Document Incineration at the End of the War: A Case Study of the Army

Eighty years have passed since the end of World War II, but the fate of many official records from the Japanese Army and Navy remains unresolved. A large number of these documents were either lost or went missing during the war. This newsletter probes these circumstances by examining three key developments—the loss of documents in battle, their incineration at war’s end, and the seizure of materials by the Allied Powers —through a case study of the Army, where fragmentary records offer some insights. The article begins with an overview of the Army’s wartime document administration system and then turns to archival sources on document incineration in the period surrounding Japan’s surrender.

 

1. Army Document Administration

The Army’s approach to managing official documents

As a sprawling institution, the Army generated an enormous volume of official records—many of which were reportedly destroyed at the end of the war. Before exploring what went into the process of incinerating documents, this section outlines the Army’s wartime framework for managing its documents.

Since the Meiji period, Army officials had been developing and revising their document management systems to reflect changing circumstances, including wars and incidents. In place at the end of the war were the “Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents,” which took effect on February 18, 1933, as a successor to the earlier Army Classified Document Regulations. Also providing support for document governance were provisions in the Army Penal Code, Military Secret Security Law, and Army Internal Duty Order, which together formed a systematic structure for managing Army records.

Observers suggest that a large volume of “classified documents” were incinerated at the end of the war. What, then, qualified as “classified” under the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents?

[Image 1] “1933 Army Directive No. 2: On the Army’s Classified Military Documents, Rikufu No. 850, Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents” (Ref. C14060233400, images 10–11)

 

Articles 2 through 4 of the regulations (see Image 1) define “classified documents” as those important in terms of maintaining confidentiality and security—such as those related to operations, tactics, mobilization, ciphers, or maps—as well as service orders, war diaries, and other items that were strictly prohibited from public disclosure. These types of documents were likely among the records for incineration.

The rules also define “Army classified documents” as a blanket term for any materials barred from dissemination either inside or outside the military, which fell into categories like “highly classified military secrets,” “classified military secrets” and “military secrets.” By contrast, records labeled “Not for Outside Distribution,” “Special,” or “Commissioned Officers Only” were treated as general documents. Unless there were explicit instructions otherwise, these kinds of materials were not subject to the same rules as classified documents. This article focuses on materials in the “Army classified documents” realm—those deemed particularly sensitive—and introduces records concerning how these were either destroyed or preserved during and around the end of the war.

 

Reports of incidents involving public documents

The official with ultimate responsibility for classified document management was the Minister of the Army, whose Secretariat issued administrative notices on official-document management and received reports on document-related incidents. Collections of related reports to the Minister thus appear in the Rikugunsho Dainikki (Document Files of the Ministry of the Army), which compiles outgoing Ministry correspondence.

According to Article 68 of the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents, unit personnel had to promptly report any incidents involving Army classified documents to the senior officer of the organization they belonged to. The head of the unit where the incident occurred was then to submit a preliminary report to the Army Minister, followed by a “detailed report” after an investigation. This final report included the name of the document or documents involved, the date and location of the incident, the name of the unit involved, the names and positions of personnel concerned, a summary of the situation, any corrective measures taken, and any disciplinary actions imposed. Based on these reports, the Minister’s Secretariat sometimes compiled case studies and issued notices to the entire Army to reinforce proper document-management practices.

[Image 2] “Notification to Army: Delivering investigation reports on accidents involving Army classified documents” (Ref. C01007817900, images 4–5)

 

One case file that the Minister’s Secretariat compiled was “Investigations into Causes of Accidents Involving Army Classified Documents, January–December 1942” (see Image 2), which details multiple instances of document mishandling, such as accidental loss or improper disposal. In addition to these incidents, the Army Ministry’s Defense Section created a reference titled “Counterintelligence Measures for Classified Documents” (Ref. C01004911100), which provides a revealing look at the Army’s approach to managing official documents and the distinguishing features of its wartime document control.

