Spoils of War or War loot?

[MassiveMoonHeh]

Paul Martin has just posed the question in his recent article about whether Japanese swords taken by the Western Troops after the war should be considered Spoils of War or War Loot.

 

It is an interesting question and something I am not sure can be fully unwrapped but is worth discussion and consideration.

 

I can see both sides.

 

A family who had their family sword, a generational heirloom, confiscated after the war would want it back.

 

A western soldier who survived Iwo Jima or the Kokota Trail would feel justified to take a sword home as a hard earned memento of the battle fought.

 

Japan also has a long history of the victor claiming the losers sword. The Honjo Masamune got its name this way and yet it is a sword Japan desperately wants back. 

 

It says a Japanese Sword chooses its owner. Does this "soul of the sword" factor in this discussion?

 

What differentiates a spoil of war and war loot? Japanese Swords in the Eastern Campaign were as highly sort after as Lugers in Europe.

 

Swords were confiscated by GHQ as they were used in the war. Does this justify the confiscation and distribution as war trophies? Is it fair to say it was either this or bottom of the ocean?

 

Article 193 of the Japanese Civil Code favours the person in possession of stolen goods after 2 years. We are 80 years from the event. Does this factor in the discussion?

 

It is a sensitive subject and as such I ask people to please consider that in their response. We are community who loves Japanese swords and as such share a common bond regardless of which side our feelings and thoughts fall. Let's keep that in mind.

 

I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer but 80 years on it is still something that resonates deeply in this space.

 

In that vein what are your thoughts?

[David Flynn]

Japanese Forces carried swords, not only for symbology but to be used as actual weapons.   All vanquished militaries surrender their arms.  Most are usually destroyed (hence photos of Japanese swords being destroyed).  The rest then are usually dispersed in some way by the Victors.  So, at the end of WW2, when Japan surrendered, I would say all weapons collected, are spoils.

 

[Scogg]

As someone who’s involved in the militaria collecting side of things, I think it’s a really complex issue. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it. I generally agree with David’s take that they are spoils. That said, I think each and every item and situation, can and should be viewed individually. 
 

Personally speaking, I do not see myself as an owner of my Nihonto, but rather a temporary stop on their journey. My goals are to preserve, study, and learn from what I have while I have it. To me, these swords represent a time and culture that I admire, but is not my own. If a sword could be associated directly with a family who lost it during World War Two, and who wanted it back, I would seriously consider trying to repatriate it.

 

I’ve never encountered a sword personally where that was a realistic option. 

There’s a local non profit organization near me, who returns good luck flags and non biological remains to Japanese families. It’s widely considered a humanitarian effort, and is run by some very kind and wonderful people. 

https://www.obonsociety.org/eng/

 

The way I see it, is if I’m the one most likely to preserve the item for future generations, then I have no problem owning it and collecting it whether it be considered spoils or loot. Especially if the alternative is putting it back into the market where anything could happen to it.

 

To me it’s about intention, and respect, because it is a sensitive topic. 
-Sam

[Mark S.]

I guess I’m going to complicate this further, but I would say in the case of Japanese swords, they were all “Spoils of War”.  To the victor go the spoils.  Then I would divide the ‘spoils’ into “War Trophy’s” and “War Loot”.  Examples of War Trophy’s are items picked up on the battlefield, or handed out as trophy’s, or surrendered from one individual to another or confiscated based on some type of criteria.  War Loot, I would consider to be items stolen from museums or from homes or obtained through less than ‘legal’ channels.  

[John C]

3 hours ago, MassiveMoonHeh said:

What differentiates a spoil of war and war loot?

In the simplest terms, from a US perspective anyway, "spoils of war" is legal because it refers to military use equipment and material from the other side. Looting, the taking of personal property, is illegal and is considered a war crime. So if a sword were carried in battle, then it could be classified as a spoil. But the same sword taken from a home by an occupying force would be considered looting and would be a war crime, under US law.

 

John C.

[O koumori]

1 minute ago, John C said:

But the same sword taken from a home by an occupying force would be considered looting and would be a war crime, under US law.

or temple...

[MassiveMoonHeh]

14 minutes ago, John C said:

In the simplest terms, from a US perspective anyway, "spoils of war" is legal because it refers to military use equipment and material from the other side. Looting, the taking of personal property, is illegal and is considered a war crime. So if a sword were carried in battle, then it could be classified as a spoil. But the same sword taken from a home by an occupying force would be considered looting and would be a war crime, under US law.

