Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, The British Commonwealth, The Far East, Volume VI

711.94114A/8–745

The Department of State to the Spanish Embassy ⁹⁶

Memorandum

The Department of State refers to the Spanish Embassy’s memorandum (No. J–96, Ex. 119.01) dated May 11, 1944,⁹⁷ transmitting the Japanese Government’s reply, dated May 3, 1944, to this Government’s protest of January 27, 1944.⁹⁸ The Japanese Government states, Section 1, that this Government’s protest of January 27, 1944, is based upon a serious misunderstanding of the Japanese Government’s position concerning the application of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1929 in regard to the treatment of prisoners of war. The Department of State reminds the Japanese Government that in January 1942 the Japanese Government informed the Swiss Minister in Tokyo that Japan was observing the Geneva Red Cross Convention as a signatory state and that, although not bound by the Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, Japan would apply mutatis mutandis provisions of that Convention to American prisoners of war in its power.⁹⁹ Furthermore in February 1942 the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a note to the Swiss Legation in Tokyo declaring that Japan would apply on condition of reciprocity the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war to civilian internees in so far as the Convention was applicable, and with the understanding that the internees were not to be forced to labor against their will.¹

The Japanese Government did not hesitate to publicize the position it had taken. A Domei despatch dated Tokyo, Feb. 12, 1942 and printed in the Manila Tribune, February 14, 1942, reads:

“Tokyo, Feb. 12, 1942 (Domei) Haruhiko Nishi vice Foreign Minister revealed before the session of the lower house that Japan and the United States agreed mutually through a third nation to treat their respective nationals placed in concentration camps in accordance with the international treaty governing war prisoners.

“Although Japan was not a signatory to this agreement, it was said that Tokyo sent a msesage to the United States that the treatment of war prisoners would be according to international law.

“It was added that the United States replied that she would treat the Japanese similarly.

“The reciprocal nature of this agreement, it was pointed out, insures fair treatment for Japanese placed in American concentration camps.”

Another Domei despatch, dated Geneva, Feb. 14, 1942 and printed in the Manila Tribune of Feb. 17, 1942 reads:

“Geneva, Feb. 14, 1942 (Domei)—The Japanese Government informed the International Red Cross that Japan will abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of war prisoners, although Japan is not bound by the Convention. The Japanese Government said that it will treat prisoners of war on a reciprocal basis.”

The United States Government accepted in good faith the Japanese Government’s pledge to abide by the humane standards of the Geneva Convention in its treatment both of prisoners of war and civilian internees. In view of the commitments of the Japanese Government and of the publicity given to them by the official news agency of the Japanese Government, the United States Government is at a loss to understand the astonishment of the Japanese Government that the United States Government should refer to the humane standards of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention when protesting the treatment accorded to its nationals in Japanese custody. The Japanese Government now states that it is also applying the standards of The Hague Convention.²

The United States Government states most emphatically that, as the Japanese Government can assure itself from the objective examination of the uncensored reports submitted to it by the representatives of the protecting Powers and of the International Red Cross Committee who have visited the centers where Japanese nationals are held, the United States Government has fully and consistently applied the provisions of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention in the treatment of Japanese nationals, both prisoners of war and civilian internees.

The Japanese Government in its treatment of American prisoners of war, however, has disregarded many of the provisions of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. It has shown a similar disregard for the Convention provisions in the treatment of civilian internees even though the Japanese Government agreed to apply the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention to civilian internees in so far as its terms were adaptable to civilians.

In reply to this Government’s protest the Japanese Government states, Section II (1), that visits to prisoner of war camps in occupied territory were not permitted “for the time being” because of military operations. If by military operations the Japanese Government means the period when active hostilities are in progress, the United States Government points out to the Japanese Government that after areas of the Philippine Islands, Burma, Java, Thailand, Malaya had ceased to be theatres of active operations, no representative of either the protecting Power or of the International Red Cross Committee was permitted to visit the camps. The United States Government also calls attention to the fact that the phrase “for the time being” is meaningless when applied over a period of years. Article 78 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention provides for camp visits by a representative of the protecting Power. The Japanese Government’s procrastination in refusing to permit visits in occupied territories constitutes grave failure to observe its voluntarily given commitment to apply the provisions of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention in its treatment of enemy nationals held in Japanese custody.

The Japanese Government agreed early in the war to authorize visits by representatives of the protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee to camps in Japan proper, China and Manchuria. Despite this agreement the authorizations granted have been sporadic and arbitrary. The visits actually permitted have been few and far between. There are camps in Japan proper which have not been visited since 1943 by representatives either of the protecting Power or of the International Red Cross Committee. Furthermore the United States Government has been reliably informed that there are camps in Japan proper which have never been officially reported and which as a consequence have never been visited.

Where occasional visits have been permitted their value has been minimized by the presence of Japanese witnesses at all times even during interviews of the representatives of the protecting Power or of the International Red Cross Committee with camp spokesmen. In reply to the United States Government’s protest on this subject the Japanese Government advances two conflicting statements. It states that witnesses are required by Japanese law and then, referring to a visit made by the Consul General of Switzerland to the prisoner of war camp in Shanghai, states that members of the Japanese Consulate accompanied him as a matter of courtesy. Whatever the reason, the fact that witnesses are present at all times during visits to prisoner of war and civilian internment camps constitutes failure on the part of the Japanese Government to comply with Article 68 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. This failure has caused cruel and needless suffering to American nationals held by the Japanese. It has prevented them from addressing themselves freely to the representatives of the protecting Power and from making known their needs.

Article 42 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention states unequivocally that prisoners have the right to address themselves to representatives of the protecting Power. The Japanese Government, failing to reply individually to the cases cited in the United States Government’s protest of January 27, 1944, categorically denies, Section II (2), that Americans held in Japanese custody were not permitted to forward complaints to the competent Japanese authorities or to the protecting Power and states that no punishments had been inflicted because of complaints. This sweeping statement, which is at variance with established and duly documented facts, forces the United States Government to the conclusion that, due to the indifference of Japanese authorities abroad in reporting facts to their superiors at home and the negligence of the home authorities in demanding such reports, the Japanese Government has either been indifferent to the situation or has failed to exercise proper control over its agents. The United States Government therefore expects that the cases of collective punishment at the Columbia Country Club, Shanghai and at Camp B, Yangchow will be investigated again and that the Japanese officials responsible for cases of collective punishment will be duly punished.

The Japanese Government states that, although there may have been some difficulties at the time of the opening of the camps, communications addressed to the representative of the protecting Power were being forwarded at the time of its reply. The United States Government has conclusive evidence that on July 28, 1944, the internees at the Santo Tomas Internment Camp in Manila handed to the Japanese Camp Commandant for transmission to Tokyo a document addressed to the Representative of the protecting Power of the United States, Tokyo, Japan. The representative of the protecting Power has never referred to the receipt of this document.