 

Emergency measures and document incineration manuals

In addition to accidents stemming from improper handling, military document control faced an issue shaped directly by the unique circumstances of wartime. The risk of records falling into enemy hands made the question of how to keep official documents out of enemy possession a top priority. Article 52 of the Army Penal Code stipulated that “any individual responsible for safeguarding military secret documents who fails to take steps to prevent their capture in an emergency shall be punished by up to five years’ imprisonment.” For the Army, then, the core policy was to prevent enemies from seizing official records.

After the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents underwent revisions to include Articles 46-2 and 50-2 (Ref. C14060233400, images 35–36, 39).

 

Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents, Article 46-2

“In the field or conflict zones, mobilized and other units must store [documents] in official baggage containers. Regarding classified documents, the necessary procedures to ensure their destruction must be in place in case of emergency.”

Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents, Article 50-2

“When passing through dangerous areas in the field or conflict zones, classified documents must, wherever possible, be carried under the supervision of a custodian (or any officer designated by the custodian). If needed, guards may be assigned to escort the documents and all possible preparations must be made to ensure proper document custody, including advance arrangements for emergency destruction procedures.”

 

Based on these two articles, which formalized emergency measures for Army classified documents, efforts to explore concrete methods of document destruction began. Out of that project came a summary of findings titled “Research on Rapid Destruction Methods for Classified Documents,” which was distributed to all Army units on February 23, 1938 (Ref. C01004504100). The study noted that simply lighting documents and ledgers on fire does not burn them easily; even with the use of petroleum, complete incineration requires airflow between layers of matter. To address these realities, the report recommended placing commercially available celluloid sheets between the papers. Subsequent the study set standards requiring personnel to carry gasoline and celluloid as incineration aids (see “Table of Standard Equipment to Be on Hand for Emergency Incineration,” Ref. C14010733100).

[Image 3] “Table of Standard Equipment to Be on Hand for Emergency Incineration and Sea Disposal of Secret Materials” (Ref. C14010733300)

 

One such set of regulations, used as reference for material preparation by the Army General Staff during the Pacific War, outlines the equipment to be carried by the 5th and 6th Divisions (see Image 3). For every 100 classified volumes of 2-cm thickness, the regulations required 18 liters of gasoline or petroleum, five hand grenades, and one portable landmine. Measures for preventing the loss of Army classified documents at sea during transport or maneuvers included flotation devices (with military flags wrapped in rubberized cloth), metallic drums, zinc containers, rafts made from logs or bamboo poles, casting nets, life vests, and other provisions. Standard equipment for emergency disposal at sea also included ballast—iron, lead, or stone—equal to approximately three times the weight of the items to be sunk.

Alongside equipment standards for emergency incineration, the Army also studied procedures for use in the corresponding situations. Research and training initiatives took place in units across the military. One extant document from the China Expeditionary Army General Headquarters, titled “Security Guidelines for Cipher Materials,” provides a thorough look at how these protocols were systematized.

[Image 4] “No. 3 emergency counter-measure” (Ref. C11110779000, images 4–5)

 

The Security Guidelines for Cipher Materials listed incineration, demolition, and shredding as acceptable methods. In a typical emergency, though, command personnel would already be engaged in final combat, leaving few available hands to do away with documents. The guidelines note the difficulties of the shredding approach in such situations, highlighting the lack of both the necessary time and personnel for emergency procedures. The 11th Infantry Regiment of the 5th Division established its own “Extraordinary Disposition Procedures of Code Books and Documents,” which laid out a phased approach—Stage 1 through Stage 5—depending on the situation (Ref. C11110780900).

These examples illustrate how emergency measures took concrete, codified form in manuals throughout the Army. The rigorous nature of the guidelines made the key principle clear: under no circumstances were official documents to fall into enemy hands. In actual emergency situations, units carried out incineration, destruction, shredding, burial, or sea disposal in accordance with the established rules and guidelines. The “Detailed Handling Rules for Army Classified Documents, Kwantung Army” (Ref. C12120762000) include explanations of how to handle documents in life-threatening conditions on the battlefield: “It is undesirable to carry the documents until one’s life is directly endangered. If danger is truly perceived, the individual must dispose of all but the minimum necessary documents—and even that minimum must be destroyed before final confrontation.” This reveals the basic conditions behind emergency disposal: documents had to be destroyed if a loss in battle resulted in the military organization or individual custodians losing their ability to maintain control over the relevant documents. Preventing the capture of records and the loss of sovereign custody represented one of the central challenges of wartime document administration.

