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.
I wonder if you'd mind fleshing that out just a bit--that is, persuade me. After all, there's "war crimes" and then there's "WAR CRIMES." While reading about all the WW2 atrocities, I've idly wondered whether I would be morally obliged to simply shoot the SS Colonel (or General or Fuhrer) I was serving under who ordered me to kill some Jews along with as many of his obedient underlings as I could before being gunned down myself.