Tokyo Trial (2016) s01e02 Episode Script
Episode 2
1 President Webb, Justice Cramer, Judge Advocate General and our man to replace Higgins.
-Justice Cramer.
-Justice Webb.
I, uh, read your dossier.
You studied at Harvard.
Yes.
Yes, I did.
Did you? Uh, no.
Queensland.
Sir William has a very tough job of it.
But I assure you, he has both hands on the reins.
[theme music playing.]
[narrator.]
July 1946.
The prosecution's argument shifts its focus onto atrocities committed by the Japanese military on the Chinese mainland.
December 1937.
The ever-advancing Japanese military occupied Nanking.
The prosecution begins examining witnesses, and argues that many prisoners and non-combatants were killed at that time.
For the first time, the judges will hear testimony from Chinese witnesses on this incident.
Witness Hsu Chuan-Ying testifies about what he saw three days after the occupation of Nanking began.
"On Main Street, I even started trying to count the number of corpses lying on both sides of the street.
And I started to count more than 500 myself.
I say it was no use counting them.
" In cross-examination, the defense tries to suggest that there might have been so-called plainclothed troops who hid in private homes and staged surprise attacks on the Japanese.
Hsu Chuan-Ying answers with, "That might be.
But still, you see, we consider them non-combatants before they gather themselves together again to engage in the hostile activities.
" On the same day, Shang Teh-Yi takes the witness stand.
As he does not speak English, the prosecutor reads his previously recorded testimony.
"I was taken to the bank of the Yangtze River to find more than 1,000 male civilians there.
At about 4:00 p.
m.
, a Japanese officer came by and ordered the Japanese soldiers to start machine-gunning us.
I slumped to the ground just before the firing started, and immediately I was covered with corpses and fainted.
At about 9:00 p.
m.
, I climbed out from the piles of corpses and ran to my house.
" Well, um I cannot forgive, um, such atrocities.
However, I think we should adjudicate them as conventional war crimes.
There is no need to categorize them as, uh, crimes against humanity.
Like the Nazis with the exterminations of the Jews.
Either way, the accused who are responsible cannot escape such terrible crimes.
Well-- [Webb.]
Let's just leave it there for today, shall we? President Webb, if you'd please excuse me, I would rather we deliberate on the crimes of aggression.
I must assert there's still a motion on the table to rule out waging of aggressive war as a crime.
I'm drafting a denial to the motion.
That is completely out of order.
You can't be serious.
I'm quite serious.
[speaking Russian.]
[takes deep breath.]
[in English.]
It is absolutely clear from the testimony that the accused plotted to prepare and wage an aggressive war.
With respect to the General, the crimes of aggression did not exist at that time.
Nor did they exist at any time throughout the conflict in the Pacific.
Nuremberg did put the Nazis on trial for crimes of aggression.
That was in my mind also a questionable act.
These terrible things exceed by far anything in conventional jurisprudence.
Are you really saying, after everything we've all seen today that you think the Japanese leadership should be exempt? No.
I do not condone the atrocities.
But I want to avoid applying a law that did not exist at the time these men took actions -and for which they now stand at trial.
-[McDougall.]
No, no.
This is senseless.
We've all agreed.
The charges stand as per the charter.
Agreed.
We also agreed that any dissenting opinion remain in the room.
But we did not agree.
I wasn't here when you decided.
[Northcroft muttering.]
Gentlemen, our nerves are raw enough.
Given the arduous testimony today, I'm adjourning any further discussion.
[clears throat.]
[indistinct chatter.]
[RÃling.]
I read that almost 100,000 people were killed in one night in Tokyo.
Napalm bombs dropped by the Americans.
You were a pilot in the first war? Yes, fighter pilot not bombers.
What was it like? Dirty, cold and loud.
The Germans shot my plane and legs full of holes.
I was in a prisoner of war camp for the rest of the war.
[Patrick.]
What do you make of Justice Pal? And what's your view of his argument? To reject the charges of waging aggressive war? For me, it's complicated.
How complicated can it be? Before we began, we all signed the charter.
Justice Jaranilla wishes to start us off today.
Thank you.
Uh, before going any further, um I wish to say to Justice Pal that, though I respect your opinion concerning the charge of crimes against peace which we are calling crimes of aggression I find it rather improper.
Many atrocities have been committed by the Japanese army during this war in places like China, Indonesia, Burma and in my country, the Philippines.
And these atrocities happened precisely because the Japanese leaders engaged in lawless acts of aggression.
So I want to make it clear that I believe charges against all defendants are justified.