 

2. Document Loss from Combat: Emergency Measures and Temporary Document Incineration Regulations during Wartime

The Army had thus established protocols for the emergency disposal of classified documents during wartime, and these standards saw practical application on an increasingly frequent basis once the Pacific War had begun. As Japan’s standing in the war deteriorated, there were more and more instances of official records being lost when transport vessels were sunk or transport aircraft were shot down. At the same time, surging volumes of calls and telegrams overwhelmed the communications infrastructure both in Japan and across borders, disrupting the flow of recordkeeping and impeding the management of official documents.

A 1942 report compiled by the Army Minister’s Secretariat profiled many cases where combat conditions were responsible for losses of classified materials.

[Image 5] “Notification to Army: Delivering investigation reports on accidents involving Army classified documents” (Ref. C01007817900, images 8 and 13)

 

As Image 5 shows, classified documents were destroyed in combat, lost at sea, or incinerated under emergency protocols. In response to the worsening war conditions, the Army began streamlining document creation and delivery procedures to improve efficiency and help conserve paper. It also introduced temporary wartime regulations for classified materials, protocols that simplified the document-disposal process and strengthened protections against enemy seizure.

[Image 6] “Notification to Army: Returning unnecessary top secret Army documents” (Ref. C01007848100)

 

On June 30, 1944, the Army issued a notice titled “Returning Unnecessary Top Secret Army Documents ” (Army Classified Directive No. 2706, 1944). With Japan facing increasingly dire prospects in the Pacific War, the Army often found itself in situations requiring emergency disposal of documents. In response, the directive relaxed procedural requirements as the situation demanded and allowed field commanders to exercise broader discretion in destroying records. Simultaneously, it called for collecting and recycling old versions of regulations and manuals to help conserve paper.

[Image 7] “Notification to Army (50): Returning and incinerating Army classified documents; Handling Army classified documents” (Ref. C01007862500)

 

On November 4, 1944, the Army issued another directive—“Disposal of Army Classified Documents” (Army Classified Directive No. 4721, 1944)—which stated that in “truly unavoidable circumstances,” field commanders could dispose of classified documents without waiting for formal approval from the Army Minister or Chief of the General Staff, provided that they reported the disposal via telegram afterward.

The pertinent regulations eased further on March 23, 1945, with the directive on “Returning and Incinerating Army Classified Documents” (Army Classified Directive No. 1038, 1945). Whereas previous directives applied only to designated combat zones, the new notice removed all geographical restrictions, allowing the emergency regulations to hold force “regardless of location, domestic or overseas.” When the notification was issued, Japan was in an increasingly desperate situation: the final telegram had just come in from Iwo Jima, and US forces were poised to land on Okinawa. In this dire context, all territories—both in the Japanese archipelago and abroad—were effectively war zones. The Army sought to establish a structure whereby document custodians at every level could execute emergency disposal procedures at their own discretion in circumstances they saw fit.

As the following section shows, these temporary wartime regulations and emergency disposal measures would come to shape the Army’s approach to incinerating records at the end of the war.

 

3. Document Incineration at War’s End: Destruction and Preservation

The general understanding is that official orders to incinerate records came at the end of the war—but there are actually no surviving original copies of these orders. What remains are secondary or fragmentary traces—copies, testimony, and the like—that help reconstruct the sequence of events surrounding the Army’s destruction of documents around August 1945.

Sources suggest that the Ministry of the Army issued an internal incineration order on August 14 under the authority of the Army Minister. The Ministry’s classified telegram registry confirms that on August 15, the day Japan announced its surrender, there was a transmission of a directive concerning the incineration of classified documents alongside the notice of the end of hostilities.