Article 12 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention provides that clothing, linen and foot wear shall be furnished by the detaining Power and that laborers must receive work clothes. The Hague Convention provides that the Government into whose hands prisoners have fallen is charged with their maintenance. The Japanese Government asserts, Section II (3), that it has given thorough consideration to the clothing needs of American prisoners of war and civilian internees and that proper measures are being taken to furnish clothing at the expense of the Japanese Government to the extent that it is necessary. The United States Government has been reliably informed that in the Fukuoka camps the prisoners are in need of underwear and socks; that at Migata working clothes are required; that at Kawasaki No. 2, warm underclothing is lacking: that at Omori and Shinagawa the prisoners are in need of suitable clothing; and that in the camps in Formosa the prisoners of war lack necessary clothing. Conditions in civilian internment camps, in spite of the many representations made by the protecting Power on behalf of American nationals, follow the same pattern. At Weihsien shoes and clothing are badly needed; at Kanagawa Prefectural Civil Internment Camp the internees require footgear as well as clothing, socks and underwear; and at the civilian internment camp in Urawa there is a pitiful lack of necessary garments.

The Japanese Government denies that prisoners of war in the Philippine Islands were forced to labor without shoes and were inadequately clad. It is an established fact that as late as April 8, 1944, American prisoners of war at the Lasang airfield had their boots taken from them and were compelled to work bare-footed. Although the American colonel in charge of the men made urgent appeals to the Japanese authorities for some kind of foot covering, his requests were ignored and the men, especially those forced to work in the coral pits, had to endure the pain of having their bare feet badly cut by razorsharp coral.

From the foregoing it appears that the Japanese Government’s statement that proper measures were instituted to furnish and to provide at the expense of the Japanese Government clothing for American nationals held in Japanese custody is not borne out by the facts.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (4), that the regulations regarding the personal effects of American prisoners of war and civilian internees are strictly enforced in Japan. If such a rule exists, it is not being followed by the Japanese authorities in the field. The fact that the charges made by the United States Government concerned American nationals in areas so widely separated geographically would tend to indicate that the robbing of prisoners is a general practice among members of the Japanese armed forces serving abroad.

The alleged investigations of these charges appear to have been carried out in such a manner as deliberately to misinform the Japanese Government. For example, the Japanese Government states that there was never a prisoner of war camp, a civilian internment camp or a civil assembly center in Tsingtao. The following notice was delivered to American nationals in Tsingtao one to three hours before their removal from their homes to the Iltis Hydro Hotel Camp:

“Naval Headquarters Order October 27, 1942.

Removal preparations must be finished by noon of October 27th. Following things are permitted to transfer with you:

1. One’s personal effect (except bed)

2. Tableware

3. Money

4. Provisions for three days.

Imperial Japanese Naval Headquarters Tsingtao”

The camp, composed of 147 enemy nationals including 43 Americans, functioned at the Iltis Hydro Hotel from October 27, 1942, until the internees were transferred to Weihsien on March 20, 1943. In addition to the armed guards at the gate three gendarmes were installed on the premises. Effects belonging to American nationals were taken from them before they went into camp and no receipts were given; they were not allowed to take possession of personal property stored in warehouses prior to the war or to recover title deeds from office safes.

The investigation allegedly conducted by the Japanese Government regarding the robbing of American prisoners of war in the Philippine Islands appears to have been equally indifferent in establishing the true facts. The United States Government has on record irrefutable testimony concerning the robbing of American prisoners of war. Article 6 of the Geneva Convention and Article 4 of the Annex of The Hague Convention specify that all effects and objects of personal use shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war.

The United States Government, therefore, reaffirms that vital personal property was stolen by Japanese soldiery and authorities from American nationals at Mariveles Bay, on the march from Bataan to San Fernando, in prisoner of war camps in the Philippine Islands, and at Baguio, Manila, Canton, Tientsin, Peking, Tsingtao, Weihsien and Shanghai. It cannot accept the Japanese Government’s claim that no such incidents ever occurred.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (5), that prisoners of war and civilian internees are not subjected to public curiosity because in all camps and centers under Japanese control no one is allowed to enter the camps without official permission. It is all the more serious that the acts which the United States Government protested were committed by persons who could not have done so without official permission. The United States Government repeats its protest that American prisoners of war were subjected to the indignity of being photographed operating military equipment in connection with the propaganda film, “Rip Down the Stars and Stripes”, that sightseeing tours were permitted in internment camps in Baguio, Hong Kong and Tsingtao, and that irresponsible soldiers wandered at will about the premises where American nationals were interned, at night entered dormitories where women were housed, and rifled the internees’ personal possessions. Actions such as these are in direct opposition to Article 2 of the Geneva Convention.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (6), that great efforts were made by the Japanese authorities to provide food for American prisoners of war and civilian internees in the Philippine Islands but that food was difficult to obtain. If the Japanese army experienced difficulties in this respect it is the more reprehensible that they denied members of the Philippine Red Cross permission to deliver foodstuffs to the prisoner of war camps. The brutal treatment accorded representatives of relief societies who, endowed with humanity and native goodness, tried to alleviate the sad plight of American prisoners of war, cannot be forgotten or condoned.

The Japanese Government states that remarkable improvement was made in the health conditions of the prisoners of war in the Philippines. This claim is based on the fact that the death rate among prisoners of war declined in 1943. It has been reliably reported to the United States Government that the food furnished by the Japanese became progressively worse during the winter of 1943–1944, that prisoners already greatly underweight lost an additional twenty to thirty pounds, and that only the strongest and hardiest individuals survived the horrors and brutalities under which they lived. It has also been reported that certain foodstuffs indigenous to the Philippine Islands and therefore plentiful were arbitrarily withheld from the prisoners. Ripe fruits, which could have supplied much needed vitamins, were banned and a prisoner of war had his arm broken when he tried to pick some. At Lasang where salt is plentiful it was withheld for weeks at a time. Furthermore, in practically all of the camps, collective disciplinary measures were enforced by withholding food. Article 11 of the Geneva Convention states that all collective disciplinary measures affecting the food are prohibited.