Justice Pal, as I am writing our response concerning the defense motion to dismiss the charge of crimes of aggression, do you have anything more you wish to say? [Pal.]
Yes.
I believe what the Japanese did throughout Asia was, uh, devilish and horrid.
And they committed conventional war crimes.
And the Japanese officers who committed these atrocities have been tried in local courts where they took place and have been given sentences.
However, I implore each of you to consider more seriously my position that there is no legal ground for the charge of crimes of aggression.
Japan signed the Pact of Paris in 1928.
Now, it clearly states that all the signatories agreed to condemn war as a means of settling international disputes.
They agreed to condemn war as an as an instrument of national policy.
But it does not provide legal ground for criminalizing war.
And it doesn't suggest any penalties.
And it certainly doesn't say anything about the responsibility of the officer or the politicians as an individual perpetrators.
Given the way countries and societies continue to act against each other this Pact of Paris is an idealistic pledge.
Charging the accused for crimes of aggression is allowed in our charter.
The charter is wrong.
It was a precondition to our appointment on this tribunal.
We cannot and we should not debate whether the charter is right or wrong.
[speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
The General supports what Justice McDougall says, and you all should support that.
Yes.
But not by making up laws at will.
I agree.
But why are we here, Justice Pal? We are here because we should be able to discuss what is the right step for humanity to take.
And based on the outcome of that discussion we'll make the best decisions for the law.
Respected gentlemen, I certainly believe law has the power to guide mankind.
So its principles must be upheld.
That is why we must acquit all the defendants on the charge of crimes of aggression.
For this is a law that does not truly exist yet.
[scoffs.]
If you cannot follow the Tokyo Charter, you should return to Calcutta.
I did not come from a country that struggles to gain its independence in order to have my arguments discarded or to be told to go home.
Let's adjourn it there for today.
[chuckles softly.]
[McDougall.]
Pal is unbelievably stubborn.
[Northcroft.]
Oh, we can all agree about that.
However, he's right when he argues that, in domestic law, people can't be tried for actions that were not crimes at the time those actions were committed.
But international law evolves under extreme circumstances.
If the Tokyo tribunal does not strictly adhere to Nuremberg principles it would mean passing judgment on the Nazis was a mistake.
We cannot let that happen.
I agree.
Someone on MacArthur's staff thought my skin color deserved a lesser hotel.
But Webb fixed it.
That's good.
It should have been like that from the beginning.
Why don't you join me for some tea? [RÃling.]
Mahatma Gandhi.
By leading India toward independence in a unique way, he's an inspiration to the whole world.
What do you think? Will independence ever truly happen? Oh, yes.
By next year.
Then the British can pack their suitcases.
[chuckles.]
[sighs.]
Just what the doctor ordered.
The arguing is getting to you? No.
It's more the heat.
Hmm.
It's cooler outside.
Why don't we take a walk in the garden? -That's a good idea.
-Mmm-hmm.
[takes deep breath.]
You gave Patrick quite a shock.
Yes.
He must have thought, "What is this silly Indian going to suggest? The accused be set free?" I know.
That's what I was thinking.
[Pal chuckles.]
Tell me, did you read the book I left for you on the Pact of Paris? Yes.
And I found it in many ways inspiring.
Mmm, good.
But that deals with the past, not the present.
Here in Tokyo, we are talking about the justice in the modern world.
And yet a large part of Asia is still colonized by the West.
These areas were conquered with violence.
The indigenous people were exploited.
Even our tea The British take our best leaves from us, and we are left to drink with second-grade or third-grade tea.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with the court case.
Inequality and racism still exist.
Look at your own country, how it suppresses Indonesians in the so-called Dutch East Indies.
Well, we have tried to bring them prosperity.
We prepared them for independence.
Just recently, you have sent 100,000 soldiers there.
[sighs.]
With all the chaos, we had no choice.
RÃling your colonialist spirit is alive and well.
[chuckles.]
Do you ever stop banging the same drum? [chuckles.]
There again, you see? We bang drums while you send troops to fight so-called terrorists.
In reality, they're freedom fighters who want to reclaim their country.
So what gives the Dutch, the English, the French, the Americans the right to judge the Japanese for their claim that they wanted to free Asia? [stammers.]
It didn't sound like they were freeing the people of Nanking, or the rest of Asia.
I like your fighting spirit, RÃling.
[chuckles.]
It gives me a reason to keep drumming.
-[piano playing.]
-[indistinct chatter.]
What do you think? Well, gentlemen that's my argument for the existence of the charge of crimes of aggression.
I believe it comprehensibly refutes the defense motion and puts an end to our closed debates.
