Did you know that he executed Japanese soldiers for killing civilians in Malaya? I imagine you are talking about his problems with command authority vis a vis the IJN.
Homma was railroaded, too, although he was shot rather than hanged after a direct appeal by his wife to MacArthur. He ordered that the Bataan marchers be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, despite Japan's rejection of the Convention as an unequal treaty, and furious opposition from powerful officers who completely circumvented his orders, even to the extent of ordering (without effect) the execution of all Allied POWs from Bataan and Corregidor.
The logic of Japanese rejection of the Geneva Convention is interesting. There will never be Japanese POWs, since all Japanese will die rather than be captured, so the treaty proposes unequal responsibilities.
One version of Homma's last moments includes the line, "If I were afraid of guns, I probably would have found a different line of work."
I thought that while Yamashita was a tough commander, he was basically honorable. You are correct in your assumption about my belief why I think he got a raw deal. A substantial basis for his execution was “war crimes” committed in the defense of Manila. However, the local Japanese naval commander refused to follow Yamashita’s order to abandon Manila and make it an open city. The local guy was the one responsible for the atrocities on the Filippino civilian population. But we couldn’t dig the guy’s body out of the rubble he created to try him, so Yamashita had to do.
In Yamanshita’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Murphy wrote a compelling dissent why Yamashita should not have been executed. Unfortunately, only he and Justice Rutledge were so inclined.
As a general rule, I do not like war crimes trials of military leaders. I believe “I was just following orders” is a defense, because that’s their job. I do not feel the same way about a civilian national command authority.