[Image 8] “Riku-Ki-Mitsu-Den number book 1/4 from August 15, 1945 to August 30, 1945 (No. 67–No. 91)” (Ref. C15010958100, images 2 and 4)

 

Image 8 contains a reference to a “Directive on Incineration of Army Classified Documents” (Riku-Ki-Mitsu-Den [Army Classified Telegram] No. 67), the so-called Army’s formal incineration order at the close of the war. While the actual original telegram itself is nowhere to be found, key evidence survives in the form of testimony from the man who transmitted the order: Colonel Miyama Yōzō, then adjutant-general in the Minister’s Secretariat (equivalent to director-general of the Secretariat).

[Image 9] “Testimony of Miyama Yōzō (Head of the Documents Division, First Demobilization Bureau)” (National Archives of Japan, Reference Code: Hei 11, Hōmu 02807100)

 

According to Miyama, the order said: “Classified documents, and any similar materials as defined under the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents, are to be incinerated immediately. This telegram is to be incinerated upon receipt. By order of the Minister” (Summary of “Directive on Incineration of Army Classified Documents,” Army Classified Telegram No. 69; Image 9). In his account, he also notes that the legal basis for this incineration order rested on two pillars: the Army Penal Code and the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents. He characterized the incineration as an emergency wartime measure designed to prevent the seizure of military records by enemy forces. Several surviving documents corroborate Miyama’s testimony.

[Image 10] “Demobilization-Related Materials, 16th Area Army / Western Army District” (National Institute for Defense Studies, Center for Military History, Military Archives, Document ID: Bunko-Yu-126)

 

[Image 11] “Historical Records of the 125th Independent Mixed Brigade, December 1, 1950” (National Institute for Defense Studies, Center for Military History, Military Archives, Document ID: Hondo-Seibu-94)

 

Image 10 shows a duplicate of the incineration order issued by the 16th Area Army (Western Army District) Headquarters, and Image 11 is a copy of the order passed down to the 125th Independent Mixed Brigade. Presumably, the directive was transmitted along the following chain of command: Army Ministry → Second General Army → 16th Area Army → 40th Army → 146th Division → 125th Independent Mixed Brigade. The details in the communique match Colonel Miyama’s description of the summary of the Army Ministry’s incineration order (Army Classified Telegram No. 69). A separate telegram from the Second General Army to the 16th Area Army also points to the incineration of documents related to prisoners of war.

However, no existing documents clearly indicate whether central Army authorities issued any detailed instructions on specific categories for incineration. Due to wartime precedents and regulations designed to prevent the seizure of documents by enemy forces, the broadly worded directive—“Classified documents and related materials as defined in the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents are to be incinerated immediately”—provided sufficient grounds for document custodians to act at their own discretion. Since Army units, offices, schools, and special agencies were positioned in different locations and were in vastly different conditions during the war’s final days, it would be fair to assume that decisions on which documents to destroy varied from organization to organization.

One exception is a copy of the incineration orders from the Military Police, which offers insight into the transmission and circulation of the directive, the categories of documents for destruction, and the types of records requiring preservation.

[Image 12] “Circular from the Chief of the Military Police Headquarters to All District MPs, August 14, 1945: Incineration of Classified Materials” (Ref. A08071285300, image 346)

 

Image 12 shows a circular from the Chief of the Military Police Headquarters, issued August 14, 1945, and dealing with the handling of documents (MP Gen. No. 261). The directive ordered the prompt incineration of materials related to foreign affairs, counterintelligence, ideological surveillance, and internal security—as well as “secret histories” and materials that might allow a reader to infer Japan’s national strength. Conversely, the order called for the retention of cipher books, personnel registers for Military Police staff, and unsettled accounting records, among others, until they were no longer in use. Intelligence files and ideological surveillance materials deemed necessary for future use—such as watchlists of suspected leftists—were to be preserved discreetly. These orders make it clear that the Military Police, which served to perform public-security operations, took steps to ensure that domestic intelligence and documents reflecting or possibly offering intelligence on Japan’s national strength would not fall into the hands of occupying forces.