The Japanese Government contends that the prevalence of beriberi, pellagra and scurvy in the Philippine Islands was not due to the quality and quantity of food furnished by the Japanese authorities but to the weakened condition of the prisoners at the time of their capture. If the prisoners of war were in a weakened physical condition it was all the more necessary for the Japanese authorities to provide for their welfare. But this was not done. The half-starved, emaciated condition of American nationals recently liberated in the Philippine Islands provides ample proof of the starvation diets issued to them by the Japanese authorities as do also the reliable reports from Japan proper dealing with the physical condition of prisoners of war transferred there from southern areas.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (6), that the Japanese authorities are giving specially considerate treatment to prisoners of war in supplying them with food. A careful study of the reports of the meals furnished to the prisoners of war fails to indicate that the foodstuffs issued are adequate either in quality or quantity. The diet is seriously lacking in proteins, fats and vitamins essential to health and the bulk of the food consists of rice or grain to which the prisoners are unaccustomed. Furthermore an analysis of the reported menus shows a wide discrepancy between the actual and reported calories. It is not surprising therefore that camp reports indicate that the men are hungry.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (8), that officer prisoners were never forced to labor or to perform menial tasks. In the Philippine Islands no pretense was made of observing the articles of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention or of The Hague Convention prohibiting officer labor. Officer prisoners were forced to work in the logging areas and in the rice fields and in contradiction to Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, were forced to carry on labor directly connected with war operations. At Lasang they were ordered to labor long hours on an airfield and when they refused the Japanese authorities, in addition to compelling them to work, subjected them and their men to collective punishment by withholding the food in total disregard of Article 11 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. In view of these well established facts it is evident that the alleged investigations regarding the cases protested by the United States Government on January 27, 1944, concealed rather than disclosed the truth. The United States Government therefore totally rejects the Japanese Government’s reply that officer prisoners were never forced to labor and demands that the officials responsible be suitably punished. Instances of this sort have not occurred in the Philippines alone. The United States Government was reliably informed that work was required of officer prisoners held at Formosa, and that officers detained in the Zentsuji Camp were compelled to perform menial services for themselves.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (9), that the health of prisoners of war held in the Philippine Islands was extremely bad and that the inadequacy of medical supplies was unavoidable owing to the great demand. An humane authority faced with a problem of equal magnitude, would have exerted every effort to alleviate the suffering of the sick and wounded and would have endeavored to improve in so far as possible the conditions under which the prisoners were held. In the Philippine Islands hundreds upon hundreds of prisoners died not only because the Japanese authorities withheld medicaments for treatment of the sick and wounded but also because they failed to issue the most elementary material and equipment needed to maintain a minimum standard of hygiene and sanitation. In addition to their callous neglect, the Japanese authorities deliberately prevented the prisoners of war from receiving aid and supplies from other sources. Representatives of the Philippine Red Cross bringing supplies to Camp O’Donnell were brutally treated by Japanese soldiery. It was reliably reported to the United States Government that when prisoners of war many months later were transferred from the Philippine Islands they were in so serious a condition of malnutrition that many succumbed in the first few months after their transfer to Japan. The Japanese Government therefore cannot so lightly discharge the responsibility of the Japanese authorities for the suffering and death of so many American and Filipino prisoners of war.

The Japanese Government states that the authorities are at the present time paying proper attention to the health of all prisoners of war and that at all internment camps the authorities have taken measures for proper medical care and for hospitalization free of charge. This statement does not accord with reliable information received by the United States Government. It has been reported for instance that at Kawasaki No. 2, medicaments, bandages, and plaster are not sufficient and that necessary surgical instruments are lacking. At Santo Tom as and at Los Banos no provisions were made to guarantee the health and well being of the internees by supplying them with necessary medicaments; at Weihsien and Yangchow, which are far removed from hospital centers, the Japanese authorities have never furnished adequate surgical, medical and dental equipment or medicaments necessary to maintain the health of the internees; and in the Hyogo Civilian Internment Camp in Japan persons in need of hospitalization have been denied entry to the hospitals in spite of the fact that doctors’ visits to the camp are rare and irregular. Similar conditions exist in other camps. The United States Government points out to the Japanese Government that the maintenance of health, such as it is, in internment camps must be attributed primarily to the ingenuity and skill of the internees in dealing with the situation and the valiant efforts and help of the representatives of the protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee and not, as the Japanese Government states, to the provisions made by the camp authorities for proper care and hospitalization.

These incidents took place although the Swiss Minister in Tokyo was informed by the Japanese Government in January, 1942, that Japan was strictly observing the Geneva Red Cross Convention as a signatory state. Article 1 of the Red Cross Convention states that wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances; they shall be humanely treated and cared for without distinction of nationality. Moreover, Article 77 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention provides among other things for the transmission of information respecting internments and transfers, escapes, stays in hospitals and deaths.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (10), that it attaches great importance to the transmission by the Prisoner of War Information Bureau of the names of American prisoners of war, American internees and American dead. In spite of this profession on the part of the Japanese Government of the importance of the matter under discussion, the names of American prisoners of war and American dead have been reported only after long delays or not reported at all as the following instances will prove:

1) a complete list of the names of all prisoners taken at Wake Island has not yet been reported

2) a complete list of the names of prisoners of war transferred from the Philippine Islands to Japan was not reported

3) a complete list of the names of prisoners of war who perished in ship sinkings was not reported

4) a list of the names of prisoners of war who were murdered at Palawan was not reported

5) the names of the majority of the American prisoners of war who were liberated in Burma had never been reported

6) the names of prisoners of war who have died in Japanese custody have rarely been reported in less than a year after their deaths.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (11), that the protests of the United States Government concerning religion appear to be erroneous. It states that during the first few weeks after the opening of prisoner of war camps certain difficulties rendered the holding of religious services difficult but that now special facilities are afforded. The Japanese Government adds in proof of this statement that wine and bread for Holy Communion were sent into the Tokyo camp. Reliable reports received by the United States Government do not confirm that in all other prisoner of war camps the Japanese authorities have dealt with the question of religion so adequately. For example, in the Mukden camp, services are conducted by a Japanese clergyman but no provision seems to have been made for religious services for those of Catholic faith in spite of the fact that priests are held in the civilian internment camp in Mukden. In the Fukuoka camps also no provision appears to have been made by the Japanese authorities to satisfy the spiritual needs of prisoners of war of Catholic faith and in the former prisoner of war camp in Shanghai, from the day of its opening until the day of its closure, no Catholic service was ever celebrated. It would seem therefore that the special consideration towards prisoners of war in the Tokyo camp as regards the observance of religious rites is an outstanding incident and that in general the Japanese Government has provided no opportunity for worship to those of Catholic faith.

The Japanese Government states, Section II (13), that the United States Government’s protest concerning the failure of the Japanese Government to provide adequate equipment and accommodation in prisoner of war camps and civilian internment camps as well as during periods of transportation and the Japanese authorities forced prisoners of war and civilian internees to subsist in inhuman conditions is utterly unfounded. Evidence does not confirm the Japanese Government’s assertion. The shocking conditions which prevailed at Camp O’Donnell and the great number of deaths which resulted are testimony that the United States Government’s charges are not unfounded. At camps in or near Cabanatuan the barracks, marked into 8 foot squares for the accommodation of five people, had no furniture whatsoever. The crowded and unsanitary condition under which American civilians were forced to subsist when taken into custody in Hong Kong cannot by any definition be termed either adequate or sanitary. When the internees were moved to Stanley Internment Camp they were housed in quarters badly damaged by bombing and shellfire. It is impossible that the Japanese Government can consider the primitive toilet arrangements at Weihsien either adequate or sanitary. Only the superhuman efforts of the internees have made it possible to maintain a minimum of sanitation. Not at Weihsien, not in the camps in Shanghai and Hong Kong, and not in every camp in Japan have the Japanese authorities supplied sufficient cleansing materials and equipment for the maintenance of adequate sanitation.

