It is 
		the month of February again, the month in 1945 when the Japanese chose 
		to turn our fair city into a battleground and killing ground, as 
		Ambassador Juan José Rocha has said, leading to the death of some 
		100,000 noncombatant civilians, the destruction of irreparable heritage, 
		and the near-obliteration of public utilities.
	  
	  We need 
	  to be reminded of these events due to our notorious historical amnesia.
	  
	  There are 
	  also misconceptions about the Battle for the Liberation of Manila that 
	  distort our recollections of that tragedy.
	  
	  The first 
	  is the notion that the barbarities were committed by Koreans, not 
	  Japanese. This appears to be Japanese propaganda aiming to shift 
	  responsibility for the atrocities to others.
	  
	  Ricardo 
	  T. José, our leading authority on World War II, says this cannot have been 
	  the case, as there were no Korean combat units in Manila. The only 
	  divisions recruited in Korea, which very likely consisted of Japanese 
	  residents there, were sent to Mindanao and the Cordillera, not Manila.
	  
	  Most 
	  Koreans in Manila were waterfront laborers or prison-camp guards, as were 
	  the Taiwanese, and they surrendered without fighting.
	  
	  There 
	  were a few Taiwanese incorporated into Japanese units, and a few survivors 
	  appeared in the rather distorted NHK film where the killings of civilians 
	  were portrayed as antiguerrilla actions. Women, children, nuns, priests, 
	  foreigners—all guerrillas? Ridiculous, of course.
	  
	   
	  
	  
	  
	  American shelling
	  
	  The 
	  second misconception is the comparative number of casualties between 
	  Japanese massacres and American shelling. Someone has gone so far to say 
	  that the shelling killed more than the massacres did.
	  
	  More 
	  sober estimates tilt it the other way. Gen. Ramon Farolan estimates that 
	  60 percent were killed by the Japanese. Memorare Manila 1945 Foundation 
	  sent out a questionnaire to survivors in 1995, and came up with an 
	  estimate of 70 percent killed by the Japanese.
	  
	  A 
	  statistical sample of sorts can be culled from Antonio Perez de Olaguer’s 
	  early postwar book, translated into English as “Terror in Manila—February 
	  1945.” This contains a list of about 250 Spanish nationals killed during 
	  the Battle for Manila, giving the cause of death, and the resulting figure 
	  is 85 percent killed by the Japanese.
	  
	  This is 
	  not to minimize the seriousness of the often excessive and indiscriminate 
	  American shellfire. The mother of Memorare president Rocha was killed by 
	  an American shell, as were my Spanish teacher Doña Laura Felix, sister of 
	  Justice Alfonso Felix Sr.; and my high-school teacher, Ricardo Pimentel, 
	  SJ.
	  
	  
	  Ultimately the fundamental issue is not about comparative casualty 
	  figures, but the moral responsibility for making Manila a combat zone, 
	  thus necessitating the use of artillery. Clearly this was the sole 
	  responsibility of the Japanese.
	  
	   
	  
	  
	  
	  Not guilty
	  
	  The third 
	  misconception, assiduously promoted by revisionist historians, is that 
	  Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, overall commander of Japanese Forces in the 
	  Philippines, was not guilty of the killing and destruction in Manila.
	  
	  Starting 
	  with a book by his defense counsel, Frank Reel, which is more of a defense 
	  brief than a balanced narrative, it has been claimed that he had lost 
	  contact with the combat units (highly unlikely in the age of radio 
	  communication), that the army troops he left behind were there only to 
	  destroy or evacuate military supplies, and that he had ordered a pull-out 
	  of units from Manila, which was disobeyed (by Admiral Iwabuchi, who was 
	  conveniently dead).
	  
	  The fact 
	  of the matter is, Yamashita denied the pleas of Filipino officials to 
	  declare Manila an open city, as MacArthur had done in 1941. This clearly 
	  showed he intended to make Manila a battleground.
	  
	  Rather 
	  than pulling out military units and supplies, Manila was bristling with 
	  artillery, and six months’ worth of supplies were stored in the Finance 
	  Building, bespeaking a deliberate plan to endure a long siege. Several 
	  strong structures were fortified. Having gone to all this trouble, why 
	  would he order a pull-out?
	  
	   
	  
	  
	  
	  Track record
	  
	  It is 
	  also hard to comprehend why, if the remaining troops were simply to 
	  evacuate or destroy supplies, it was taking them weeks to do what 
	  MacArthur had done in a few hours in 1941. The Pandacan oil depots were 
	  blown up in an hour on New Year’s Eve in 1941, and supplies not taken to 
	  Bataan were made available to the public when the warehouses in the Port 
	  Area were thrown open.
	  
	  Why did 
	  Yamashita not do the same thing if he really wanted to spare Manila? 
	  Obviously he did not want to. Yamashita already had a track record of 
	  massacre with the killing of thousands of Chinese after the fall of 
	  Singapore in 1942.
	  
	  On the 
	  doubtful premise that Yamashita wished to avoid combat in Manila, he could 
	  have known very early on that fighting was, in fact, going on, from Domei 
	  News dispatches reaching him.
	  
	  
	  Ambassador Miguel Perez Rubio, President Aquino’s protocol officer, was in 
	  a Kempeitai jail in Baguio at that time and saw these Domei dispatches. 
	  Unknown to him, his whole family in Manila was being massacred.
	  
	   
	  
	  
	  
	  Most atrocities
	  
	  The 
	  Americans did not completely encircle the Manila garrison, consisting of 
	  over 12,000 Marines and nearly 4,000 Army troops, until Feb. 12, so they 
	  had nine whole days to get out if they really wanted to. Did they?
	  
	  While the 
	  Marines committed most of the atrocities, it was the Army troops along the 
	  Pasig who did the initial burning and demolition of residential and 
	  business areas and the killing of civilians in Sta. Cruz and Tondo, even 
	  before the Americans were firmly established in Manila.
	  
	  Japanese 
	  testimony at war-crimes trials is shadowed by the well-founded presumption 
	  of perjury.
	  
	  Captain 
	  Toshimi Kumai narrates instructions given to fellow POWS by Yamashita’s 
	  chief of staff, Gen. Akira Muto: “You should never say, for the sake of 
	  Japan, for the sake of the Japanese Army, that anyone who graduated from 
	  the Imperial Military Academy had ever ordered killing of noncombatants… 
	  The high-ranking officers meticulously followed this policy…” (The Blood 
	  and Mud in the Philippines: Anti-Guerrilla Warfare on Panay Island,” p. 
	  126; Iloilo City, Malones Publishing House, 2009).
	  
	  In short, 
	  lie for the honor of your Army and your country.
	  
	  No wonder 
	  American lawyer William Quasha, when I asked him about the Yamashita 
	  trial, bluntly told me that Yamashita was a damned liar.