 

John C.

It is a very simple notion, generally, however what happens when GHQ gave the order for all civilians to hand in their weapons and the said weapons were then confiscated? Is the reallocation of such weapons by the occupying force, looting or spoils?

[John C]

2 hours ago, MassiveMoonHeh said:

GHQ gave the order

Since the country is effectively under martial law at that point, the commanding general (by extension from the general staff and president) is the law maker. So as long as there are no human rights violations, he has the right and responsibility to protect his occupying force by disarming the citizens and military.  All of these "laws" are a product of "unconditional" surrender. 

 

John C.

[Mark S.]

Just finished the section of Markus’ book “Honma Talks” about the occupation and the race to save art swords after WW2.  VERY interesting read and timely to this topic. 

[Rivkin]

One thing about so called laws of war.

They never work.

In the field most troops have no supplies or infrastructure to deal with POWs. 

The ones that survive were either part of organized surrender or they somehow got close enough to the rear where the infrastructure and supervision do exist.

 

Technically every civilian on occupied territories can be charged with abetting the enemy, treason, terrorism etc.. Which does not change the fact they need to somehow eat and work, even if its related to the occupying army. Which is the only institution that keeps the local economy alive.

So every Okinawan who gave up a sword or performed any form of labor until the official surrender in theory is liable... but again, war is when laws should be replaced by common sense.

 

Every military will pass laws which make it illegal for occupied population to own a knife or sickle or axe. Not because it wants all farm equipment to be surrendered. Because normal ways to render justice do not work. If a soldier kills a local, if villagers are not scared enough, they'll all testify the soldier was a demon and they have no idea why he killed. It was just random evil. Soldiers will testify they were under assault by the locals. The way such things should be resolved is there is a snitch who always informs about what really happens in the unit.

Suppose there is not one.

Banning anything sharp means you simply look if there was anything like that on the scene. Sickle? Ok, it means there was an assault and the whole village is hostile. Nothing? Soldiers might have been something weird.

I still don't believe US occupation authorities were after every ancestral blade even if the official statement was that all swords are banned.

Did they send out armed parties to secure every sword in every village? No? They were not serious.

It was just a standard position to make sure they can dispatch any paralimitary weapon-bearing entity at will.

Which quickly turned into a great souvenir hunt and Japanese law enforcement being more obedient and more inclined to do things by the letter than most.

[Sebuh]

i think it’s as simple as a yes and no. They are spoils, but they also aren’t they fit into an odd place. Similar to the debate between Swordsmsiths between artists or craftsmen.

[jawob]

Battlefield pick ups are fair game. Confiscating civilian swords falls under retribution, punishment, and dare say looting.

[John C]

1 hour ago, jawob said:

Confiscating civilian swords falls under retribution, punishment

Looting is simply a type of theft and subject to whichever laws are applicable at the time. But I suspect you are correct that MacArthur was being punitive against the Japanese because he knew how much swords were a national identity. 

 

John C.

[MassiveMoonHeh]

17 hours ago, John C said:

MacArthur was being punitive against the Japanese because he knew how much swords were a national identity

If the sword was as Tokugawa Ieyasu suggested in his famous rules for the Samurai, Buke Shohatto (Laws for Military Houses) in 1615, the "Soul of the Warrior," then MacArthur appears to have tried to ensure that the warrior spirit in every Japanese person was quashed? The handing over of swords was extremely symbolic. Certainly there was also talk of also deposing the emperor, like they did the Kaiser in WWI, as the ultimate form of symbolism, but they thought better of it, or so long as the emperor co-operated. They certainly weakened the Imperial Household to a level never seen since the Nanboku-chō period (the period of the two courts) and even worse, stripping it of land and treasures under the guide of paying for the costs of war under the post-war tax agreement. Again a pretty standard and ancient practice for a victorious army. The ultimate form of spoils of war. In truth like previous conquering armies they could have taken the treasures back to their countries but instead they transferred many of the lands and treasures to the Nation. Post War is always a period of messing clean up. Things are never perfect. The occupying force wants to reset the game and leave with a weakened and co-operative society that will not turn around and start another war a few years later. There were some learnings from the Great War. It is probably the best example we have of how to do it in the modern era, in no small part due to the co-operation of the civilian populace, Imperial Household and senior figures, but it did leave some unresolved issues, family swords being one of them.