Equipment such as refrigerators, pots, pans, pails, bowls, eating utensils, containers of all kinds for serving, holding and storing food, has never been adequately supplied by the Japanese authorities. In fact, the Japanese authorities used for their own purposes equipment which was the property of the internees and which might have relieved the situation created by the failure on the part of Japanese authorities to supply much needed equipment. At Weihsien the Japanese authorities allocated four refrigerators confiscated from internees for camp use, but retained for their own use 15 refrigerators which were the property of the internees.

It is a gross misstatement of the facts for the Japanese Government to aver, Section II (13), that the Japanese Government’s policy is to provide adequate shelter and sanitation. Established facts do not bear out this assertion.

In addition to the conditions already protested, another incident involved a work party composed entirely of sick and wounded prisoners of war which was sent into the jungle about 250 kilometers south of Manila. The journey lasted two days but they were given no food whatsoever. In another instance, prisoners, loaded on a freight train, were taken from Bilibid to Cabanatuan. The trip took a day but the Japanese authorities failed to supply any food and at the end of the journey forced the men to march to the camp, allowing them to stop only once for water. They unmercifully beat defenseless prisoners who were unable to keep up with the column.

Conditions on transports were cruel. The prisoners were crowded into the holds of the ships, the hatches often were battened down, lack of air caused strong men to lose consciousness, and many already sick or weak died. Water for all purposes was limited to three quarters of a canteen cup a day a person and requests for more were brutally rejected by the Japanese authorities. The prisoners were fed only twice a day and then but sparingly.

These examples of the treatment accorded to prisoners of war by the Japanese authorities totally refute the Japanese Government’s statement that the section of the United States Government’s protest of January 27, 1944 which referred to these matters was unfounded.

Article 2 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention and Article 4 of the Annex of The Hague Convention specifically state that Prisoners of War are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them. The Japanese Government affirms, Section II (13), that it is its policy to accord fair and equitable treatment at all times to prisoners of war. It claims that charges of corporal punishment and torture of American nationals cited in the United States Government’s protest of January 27, 1944 go back to the early days of Japan’s occupation of the Philippine Islands and that such investigations as could be made do not substantiate the charges. The United States Government refers the Japanese Government to the many and varied protests made by the United States Government on the cruel treatment inflicted upon American nationals. Incidents of brutality and murder have not been limited in time or space. They have occurred on land in widely separated areas and they have occurred on the high sea. They occurred in the early days of the war and they have persistently occurred ever since. The United States Government holds the Japanese Government responsible for each and every case of cruelty, corporal torture and murder that appears upon its records.

The Japanese Government has incorporated in its reply to the United States Government certain protests regarding the treatment of Japanese nationals held by the Government of the United States.³

The Japanese Government has made the allegation, Section III (1), that representatives of the protecting Powers for Japanese interests in the United States have not been permitted freely to visit and to inspect internment camps and relocation centers where Japanese nationals are detained or to speak at length without witnesses with Japanese internees and evacuees. It has stated that the interviews of representatives of the protecting Powers have taken place in the presence of camp authorities and officials of the State Department, that representatives were not permitted to visit all places within the camps and were able to inspect only such places as would raise no question.

It has been the particular responsibility of officials of the State Department to ensure for the delegates of the protecting Powers the full and free exercise of their rights under the provisions of the Geneva Convention. While it is true that officials of the State Department have accompanied the representatives of the protecting Powers on their regular visits to the Camps, the representatives can testify that the officials of the State Department accompanied them for the sole purpose of facilitating and expediting their labors. Japanese nationals have at no time been denied the privilege of speaking privately with the representatives of the protecting Power nor is there any record of any occasion where a request by a representative of the protecting Power to visit any camp or any part of a camp where Japanese nationals are held was denied. Where camp authorities and officials of the State Department have been present at interviews, it has been at the invitation of the Japanese nationals or of the representatives of the protecting Power. The United States Government has welcomed the representation of the protecting Powers. It has received their representations with appreciation and has faithfully endeavored to carry out their recommendations. The Japanese Government has only to make inquiry of the Spanish and Swedish Governments for a confirmation of the above statements.

The Japanese Government makes specific complaint concerning representation at the Sand Island Internment Camp. Authorized representatives of the protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee have always been welcome at the camp, and when visits were made all possible help and cooperation was given by the Camp Commander. The representative of the International Red Cross Committee has visited the camp and representatives of the Swedish Government in Hawaii have made periodic inspections. The representatives of the protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee have always been permitted to discuss any matter privately with any internee. It is, however, the prerogative of the representatives of the protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee to decide whether to discuss matters individually with the internees or with the spokesman.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (2), that internees were not permitted to forward complaints and were punished for so doing. This allegation has no basis in fact. The internees’ regulations provide a regular procedure for the forwarding of complaints to the protecting Power and in no instance have restrictions of any sort been placed upon this procedure. The specific instances cited have been thoroughly investigated. With respect to the complaint that internees at the Lordsburg Internment Camp, Lordsburg, New Mexico, were punished for complaining of labor which they were made to perform, the investigation discloses that the agitation of certain internee leaders regarding labor assignments resulted in friction within the camp. Because proper labor assignment was refused, confinement to barracks and denial of certain privileges were ordered as a disciplinary measure. The labor troubles ceased when the agitators were placed in a separate compound. The Camp Commander never refused to discuss internee complaints regarding labor; and in arranging labor details, took into consideration the age and physical condition of the internees, as well as the summer heat in New Mexico.

It is alleged that the internees were punished at Camp Livingston Internment Camp, Camp Livingston, Louisiana, for forwarding complaints with regard to labor assignments. The United States Government affirms that Japanese nationals in that camp were never placed upon a restricted diet as a disciplinary measure for that or for any other reason.

The statement that the internees at Ellis Island who complained concerning the food were punished by the authorities at that station with internment for the duration of the war is totally false. Internment orders are issued in the Department of Justice and not by officers at the detention station. No officer at Ellis Island is able therefore to punish an internee in the manner alleged.

A thorough investigation of the statement that internees who complained at Fort Missoula were placed in confinement has failed to reveal a single instance of an internee being confined because he complained of conditions.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (3), that Japanese internees transferred from the Territory of Hawaii to Camp McCoy Internment Camp, Camp McCoy, Wisconsin, were given insufficient clothing and were exposed to severe cold. Internees who were transferred to the continental United States during cold weather were issued adequate winter clothing when their own clothing was considered insufficient, and, before being transferred, were permitted to procure any winter clothing which they had at their homes. They were supplied with Army overcoats and woolen underwear if they did not possess sufficiently warm clothing but nearly all the Japanese nationals who were transferred possessed suitable winter wearing apparel as the majority had obtained such clothing for their previous trips to Japan. Internees from the Territory of Hawaii first arrived at Camp McCoy approximately on March 10, 1942 and were there issued additional winter clothing. If there was any delay in the issuance of this additional winter clothing, it could not have resulted in suffering as the internees were well housed and were not required to work outdoors, the winter was not severe and the Spring of 1942 was early.

