「寬大」的審判？──國民政府對日戰犯審判的評價問題再檢討

A Lenient Trial? Further Review of Previous Evaluations of the Nationalist Government’s Trials against Japanese War Criminals

關於國民政府對日戰犯審判，以往的評價都認為過於「寬大」，理由不外乎赦免岡村寧次、留用山西日軍官兵以及與其他盟國審判相比無罪率高等。通過對新公布的檔案及當時情景的進一步檢討，可知「寬大」的結論並不符合實際。首先，國民政府「仁愛寬大、以德報怨」的公開對日工作精神，與利用岡村寧次、山西兵將進行反共活動的絕密工作是互不相干的兩回事。其次，從戰犯處理委員會和軍事法庭的實踐觀之，「寬大」政策並沒有影響戰犯審判；除岡村寧次案之外，利用戰犯的策略也沒有影響審判。最後，與其他盟國相比，國民政府審判雖因無罪率高而顯得「寬大」，但這並非「寬大」政策的影響，而主要是國民政府審判面臨取證等多方面困難，同時仍堅持依法辦事等原因造成的。

Regarding the Nationalist Government’s trials against Japanese war criminals following the Second Sino-Japanese War, previous evaluations have considered them too lenient, citing reasons such as pardoning Yasuji Okamura (1884–1966), retaining Japanese officers and soldiers in Shanxi, and having a higher rate of not guilty compared to other Allied trials. Through a further review of newly released archival materials and of the contemporary situation, however, it can be adjudged that the conclusion of“leniency”is not in line with reality. Firstly, the spirit in which the Nationalist Government faced post-war Japan, which has been characterized by“benevolence, leniency, and the return of good for evil,”is unrelated to the top-secret work of using Okamura and those retained in Shanxi to carry out anti-communist activities. Secondly, from the perspective of practices undertaken by the War Crimes Commission戰犯處理委員會and the military courts, the policy of“leniency”did not affect the trials of war criminals; moreover, with the case of Okamura being the only exception, the strategy of using war criminals likewise did not play a role in the trials. Finally, compared to those of the other Allied powers, although the Nationalist Government’s trials appear“lenient”due to the higher rate of not guilty verdicts, this was not influenced by the policy of“leniency,”but rather mainly due to the difficulties faced by the Nationalist Government in obtaining evidence and adhering to the law in handling the trials.