[Bruce Pennington]

Thanks for sharing Paul's article.  Lots of thoughts swirling, most already stated so far, and trying to solidify them in my head.

 

While I recognize the significance Paul pointed out so well, I think I fall on the side of the fact that the "spoils of war" has always been, and always will be the norm.  Agreed, as Paul pointed out, there have been recent examples of nations returning great treasures stolen during recent wars.  But they are almost singular in the specific items.  These swords are the opposite of that.  Thousands of swords that can never be traced to their original family - how would they ever be repatriated?  Dan's idea of sending them to temples might work, but they'd need a pretty big warehouse (which is not impossible) and the individual families would never feel true closure by such a mass deposit. 

 

Like the Germans, the Japanese people were wounded by their own leaders.  And it's a wound that, while decades/centuries may heal, the scar will always remain.  

[Lewis B]

As an aside you have to love Paul Martin's promotional imagery the last few years. 50% James Bond 50% Miyamoto Musashi 

[MassiveMoonHeh]

2 hours ago, Lewis B said:

As an aside you have to love Paul Martin's promotional imagery the last few years. 50% James Bond 50% Miyamoto Musashi 

100% - My name is Bond, Samurai Bond! 

[Tetsu]

On 7/18/2026 at 6:58 AM, John C said:

In the simplest terms, from a US perspective anyway, "spoils of war" is legal because it refers to military use equipment and material from the other side. Looting, the taking of personal property, is illegal and is considered a war crime. So if a sword were carried in battle, then it could be classified as a spoil. But the same sword taken from a home by an occupying force would be considered looting and would be a war crime, under US law.

 

John C.

And yet many swords were taken from temples and shrines, despite Article 44 of the Lieber Code from 1863.

 

I'm Gen X, my grandparents' generation fought in WW II.  Although I knew many WW II veterans growing up, and despite almost 1 million blades being confiscated by the US military, I was never shown a single Nihonto growing up, nor ever saw one in a display case.  So while some reports claim that 500K - 1 million came back with US soldiers after the war, my own lived experience contradicts this, even if we account for dusty garages swallowing them, or irritated wives discarding them over the 30 year period between the end of WW II and my childhood.  Only 2 Nihonto surfaced on the TV show American Pickers.  This makes me hopeful that few swords of any historic significance (i.e. not gunto) made their way back to the States, or escaped the net of runners cast by Dr. Compton. 

 

Given the large number of antique Nihonto still in Japan, its obvious most were hidden during confiscation efforts (that's what I would do).  Famous swords lacked a veil of obscurity, but my understanding is most were returned, with a few casualties such as the Honjo Masamune still missing.

[Nukitsuke]

This is a fascinating series of questions and thoughts... In the limited time I thought about it, this is what I'd say (as a disclaimer I reserve the right to change my mind as I'm thinking and marinating on it lol):

I actually think this might deserve a bit more than a binary option set of "spoils of war versus war loot" argument. Personally, I’ve never seen the swords taken by Western troops as either. To me, their confiscation and destruction has always represented more of a dismantling of the spirit or cultural identity... It always read like an intentional cultural attack rather than a simple claim of victory or trophy, or form of theft (this is actuall a little dismissive of the power dynamics regarding how occupying forces needed to maintain a sense of presence)... In short I always kind of thought this was more subjugation than, "look at my souvenir" type of a deal. I don't believe that every soldier that grabbed a wakizashi had this intent, but I do believe that leadership likely had an understanding of what this represented from a much more holistic perspective.  Under this context and with these observations I think it's perfectly acceptable for descendants or families to want their heirloom(s) back. I think this is fair as uncomfortable as it may feel. 

But for the sake of finding my own meaning in the questions, and also saying something of substance that doesn't sound overly contradictory, I’d probably argue for a third category of options to classify what happened historically.  I'd lean closer to an option that acknowledges the deeper meaning behind the removal and destruction of these artifacts. It wasn’t just about possession or trophies as much as I feel it was about erasing a symbol of continuity, lineage, and identity... Also, I guess erasing the attitudes associated with the aforementioned. Think something like "Shang Tsung" from Mortal Kombat... The whole "Your soul is mine," type deal...
 