The Japanese Government refers Section III, (4), to the baggage examination conducted by the customs authorities prior to the sailing of the first American-Japanese exchange vessel, the M.S. Gripsholm, in June 1942.⁴ In performing the examination, the United States authorities followed the wartime regulations regarding the examination and detention of effects of persons leaving the United States for enemy territory. The articles which were withheld from the Japanese repatriates and the release of which was not contrary to the interests of national defense were forwarded for safekeeping to the Spanish Embassy then in charge of Japanese interests in the continental United States. In general the articles which Japanese repatriates were prohibited from taking out of the United States appear to conform to the prohibitions placed on United States citizens repatriated from Japan or Japanese-occupied territory, according to the list of some of these prohibitions which was communicated by the Japanese Government to the Swiss Legation at Tokyo in a note dated May 30, 1942.⁵

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (5), that Japanese internees and evacuees have been subjected to insults and public curiosity.

The matter of body search of the Japanese repatriates was the subject of the second paragraph of the Department’s memorandum of August 7, 1943.⁶ The text of the pertinent paragraph is set forth below once more:

“At the time of the first exchange the United States Government found it necessary to search the persons of a few Japanese non-officials because it had good reason to believe that certain of those persons were attempting to take with them important amounts of currency in excess of the amounts of currency permitted under the exchange agreement and other things which were prohibited in the interest of national defense. The results of the search justified the suspicion in these cases. The United States Government is furthermore informed that many non-official United States nationals had their persons searched prior to leaving Japanese-occupied territory and that even officials of the United States Government departing from Manchuria and Chosen had their persons searched.”

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (5), that Japanese nationals when being searched at Sand Island were required to stand unclothed for two hours. All internees upon arrival at Sand Island Internment Camp were subjected to a complete search for weapons and contraband articles but they were subject to no embarrassment during this examination. They were required to undress and they and their clothing were examined. During this procedure no internee was required to remain unclothed for a period longer than five to ten minutes. At no time were more than two or three internees searched at the same time in the same room. Valuable items were taken and properly receipted for. After this first examination, there was no search in which the internees were required to disrobe. Upon departure for the continental United States, there was only a “pocket search” of the clothing worn by the internees.

Section III (5) also contains the specific complaint that a member of the Staff of the Japanese Consulate in Los Angeles was handcuffed and chained to a bed while being transferred from Fort Missoula to White Sulphur Springs. The United States Government has nothing to add to the full explanation given in its memorandum of October 16, 1943, to the Spanish Embassy,⁷ but emphasizes that, contrary to the assertion of the Japanese Government, Mr. Nakazawa was at no time chained to his berth nor was he ever exhibited as a criminal to public view.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (6), that food served to Japanese nationals has been neither as to quality nor quantity sufficient to maintain health. This allegation is so grossly at variance with the facts that it does not merit consideration. The Japanese Government has only to refer to the uncensored reports of the representatives of the protecting Powers and of the International Red Cross Committee and to menus collected at random which have been submitted to the Japanese Government for confirmation of the fact that Japanese nationals have at all times received a wholesome and nutritious diet of good quality and of great variety.

The complaint with regard to the amount of money expended on food at the Kennedy Internment Camp is ambiguous but it is taken to mean that whereas there was a fixed allowance of fifty-one cents per day for food, the camp director expended only forty-one cents a day. The ration allowance for internees has never been fixed on a monetary basis and the cost thereof has never remained static. The money allowance has varied and fluctuated according to the location of the camp and the season of the year. The ration allowance is fixed by weight to follow the allowance given American troops in base camps. The weight of foodstuffs provided is in excess of five pounds per man per day, the diet is carefully and scientifically balanced and account is taken of Japanese national taste.

There is not on record a single instance of malnutrition suffered by any Japanese national at any of the camps cited by the Japanese Government or, in fact, at any internment camp or relocation center in the United States. The Japanese Government can obtain verification of these statements by reference to the uncensored reports of the representatives of the protecting Power and of the International Red Cross Committee who have regularly inspected the camps in which Japanese nationals are held and who have seen and sampled the food served.

Since the ration served the internees is equivalent to the ration for the United States troops, it may safely be assumed that there is no connection between the food the internees received at camp and the fact that some internees were afflicted with poor eyesight and an underweight condition. Physical defects of this nature are common to some individuals in any group of persons. It is when the condition is widespread in any group of persons, such as exists in the camps in Japanese custody, that a definite relationship may be assumed to exist between the state of health and the lack of a proper diet.

The Japanese Government makes a specific complaint of malnutrition at Sand Island Internment Camp. This Government refers the Japanese Government to the report of the International Red Cross Committee’s representative of September 9, 1942. It will be noted that the three abundant meals served each day were of a quality that equalled the best food of the United States Army. The internees at Sand Island have been extremely healthy and hospital cases have been at a minimum. The Japanese Government’s complaint, therefore, concerning malnutrition can only be considered to be unfounded.

The Japanese Government alleges that, Section III (7), canteen profits were used to purchase a second-hand car for the use of United States military personnel at the Camp Livingston Internment Camp, Camp Livingston, Louisiana. The vehicle referred to is probably the truck which was purchased by the internment camp canteen on September 1, 1942, for $750 with the consent of the camp spokesman. It was repainted after purchase at no expense to the canteen and was used exclusively for the canteen. The vehicle was not purchased out of canteen funds but rather by the canteen and was a legitimate canteen expenditure necessary to the efficient operation of the canteen. The canteen was liquidated approximately July 15, 1943, when all internees were transferred from the camp. The liquidated value of the canteen included the figure of $254 received for the truck from the prisoner of war canteen established at that camp. The liquidated value of the canteen was transferred on a proportionate basis to the internees at the internment camps to which they were transferred. All records of the canteen, from the initial date to final liquidation, have been audited and certified correct by United States Army auditors.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (8), that the United States Government has compelled Japanese nationals to perform labor other than that permitted by the terms of the Geneva Convention as adapted to the treatment of civilian internees. The Japanese Government is again informed that it is the established policy of the United States Government not to require labor from Japanese civilians held in custody except in connection with the administration, management, and maintenance of the camps and in connection with camp installations used for the benefit and comfort of the internees.

Although by the terms of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention the United States Government is not required to pay wages to those engaged in work connected with the administration, management, and maintenance of the camps, the United States Government has liberally interpreted what constitutes such labor and has paid wages for much labor that might rightfully be considered camp maintenance labor and for which no payment is required. All other labor is on a voluntary basis and receives adequate compensation. In the early days of detention there may have been instances of labor performed by Japanese nationals without remuneration but such labor was performed voluntarily and never by force or under order.