[Image 13] “Circular from the Chief of the Military Police Headquarters to All District MPs, August 14, 1945: Incineration of Classified Materials” (Ref. A08071285300, images 347–348)

 

Another order from the Chief of the Military Police Headquarters that same day, Telegram No. 1205 (Image 13), noted that incineration authority was delegated to document custodians and commanders at all levels, in line with earlier temporary wartime regulations (see Image 6 and Image 7). The telegram also ordered that Army classified documents—including cipher materials—be incinerated in accordance with the Rules for Handling Army Classified Documents and prior “incineration education.” A follow-up circular pertaining to the incineration of classified materials, issued August 20 (No. 377), warned that some Army classified documents had been left only partially burned or mistakenly filed among personal reference materials. The order called for “thorough implementation with no exceptions.”

[Image 14] “Circular from the Chief of the Military Police Headquarters to All District MPs, August 14, 1945: Incineration of Classified Materials” (Ref. A08071285300, images 349–351)

 

Another circular from the Western Military Police Headquarters to the Kagoshima District Military Police on August 27, 1945 (No. 232; Image 14) indicates that the documents the District Military Police incinerated were public security-related materials, including police records. It also instructed that future document disposal be conducted in careful consideration of what each item contained, with materials to be placed in three categories: incinerate, prepare for incineration, and preserve. It had been two weeks since the Japan’s surrender sparked tumult and tension; the Military Police memo suggests that, by that point, units had begun to regain both the time and presence of mind to make the relevant judgments with care.

Images 12 through 14 show copies of orders extracted from the Kagoshima District Military Police’s “Incoming and Outgoing Telegram File,” a set that, as Image 14 shows, was originally bound for incineration but ultimately survived—and later served as material for the prosecution in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (i.e., the Tokyo Trials). The originals, however, were seized by US forces after the war, their whereabouts now unknown.

The fact that the Military Police were selectively incinerating or preserving documents underscores a broader point: not all official records were destroyed at the end of the war. At the Army Ministry and General Staff Office, for example, high-level documents such as Imperial Command issued by Army Section of the Imperial Headquarters and Imperial Conference Proceedings went into safekeeping at the discretion of their custodians. In addition, personnel and administrative records, such as joint registers and military service rosters, also survived except for those sections their individual custodians made the decision to incinerate. The approach to preservation solidified after August 18, 1945, with the adoption of the Japanese Imperial Army Demobilization Procedures, which explicitly specified the types of documents for retention.

[Image 15] “Japanese Imperial Army Demobilization Procedures, Detailed Rules (1)” (Ref. C13070718500, images 45–46)

 

Article 19 of the detailed rules for the Japanese Imperial Army Demobilization Procedures (Image 15) mandated the transfer of personnel rosters and civil service appointment lists to prefectural governments, in addition to requiring the preservation of unsettled personnel and accounting records. In the roughly two-week period between Japan’s surrender announcement on August 15 and the formal signing of the instrument of surrender on September 2, Army units sorted documents and then either incinerated them or put them away for safekeeping.

That leads to the next questions: Who ordered the suspension of document incineration, and when?

 

[Image 16] “17. September 3, 1945 translated by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Army amendment Allied Powers Supreme Commander Headquarters (1)” (Ref. C15010735900, image 9)

 

Released on September 3, 1945, the “Directive No. 2 Office of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Part 2 (Japanese Armed Forces), Number 7” (Image 16), stated: “The Japanese Imperial General Headquarters is responsible for continuing the maintenance and administration of Japanese Armed Forces until demobilized, and for the maintenance and preservation of all records and archives until relieved of this responsibility by Allied Representatives.” This effectively halted further destruction. At the same time, surrender negotiations were underway across different theaters: some agreements signed on local terms required Japanese forces to submit documentation and prepare materials for handover. These arrangements effectively marked the suspension of incineration and the transition to preservation.

Even after the war, however, Japanese military documents continued to be burned, preserved, or seized by US, British, Australian, Soviet, and Chinese forces in the field.

 

4. Allied Seizure of Documents: Surviving Items Outside Japan

Although a substantial number of official records went the incineration route at the end of the war, many others survived. Yet even these remaining documents quickly slipped out of Japanese control.

