208
An attempt by the prisoners to break out of No.3 Hold was repulsed by rifle fire from a guard party on the Bridge. Later, all the Japanese troops and crew members were taken off by several Japanese naval vessels, including a destroyer. No attempt was made to take off the P.O.W.s who were left to their fate. The vessel was under tow until the crew abandoned ship. Eventually, the vessel's stern touched bottom off the Chinese coast. The vessel took a violent lurch, and a renewed attempt enabled many P.O.W.s to break free and scramble over the side to swim ashore. Even then, they came under fire from nearby vessels. Most of those who made it to the shore were later rounded up by the Japanese, although one did manage to make his way to freedom via Chung King.
Lt. Wada had not survived the war, so the accused stood to face the music alone. A number of P.O.W.s gave evidence, but perhaps the most significant testimony came from the Second Mate Araki Kaname who elected to give evidence for the prosecution. He branded the order from Lt. Wada to batten down the prisoners in the holds as plainly illegal. The consequences were obvious if the order was carried out, and it was contrary to an Imperial Rescript which directed that prisoners should be treated no worse than their own troops, except so far as was necessary to keep guard over them. The witness was asked what would have happened if the Master had refused to comply with the order. “Lt. Wada would have been court-martialled if he had used force to oblige the Master to obey. The Master was responsible for the lives and safety of all on board".
846 prisoners died in the events that followed the battening down - either through suffocation, drowning or shooting.
The accused was defended by a very competent Japanese lawyer, probably chosen by his professional association, and he was permitted to call a number of witnesses from Japan, including a Lieutenant-General from the Army Marine Transport Bureau, who stated that a civilian master of a troop-carrying vessel was bound to obey orders given to him by the senior military officer on board. Japan had not ratified the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war, although he was aware of an Imperial Rescript to the effect that the convention should be observed so far as practicable. The main defence was that the accused had to obey orders even though the officer
208
An attempt by the prisoners to break out of No.3 Hold was repulsed by rifle fire from a guard party on the Bridge. Later, all the Japanese troops and crew members were taken off by several Japanese naval vessels, including a destroyer. No attempt was made to take off the P.O.W.s who were left to their fate. The vessel was under tow until the crew abandoned ship. Eventually, the vessel's stern touched bottom off the Chinese coast. The vessel took a violent lurch, and a renewed attempt enabled many P.O.W.s to break free and scramble over the side to swim ashore. Even then, they came under fire from nearby vessels. Most of those who made it to the shore were later rounded up by the Japanese, although one did manage to make his way to freedom via Chung King.
Lt. Wada had not survived the war, so the accused stood to face the music alone. A number of P.O.W.s gave evidence, but perhaps the most significant testimony came from the Second Mate Araki Kaname who elected to give evidence for the prosecution. He branded the order from Lt. Wada to batten down the prisoners in the holds as plainly illegal. The consequences were obvious if the order was carried out, and it was contrary to an Imperial Rescript which directed that prisoners should be treated no worse than their own troops, except so far as was necessary to keep guard over them. The witness was asked what would have happened if the Master had refused to comply with the order. “Lt. Wada would have been court-martialled if he had used force to oblige the Master to obey. The Master was responsible for the lives and safety of all on board".
846 prisoners died in the events that followed the battening down - either through suffocation, drowning or shooting.
The accused was defended by a very competent Japanese lawyer, probably chosen by his professional association, and he was permitted to call a number of witnesses from Japan, including a Lieutenant- General from the Army Marine Transport Bureau, who stated that a civilian master of a troop-carrying vessel was bound to obey orders given to him by the senior military officer on board. Japan had not ratified the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war, although he was aware of an Imperial Rescript to the effect that the convention should be observed so far as practicable. The main defence was that the accused had to obey orders even though the officer
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.