Many of the instances cited in Section III (8), are repetitions of previous complaints and have already been adequately dealt with in the Department’s memoranda to the Spanish Embassy of November 25 [December 12], 1942, and October 16, 1943.⁸

Investigation of the complaints with regard to the unauthorized labor alleged to have occurred at the Lordsburg Internment Camp, Lordsburg, New Mexico, discloses that some difference of opinion existed between the camp authorities and the internee leaders as to what constituted camp maintenance. These differences were discussed by the camp authorities and the internee leaders and were settled by mutual agreement. There exists no instance known to this Government of compulsory labor at the point of a gun.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (9), that the internees at the Camp Livingston Internment Camp, Camp Livingston, Louisiana, were forced to cut grass outside the camp and to level the ground for the construction of an airport. The internees at that camp were required to cut grass outside the compound within a hundred feet of the fence, without pay, as this was considered camp maintenance. Internees were permitted voluntarily to cut grass outside of the compound beyond this point, but within the limits of Camp Livingston, and payment was made to them for this work. The complaint regarding the alleged leveling of ground for an airfield is unfounded. In order to collect firewood for heating the quarters of the Japanese internees, wood was hauled from the vicinity of a nearby field, where a considerable number of pine trees had been felled. No airfield, runway, or any type of military construction has ever been installed on the site from which the wood was obtained.

The complaint is further made that Japanese nationals at Sand Island Internment Camp were forced to work without compensation in a variety of activities such as building fences, planting vegetables and working in the laundry. Within the first few weeks after December 7, 1941, a large number of aliens were taken into custody. Until permanent housing could be constructed, it was necessary to house these internees in tents. So far as is known, no order was given that Japanese should erect the tents of German and Italian nationals. It was the fixed policy of the camp authorities not to require Japanese nationals to perform labor for German and Italian internees, or for German and Italian internees to perform it for Japanese nationals. However, before separate kitchens and mess halls were available, the cook and kitchen details alternated weekly between racial groups. The racial groups were housed in separate enclosures. Pursuant to a request made by the Japanese leaders, a number of the young men voluntarily assisted in the construction of a fence around their enclosure.

The laundry was made available to the Japanese internees in January 1942, on the understanding that they would launder their own bed linen and clothing. They were not ordered, but occasionally volunteered, to help with the laundry of American Army personnel. The laundry was operated for the convenience of the internees and as such it was not required that labor connected with it should be compensated. Nevertheless, internees who performed laundry labor received regular wages. The members of the work groups were selected by their own group leaders.

Because of the Japanese internees’ fondness for fresh vegetables, permission to raise vegetables was specially given and seeds and implements were furnished to them. There never existed any understanding that the Japanese internees were raising vegetables for American troops, but on occasion when crops of certain vegetables surpassed the need of the internees, the internees offered the excess vegetables to the troops.

With regard to the complaint that at Fort Missoula internees were forced to work without compensation and to engage in laundry and other work, it is again emphasized that the internees in accordance with Article 34 of the Geneva Convention were required to perform work connected with the maintenance of the camp but no other work whatsoever. The work performed by Japanese nationals at Fort Missoula was always done willingly and in fact they frequently requested work to keep them occupied. The internees at Fort Missoula, as elsewhere, received compensation for many kinds of work relating directly to the maintenance of the camp for which, by a less liberal interpretation of the Geneva Convention, it would not be necessary to pay.

The Japanese Government also makes the complaint that internees in the Panama Canal Zone Internment Camp were compelled to perform various kinds of work which the Japanese Government enumerates in its memorandum. Japanese nationals interned in the Panama Canal Zone Internment Camp were classified into three groups by the camp surgeon as to their ability to work without injury to their health: (a) those capable of performing regular work, (b) those capable of performing light work only, and (c) those incapable of performing any work. These classifications were kept constantly current depending upon changes in the physical condition of the internees. The work performed by the internees was labor necessary for the maintenance of the internment camp, or labor incident to improving or providing for the comfort or health of internees including cooking, garbage disposal, and hospital duty. At no time were Japanese nationals mistreated or subjected to cruel treatment in any way. The allegations to the effect that Japanese nationals were beaten or kicked were proven, on investigation, to be unfounded.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (9), that Japanese nationals were forced to engage in labor directly connected with military operations. The complaint that at Camp Livingston Internment Camp, Camp Livingston, Louisiana, internees were used for the purpose of clearing ground for an aviation field has already been disposed of. It is further alleged that at Lordsburg Internment Camp, Lordsburg, New Mexico, Japanese nationals were forced to dig trenches and to transport cases containing files⁹ and cannon shells. The trenches in question were sanitary fills essential for the disposal of garbage and refuse. They were necessary for the maintenance of the camp. The complaint referring to cases containing “files¹⁰ and cannon shells” is too ambiguous to be understood. There have never been any cannon shells at the Lordsburg Camp.

It is also alleged that at Sand Island Internment Camp, Japanese nationals were forced to dig unexploded shells and trenches. There have been no occasions when the internees were required to handle ammunition of any kind, unexploded or otherwise, nor any occasion or time when the internees were used in any military operations or work connected therewith.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (10), that the United States Government has provided no medical treatment to interned Japanese. It also makes the statement that not only are the medical provisions in the internment camps and relocation centers generally imperfect but also that the medical staff and pharmaceutical provisions are so deficient and defective that unnecessary suffering and death have resulted. These statements are completely and totally at variance with the facts. From the opening of the camps the internees have received careful and consistent medical attention.

Every relocation center is provided with a hospital, the size varying from 140 to 250 beds according to the size of the center. Each hospital has modern operating rooms, isolation wards for contagious diseases, X-ray equipment, as well as a clinic where outpatients may be treated.

The equipment originally provided at each hospital was based upon the standard United States Army Station Hospital equipment lists which were supplemented by additional quantities of certain items as well as by additional articles and medicaments to meet the special needs of the women and children in the evacuee population.

The initial materials consisted of drugs, chemicals, biological stains, biological products; surgical equipment, and miscellaneous diagnostic instruments; laboratory, dental, physiotherapy and X-ray equipment; hospital furniture, hospital linen and bedding, mess equipment, cleaning and preserving materials, and miscellaneous hospital equipment. Supplies were included in all categories where they were necessary. Also included were modern reference textbooks, in most cases the most recent editions on various phases of surgery, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, and other subjects.

All hospital departments are adequately supplied with sheets, hospital linen, and bedding, as well as with hospital clothing for the patients. A completely equipped laundry is attached to each hospital, to insure sufficient and clean linen at all times. At every center the hospital has a special kitchen to prepare the foods necessary for patients and to make possible the preparation of special diets for individual patients.

With respect to current supplies and pharmaceuticals, the centers may draw on the items listed in the Army Service Forces Medical Supply Catalog. Not only may they maintain stocks up to the levels established therein (usually a three months’ supply) but may also maintain stocks at substantially higher levels where the requirements of the center indicate that they are necessary. For example, the supply of insulin maintained at one center is eight times the standard established in the medical supply catalog. There are on hand in the centers, or available on short notice, virtually all of the drugs, pharmaceuticals, and biologicals available to the public generally. Sulfa drugs are obtainable and are used wherever indicated. Even penicillin, a new and rare drug, available to the public only in emergency cases, has already been used in the centers.

Tuberculosis wards are provided in all of the hospitals, and in addition, there are several hundred tuberculosis patients maintained at government expense in outside sanatoria. They receive the same care as other patients in the sanatoria.