Between November 1945 and March 1946, the Washington Document Center (WDC), jointly run by the Navy and War Departments, confiscated approximately 450,000 items from former Army and Navy organizations and affiliated bodies in Japan—only around 20,000 of which the organization returned to Japan. More than 90 percent remain unreturned. Researchers estimate that over 400,000 Japanese military documents may still reside in US repositories. Apart from the WDC’s activities, GHQ-G2 (the intelligence division of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) also seized between 75,000 and 80,000 documents from former Army and Navy institutions by the end of 1946. Where these documents are now remains completely unknown.

 

Japanese military records thus passed through three primary phases of loss: loss in combat, incineration at the end of the war, and seizure by Allied forces. Explanations abound for where certain documents may be now. One key consideration that many often overlook is that not all document loss occurred during the final stretches of the war—also important in that dynamic is the extensive postwar confiscation of documents by Allied authorities. From the late 1940s through the 1970s, the former Ministry of Health and Welfare and the former Defense Agency conducted investigations and initiated return negotiations for confiscated documents. Today, however, there are no government institutions formally tasked with continuing that pursuit. With more than 400,000 Japanese Army and Navy records likely surviving overseas but simply still unreturned or missing, a comprehensive archive remains far from complete.

 

References

• • 田中宏巳「解説 米議会図書館(ＬＣ)所蔵の旧陸海軍資料について」『米議会図書館所蔵 占領接収旧陸海軍資料総目録』（原書房、1995年）
  • 吉田裕「公文書の焼却と隠匿 (特集 資料公開・戦争展示を考える)」『戦争責任研究』 (14)(日本の戦争責任資料センター、1996年9月)
  • 原剛「歴史手帳　陸海軍文書の焼却と残存」『日本歴史』第598号（吉川弘文館、1998年）
  • 加藤聖文「敗戦と公文書廃棄‐植民地・占領期における実態‐」『国文学研究資料館紀要』33号（人間文化研究機構国文学研究資料館、2002年3月）
  • 加藤聖文「喪われた記録 ‐戦時下の公文書廃棄‐」『国文学研究資料館紀要 アーカイブズ研究篇』1号（人間文化研究機構国文学研究資料館、2005年3月）
  • 齋藤達志「日本軍における公文書管理の研究‐文書保存を焦点とした公文書管理の変遷を中心に‐」『平成25年度アーカイブズ研修Ⅲ修了研究論文集』（国立公文書館、2014年7月）
  • 近藤貴明「陸軍人事資料制度にみる沖縄県所管の陸軍戦時名簿(陸軍兵籍簿)の概観とその由来 : 陸軍省制定の「留守業務規程」と沖縄戦・終戦前後の混乱が与えた現存への影響」『沖縄県公文書館研究紀要』（17）（沖縄県公文書館、2015年3月）
  • 近藤貴明「終戦前後における陸軍兵籍簿焼失の原因とその類型化：連隊区司令部における陸軍兵籍簿の大量焼却のケースを中心に」『立命館平和研究』(17)(立命館大学国際平和ミュージアム、2016年3月)
  • 加藤聖文「敗戦時における公文書焼却の再検討‐機密文書と兵事関係文書‐」『国文学研究資料館紀要　アーカイブズ研究篇』15号（人間文化研究機構国文学研究資料館、2019年3月）
  • 長谷川優也「旧陸軍の秘密書類管理制度と終戦前後の文書焼却」『軍事史学』56巻第1号（錦正社、2019年6月）
  • 石本理彩「旧陸軍接収文書の返還状況について‐陸軍省大日記類を中心に‐」『レコード・マネジメント』83号（記録管理学会、2022年11月）
  • 田中宏巳「米国にある膨大な資料を忘れた軍事史の将来を憂う」『軍事史学』60巻第3号（錦正社、2024年1月)
  • 安藤正人『戦争・植民地支配とアーカイブズ1 -戦時国際法と帝国日本-』（東京大学出版会、2024年12月）
  • 安藤正人『戦争・植民地支配とアーカイブズ2 -アジアの日本軍政と敗戦-』（東京大学出版会、2025年3月）

 

HASEGAWA Yūya, Assistant Researcher, Japan Center for Asian Historical Records