I do also believe that swords choose their owners. Their lifespan often exceeds that of the people who hold them, and in that way, they embody a kind of strategic patience...  Much like what we see in another thread regarding the letter discovered between Ieyasu and Hideyoshi. Like Ieyasu, the sword endures, adapts, and survives, waiting for its next opportunity...Or more specifically its rightful bearer.

As Scogg insightfully said:

On 7/18/2026 at 9:23 PM, Scogg said:

I do not see myself as an owner of my Nihonto, but rather a temporary stop on their journey.

 

That perspective captures it perfectly, we are custodians, not conquerors of the sword. The sword’s journey usually continues long after we end ours... I'm going to think about this some more, but I think this is the stance I would take.

 

I look forward to reading more responses on this!

 

-Mitchell

 

Edited Thursday at 12:40 PM by Nukitsuke

[Hector]

Victors write the history books. They also take whatever they want.

That's 'Rules of Warfare 101'.

 

The subsequent perspective on those actions may change decades or centuries later - until, inevitably, there are debates such as this one. 

Hindsight always has a more finely tuned moral compass than that of combatants who have just defeated an enemy nation in an extremely bitterly fought war.

[Hokke]

This is actually a very simple question to answer. Of course swords collected after a conflict are going to belong to the victor, or anyone else who happens to collect an item once the guns cease fire. The reason is simple, the owners of those weapons did not bring their swords with the expectation they would be returned if they were killed in battle. Therefore the fact that many of these swords were heirlooms or of superior value historically means NOTHING because it was not mandatory to bring your own swords into battle, it was optional which means it was a choice. Even if it were mandated by the Japanese govt for troops to bring any weapon they owned, there still would be no reasonable expectation the weapon would be returned by the enemy.

 

What makes this discussion interesting for me is perspective. American troops, for example, will generally agree with the idea of “spoils of war”. However, is this because they actually believe in the spoils of war concept or do they support the premise out of convenience, because in the US military, so far as I know, troops are prohibited from using their own weapons. I wonder if it were permitted for Private Pyle to bring the .45 1911 that had been in his family since 1911 and passed down through the generations, if he would be more in favor of returning heirlooms to the family if he were to fall in battle. 

[John C]

13 minutes ago, Hokke said:

troops are prohibited from using their own weapons

I think this is one of those de jure vs de facto situations. Technically a violation of the UCMJ, however there were many private companies that made bowie knives, for example, and shipped them overseas during ww2. I am reminded of General Patton's ivory handled pistols he carried. Even in peacetime, federally activated national guard police officers carried their private back up guns to the L.A. Riots. Stretching the concept a bit further, picking up a foreign weapon on the battlefield and using it is common practice.

 

John C.

[Hokke]

33 minutes ago, John C said:

……I am reminded of General Patton's ivory handled pistols he carried. Even in peacetime, federally activated national guard police officers carried their private back up guns to the L.A. Riots. Stretching the concept a bit further, picking up a foreign weapon on the battlefield and using it is common practice.

 

John C.

Technicalities aside, as a general rule, US military are prohibited from carrying their personal firearms. If they were allowed, the feelings toward “spoils of war” might look a bit different. 
 

At the end of day carrying a family heirloom into battle is a choice and so it’s unrealistic to feel entitlement to have anything returned. 

[Tensho]

5 hours ago, Hokke said:

 

because in the US military, so far as I know, troops are prohibited from using their own weapons. 

During WWII a lot of soldiers carried personnel sidearms and knives etc.. If you ever watched The Pacific or Band Of Brothers miniseries or read the books. Eugene Sledge(The pacific) carried a commercial 1911 his father sent him and David Webster(Band of brothers)carried a commercial 1911 he purchased. They were both privates. And we all know so many of them brought back pistols, Daggers, rifles, etc.. I'd think it'd be hard to tell someone they can't carry a personnel sidearm when they got a duffel full of lugers, walthers etc..

Edited Thursday at 08:00 PM by Tensho

[John C]

5 hours ago, Hokke said:

it’s unrealistic to feel entitlement to have anything returned. 

Ah. I missed this as the point. Then absolutely. I think most Japanese soldiers realized it was a one-way trip and decided to take their swords anyway.

 

John C.