Patients at the centers who require specialized medical consultation or hospital facilities not available at the centers, have been transferred by the authorities to large medical centers at Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, and Portland where the required specialized services are obtainable. Wherever such transfers are made and the condition of the patient so requires, a registered nurse or a physician accompanies the patient. In one case a patient was sent from one of the Arkansas centers to Los Angeles, with a doctor and nurse in attendance during the entire journey.

Medical cases, traveling under escort, are provided with standard pullman accommodations, frequently compartments, with meals served in the compartment when it is deemed medically necessary. In the case of ambulatory patients, arrangements are usually made with the dining car stewards to accommodate them in advance of the regular meal hours. Standing while awaiting service is thus avoided.

The representatives of the Spanish Government, who have visited the medical facilities at the centers and are familiar with the provision made by the United States Government, will bear witness to the excellent medical care available to Japanese nationals held in custody in the United States and can testify to the absolute groundlessness of the Japanese Government’s allegations.

The findings of the investigation with regard to the Japanese Government’s allegation that Mr. Susaichi Katoh (referred to as Sasaichi Katoh in the Spanish Embassy’s memorandum) lost the sight of an eye due to the failure of United States authorities to permit treatment, have already been transmitted to the Spanish Embassy in the Department’s memorandum of October 16, 1943. Mr. Katoh was given all possible treatment and the loss of his eye can in no way be attributed to the lack of proper attention and care. Furthermore, Mr. Susaichi Katoh wrote voluntarily to the St. Vincent Sanitorium, Santa Fe, New Mexico, expressing appreciation of the care he received and enclosing a monetary donation to the sanitorium.

It is further asserted that one Puchi was given insufficient medical treatment in the Panama Canal Zone Internment Camp and at the Fort Sill Internment Camp, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. This reference is undoubtedly to Internee Alejandro Ouchi who was apprehended and detained in Panama and evacuated to the continental United States for internment. The death certificate indicates that he died at Fort Sill on May 2, 1942, of inoperable cancer of the tongue. The American Army medical personnel rendered him all possible attention. The records of Fort Sill Internment Camp disclose that Mr. Ouchi received constant medical care from the date of his arrival at that camp, April 10, 1942, until his death. Funeral services were conducted by a Buddhist priest. He was buried in Lawton, Oklahoma, on May 4, 1942, and his grave properly marked. Report of his death was made to all interested agencies including the protecting Power and a notification was sent by the camp chaplain to the internee’s widow in the Republic of Panama.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (11), that the United States Government has failed to transmit any precise and complete list of the Japanese nationals interned in the United States and has not reported the deaths of Japanese nationals who have died in the internment camps and relocation centers. The Japanese Government states that, whereas the total number of evacuees held in relocation centers amounts to approximately one hundred thousand, the names communicated to Japan do not total more than six thousand. The attention of the Japanese Government is called to the fact that the greater part of the one hundred thousand evacuees to whom the Japanese Government refers are American citizens. The United States Government is under no obligation to report their names for transmission to the Japanese Government.

The United States Government in conformity with Articles 77 and and 79 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1929 has forwarded, through the International Red Cross Committee and the protecting Power for transmission to the Japanese Government, the names of Japanese nationals held in custody by United States authorities. All such names have been reported. Delay in forwarding the names has in numerous instances been occasioned by the unwillingness of Japanese nationals to submit for the information of the Japanese Government the names of their next of kin in Japan. There have also been reported to the Japanese Government approximately one thousand deaths. When additional deaths occur, the names will similarly be forwarded.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (12), that in July 1942, a religious meeting at Lordsburg Internment Camp, Lordsburg, New Mexico, was broken up by guards with bayonets. This Government has been unable to confirm any such incident.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (13), that neither the text nor the Japanese translation of the Geneva Convention was posted in the Internment camps where Japanese nationals were held in custody from six months to a year after internment. Before the transfer of civilian internees to the Department of Justice for internment, the War Department secured a Japanese language translation of the Geneva Convention and distributed it to internment camps under War Department jurisdiction to be posted in conspicuous places for the benefit of the internees. Because of difficulties encountered in obtaining an accurate translation, a considerable period elapsed after the outbreak of the war before the translations were available. Prior to the distribution of translations, internee spokesmen were free at any time to inquire of camp authorities regarding provisions of the Convention, and to have the Convention translated for them by official camp interpreters.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (14), that inadequate accommodations were provided for the detention of Japanese nationals in the United States and that Japanese nationals have been subjected to inhumane treatment.

The Japanese Government has made specific complaints concerning the treatment of Japanese nationals at the Sand Island Internment Camp. It has also alleged that overcrowding existed during transportation of the internees to the continental United States. The treatment of Japanese nationals held in custody at Sand Island as elsewhere has, since the beginning of hostilities, been marked by scrupulous observance of treaty obligations and agreements. Throughout the process of investigation, apprehension and detention, Japanese nationals have been treated humanely and have been protected against violence, insults and public curiosity. The internees at Sand Island were provided living quarters in compliance with basic United States Army regulations which take into consideration elements of health, ventilation and comfort. Male and female internees were separated. Suitable toilet facilities were furnished and exercise periods were allowed. Food was served to internees in a roofed enclosure and they were not in any way subjected to the elements as alleged in the Japanese Government’s complaint.

Internees transferred to the continental United States from Hawaii were housed in second and third class accommodations and were not restricted by wire netting or by any other device. Men and women were separated. Toilet facilities in all cases were furnished within the rooms or were readily accessible. Accommodations given internees were superior to those furnished either the ship’s crew or transit troops.

In regard to the complaints concerning transportation of Japanese nationals to the United States from Panama, United States Army transports were used for this purpose. The accommodations were not of a luxurious character but they were adequate in every respect and all possible consideration was extended to the internees. The internees occupied quarters normally furnished to United States Army troops aboard the ship. Food was proper and sufficient. Adequate ventilation was provided although, of course, during blackout hours port holes were closed as a security measure. The ventilators were however in working condition. During daylight hours the hatches were kept open for additional ventilation. The internees were permitted to exercise on deck.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section III (15), that early in 1943 Japanese nationals were forced en masse to salute the American flag day after day at Fort George Meade Internment Camp. The regulations applicable at that time have been subsequently revoked. The complaint that an internee named Adachi was placed in solitary confinement for failing to salute the American flag has been investigated. Adachi was admitted to the hospital for observation and diagnosis but on being diagnosed as simple adult maladjustment was returned to the camp. Whereas the authorities had difficulty with him he was never placed in solitary confinement for failing to attend a flag saluting ceremony.

With regard to the specific instances of mistreatment of Japanese nationals alleged in Section III (15) the findings with regard to the cases of Kenza-buro Oshima and Wakasa were transmitted to the Spanish Embassy in the Department of State’s memorandum dated June 29, 1943¹⁰ and October 27, 1944.¹¹ Those with regard to the cases of Shiro Obata and Hirota Somura were forwarded in the Department’s memorandum dated November 20, 1944.¹² The findings in the case of Shigekazu Hazama were forwarded to the Spanish Embassy in the Department’s memorandum dated October 16, 1943. These cases have all been thoroughly investigated and complete and full accounts rendered.

