminal offenses committed by the Japanese army during the occupation of Nanking was the systematic sexual enslavement of female residents of the region — also in violation of the aforementioned conventions and treaties to which Japan was a signatory.
"Prosecutorial weaknesses that undermined convictions"
"MacArthur's decision to exempt the Emperor"
"War criminals who later held public office"
"Textbook censorship and suppression of massacre history"
The Japanese have never faced the full consequences for their responsibility in murdering over three hundred thousand Chinese citizens and soldiers at Nanking. Unlike the Nazi regime, which was completely destroyed and humiliated as a result of its criminal actions during the war, Japan remained relatively blameless for the rape, murder, looting, and chemical and biological experimentation it carried out during World War II. Although some officials were convicted and executed, the larger prosecution failed to characterize these atrocities as acts of conspiracy that would implicate the entire Japanese government. Instead, the prosecution focused on blaming individuals for their failure to prevent what their subordinates were doing — a strategy that produced a fractured case riddled with gaps and indecision.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.