[Nukitsuke]

On 7/20/2026 at 10:59 AM, Bruce Pennington said:

Like the Germans, the Japanese people were wounded by their own leaders.  And it's a wound that, while decades/centuries may heal, the scar will always remain.  

Hi Bruce, This is pretty intriguing, and I'm curious about it... When you mentioned that the Japanese were wounded by their own leaders, were you more referring to the consequences of leadership, trauma and stigma of loss, rebranding cultural identity and the influence of foreign pressures, or maybe even the lack of choice in the matter entirely? lol I guess it could be all of it too, right?

 

Anyway, I was interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this if you care to share!

 

-Mitchell

[Bruce Pennington]

1 hour ago, Nukitsuke said:

more of your thoughts

Hi Michael,

I am thinking it was, like you said, all of it.  Yes, consequent actions by the Allies caused immeasurable suffering and humiliation (confiscating swords for example), but in truth, none of it would have happened had Japan's leadership followed a different path.  Don't recall what book I was reading, but one general explained why they invaded China and S.E. Asia.  He said the English, French, and Americans all had their times of Imperialism, and it was Japan's turn.  In another, the author (a Japanese author) said that when the top brass were deciding to attack Pearl, they knew they were starting a war with the US they could not win, but to not do so would bring shame upon the country.

So, lots of people suffered, around the world, but specifically the Japanese people because of these decisions.  Not excusing wrong behavior of any Allied action at all, yet even those bad Allied choices during the war would never have happened had the Japanese leadership chosen to live in the world in a peaceful manner.

[eternal_newbie]

On the subject of swords specifically, Japanese history is also rife with accounts of important blades being seized by the victors of a campaign, either for themselves or as gifts for their allies/vassals. In that sense, I imagine those who took swords into battle - particularly important or high-quality ones - would have at least considered the possibility that their arms would be taken if they were not victorious, and the actions of the Allies in this regard were consistent with the history of nihonto in Japan (aside from the mass destruction of many of the confiscated swords, which the bushi would have considered wasteful).

[Nukitsuke]

9 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

Hi Michael,

I am thinking it was, like you said, all of it.  Yes, consequent actions by the Allies caused immeasurable suffering and humiliation (confiscating swords for example), but in truth, none of it would have happened had Japan's leadership followed a different path.  Don't recall what book I was reading, but one general explained why they invaded China and S.E. Asia.  He said the English, French, and Americans all had their times of Imperialism, and it was Japan's turn.  In another, the author (a Japanese author) said that when the top brass were deciding to attack Pearl, they knew they were starting a war with the US they could not win, but to not do so would bring shame upon the country.

So, lots of people suffered, around the world, but specifically the Japanese people because of these decisions.  Not excusing wrong behavior of any Allied action at all, yet even those bad Allied choices during the war would never have happened had the Japanese leadership chosen to live in the world in a peaceful manner.

I see, and thank you for elaborating. I'm not sure if we may have read some of the same reference material but it sounds like we may have... I definitely remember diving into Japan's expansionism and the justification being rooted in the mandate of heaven, additionally, I remember Japan mimicking the western playbooks for colonial theory... I also found some ties directly related to the rationale that initiated offensive strikes on Pearl Harbor that are congruent with the feelings of shame and how the Japanese felt like there was no other option. It's been a while since I've reviewed any materials on it, but I do recall that some of these outcomes were sort of set in motion relatively early with Japan watching what happened with the opium wars from a distance, and then being recognized as quasi-equal among western imperialist nations after the Russo-Japanese war. I don't think I ever explored, deeply, any "what ifs," connected to Japanese leadership, but it poses an interesting series of questions and potential outcomes in a infinte parallel universe sort of way that I might continue to think on... Anyway, thank you so much for sharing, I appreciate the insight sir!

 

-Mitchell

[John C]

5 hours ago, Nukitsuke said:

reference material

Mitchell:

If you're interested in manga or graphic novels, there is an excellent book series called Showa written and illustrated by Shigeru Mizuki. It is a thick 4 volume set where he goes into great detail about his experiences.  The first volume is on how Japan made it through the Depression and the resulting political and domestic decision making that led to Expansion and militarism, particularly as it relates to China. The other 3 cover the years he went to war, the US occupation, and finally the rest of the showa era to 1989. It's written in English, however it reads right to left like a Japanese book. He is an amazing artist so a long, but enjoyable read.

 

John C.