It is alleged by the Japanese Government that at the outbreak of the war the authorities in the Philippines resorted to extreme violence and maltreated all Japanese nationals. In making this sweeping statement the Japanese Government fails to cite by name a single Japanese national who suffered death or bodily injury from the alleged violence. Nor is any charge directed against a specific individual in authority. The protest is couched in broad general terms and appears to be a studied exaggeration of events. It is known that Japanese nationals were interned in the Philippine Islands when hostilities began but, as it is the policy of the United States Government to apply the provisions of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention in the treatment of both prisoners of war and civilian internees, acts of cruelty are not tolerated. The United States Government has not been in a position until recently to investigate the alleged acts of savagery at Davao. Although the United States Government is of the opinion that these acts never took place, since they are contrary to the customs of the American people and to the high tradition of the United States Army, it will, nevertheless, undertake to investigate the allegations upon the receipt from the Japanese Government of further details regarding the place, the time, and the alleged participants.¹³

The Japanese Government alleges, Section IV, 1(A), that unjust treatment was accorded to Japanese nationals and to Americans of Japanese origin in moving them from the Pacific Area to the interior of the country. The United States Government reiterates that the Japanese Government has a legitimate concern for Japanese nationals only. This allegation was the subject of a memorandum dated May 7, 1943, to the Spanish Embassy.¹⁴ As at that time it was thoroughly examined any further discussion would appear unnecessary. The report that Japanese nationals have been moved from Virginia is the subject of a memorandum to the Spanish Embassy, dated November 20, 1944.

The Japanese Government alleges, Section IV, 1 (B), that the American authorities subjected Japanese nationals to inhuman questionings in order to cause them to renounce their allegiance to Japan. No attempt has ever been made to force or to persuade any Japanese national to renounce his loyalty to Japan. No possible advantage could accrue to the United States from such a procedure. This totally unfounded allegation of the Japanese Government was the subject of a memorandum dated August 10, 1944, to the Spanish Embassy.¹⁵

The Japanese Government alleges, Section IV, 1 (C), that internment camps in the United States are surrounded with barbed wire, equipped with watch towers and posted with armed soldiers. At the Tule Lake Relocation Center it was deemed necessary to maintain an external guard to prevent unauthorized ingress and to prevent the recurrence of such an incident as occurred on November 4, 1943, when evacuees armed with clubs entered the administrative area. The function of the armed guard, which at other centers has been progressively reduced in size, is to patrol the periphery of the center.

The United States Government calls to the attention of the Japanese Government that on December 17, 1944, the Commanding General of the Western Defense Command rescinded the general exclusion orders thereby restoring freedom of movement within the coastal areas of the United States to all persons of Japanese ancestry, with the exception of a limited number of individuals to whom individual exclusion orders are being issued. A memorandum concerning this matter was transmitted to the Spanish Embassy on February 5, 1945.¹⁶

The United States Government totally rejects the Japanese Government’s allegations, Section IV, 1 (D), of mistreatment of Japanese subjects from Central and South America. The United States Government has done a service to the Japanese nationals in question by providing them with a place of shelter and with subsistence when the governments of the countries in which they were living decided upon their expulsion. So far as possible the United States Government has restricted such transfers of Japanese nationals to those who were known to be disposed or in a position to perform unfriendly acts against the United States Government and its allies. Requests of the other American republics that many thousands of other Japanese not falling within this category be accepted by the United States for internment have been rejected.

In particular the United States Government rejects as palpably unfounded the statement the Japanese nationals from Panama are being mistreated by American authorities. The Japanese Government is fully aware that all the Japanese nationals from Panama were repatriated to Japan in 1942 and 1943 and none remain in this country.

So far as concerns Japanese from Peru, the United States Government rejects any allegation that it has broken up Japanese families or deprived Japanese nationals of their belongings since this Government has exerted itself to provide special facilities for the families of Japanese deportees to rejoin the heads of families in the internment camps in the United States and has provided other special facilities for the transportation of the effects of the Japanese nationals which they were not able to bring with them when they were deported. The United States Government is informed that owing to war conditions the economic situation of other Japanese remaining in Peru is such that their lot would be considerably improved by transfer to the United States, which they themselves desire but which the United States Government is unwilling to grant because no sufficient purpose would be served thereby.

As the Japanese Government has been informed previously,¹⁷ the United States Government is motivated in these matters purely by the desire to assure the security of the Western Hemisphere and to immobilize those Japanese nationals who are capable of illegal subversive actions. In carrying out this program, the United States Government has the full cooperation of the other South American Republics which equally desire to attain this end, as evinced by their support of the Resolutions of the Committee for Political Defense¹⁸ at Montevideo upon which such action is based.

Washington , August 7, 1945.

96. A copy of this message was sent to Bern as an enclosure to instruction 3117, August 11. The instruction stated: “In view of the fact that the Spanish Embassy no longer represents Japanese interests in the United States and the facilities of the Swiss Government do not permit the rapid transmission of documents to Japan, the Department of State has taken the opportunity afforded by a communication from the Swedish Legation in charge of Japanese interests in the Territory of Hawaii to request the Swedish Minister to have a copy of the enclosed memorandum transmitted to the Japanese Government. The Legation is instructed to transmit a copy of the enclosed memorandum to the Swiss Government for its information.” (711.94114A/8–1145) For the Swedish Legation’s communication of January 25 and the Department’s reply of August 7, see post, pp. 429 and 435, respectively.
97. Not printed; but see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. v, p. 942, footnote 32.
98. See telegrams 274 and 275 to Bern, ibid., pp. 921 and 925, respectively.
99. See telegram 398, February 4, 1942, from Bern, Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. i, p. 796.
1. See telegram 733, February 24, 1942, from Bern, ibid., p. 799.
2. See enclosure to despatch 8150, May 10, 1944, Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. v, p. 941.
3. For documentation on this subject, see pp. 429 ff.
4. For documentation on the first exchange of American and Japanese nationals, see Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. i, pp. 377 ff.
5. Transmitted to Department in telegram 2473, June 4, 1942, from Bern, not printed.
6. Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. iii, p. 894.
7. Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. iii, p. 1073.
8. Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. iii, pp. 1055 and 1073, respectively.
9. The complaint used the word “rifles”.
10. The complaint used the word “rifles”.
10. Not printed.
11. Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. v, p. 1128.
12. Ibid., p. 1130.
13. For documentation on Japanese allegations of massacre of Japanese residents of Mindanao, Philippines, see Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. i, pp. 855 ff.
14. Foreign Relations, 1943, vol. iii, p. 1067.
15. Ibid., 1944, vol. v, p. 1117.
16. Post, p. 431.
17. Memorandum of June 7, 1944, to the Spanish Embassy, not printed; but for summary, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. v, p. 965, footnote 45.
18. For texts of resolutions adopted from 1942 to 1944, see first and second annual reports of the Emergency Committee for Political Defense, distributed in English edition by the Pan American Union, especially Resolution XX on the detention and expulsion of dangerous Axis nationals, approved May 21, 1943, first Annual Report, pp. 73, 81.