It does not change my opinion.
Well, there are some very, very interesting, uh historical references.
And-- [Mei.]
I don't want to sound rude, but, um the content seems written by first year law students.
[Webb.]
My assistants drafted it.
Under my direction, of course.
I believe it's erudite, concise and effective.
On the contrary, it rambles when you quote Aristotle and the Dutch scholar Grotius.
-[scoffs.]
Why not also include Confucius? -[all chuckle.]
Grotius is the father of international law, as relevant now as he was then.
You should have made clear that this court is completely in line with Nuremberg.
Short and simple.
Well, as I said, it's only a draft.
Then we'll wait for the next one.
Sir, you once said the trial would be over in six months.
Can you tell us why you're so far behind schedule? There's a lot of evidence to consider.
Sir, I heard some judges aren't getting along.
We're all working together to get through this as quickly as we possibly can.
-Please wait here.
-Yes.
Okay.
Arigato.
[footsteps approaching.]
HerrRÃling.
Good evening.
I'm glad you accepted my invitation.
Well, I'm very thrilled that we're going to play together.
Well, that remains to be seen.
The list of violinists I would play with, in public or private is very short.
Mein lieber Gott,do you think me rude? I think you're very German.
Good, you have a sense of humor.
[chuckles.]
I wonder what else I might get to know about you.
Well ask away.
Are you married? Yes, and we have five children.
How impressive.
And yet you leave them all behind to sit in that horrible courtroom and accomplish what? Justice.
Justice.
Let's see how well you play if you can make my short list.
[Webb.]
I'm bending over backwards to accommodate your opinion here.
[McDougall.]
That's what gives us our structure, our framework.
[Webb.]
But we must move forward, or the whole blinking thing will grind to a halt.
[McDougall.]
And we'll be left wandering around in the dark.
We'll be lost.
Gentlemen.
May I? Please, please.
Oh, just a glass of water, please.
The prosecution will soon start focusing on the Philippines.
I was witness to the Bataan Death March.
Tens of thousands of Filipino and American POWs walked for days under the scorching sun, only to find themselves in dreaded prison camps.
In the Battle of Manila, I saw Japanese soldiers kill civilians.
I was forced to flee as my own home was burned to the ground.
This experience remains emotional for me.
Thus I have reached a decision not to sit during the testimony on the Philippines.
But the testimony is about your country.
You must help lead the discussion afterwards.
Well, I can help, uh, lead the discussion without hearing the testimony.
[stammers.]
It's a memory I live with every day.
I do not want to jeopardize my authority if I am seen betraying my emotions in court.
You are an honest man, and you have made the right decision, I believe.
[violin and piano playing.]
Your phrasing is still wrong.
Go again.
Uh, right away? No, tomorrow.
Of course.
Try it again.
Ja? -[RÃling sighs.]
I give up.
-[both stop playing.]
So now it's my turn to ask questions.
Bitte.
How did a German woman end up in the middle of the war in Japan? The translation to your question: am I a Nazi? Ever heard of Paul Hindemith? Yes.
He's a brilliant German composer.
The Nazis thought his music was decadent, so they fired him from the Academy of Berlin.
I protested.
Because I was rein arisch and famous, the Nazis had a problem.
I love Asian music, so the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda strongly suggested a study trip to Japan.
And when the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union in '41, I was not able to return because I could not take the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Sorry.
You were very brave, and I was, um rude to ask.
Well, you must also have experienced such nonsense.
[sniffles.]
What do you mean? Well, your country was occupied by the Nazis.
I imagine, as a judge, they find ways to make you miserable.
Personally, I, uh I didn't suffer too much, compared to others.
[narrator.]
In December 1946, the prosecution directs its arguments towards actions by the Japanese military in the Philippines.
Along with the Battle of Manila, the Bataan Death March was considered a typical example of Japanese military atrocities.
Donald Ingle.
Age is 27, and my permanent address is Laura, Illinois.
[narrator.]
In answer to the prosecutor, Ingle testifies that, "Even the lack of food could've been stood, and I suppose that going without water could've been taken but the continued marching for hours in the burning sun was too much.
Men were continuously taken out of the column and shot or bayonetted for no reason.
" [RÃling.]
"Dear Lies, the trial is well past six months now.
And it does not look like it will come to an end any time soon.
The views I started with are changing, and so I have decided to present a paper to my colleagues that reflects my opinion.
It's all very exhausting.
Aside from playing my violin, I have taken to visiting the seaside in order to clear my head.
On one of my excursions, I had the good fortune to meet a writer of some renown.
His name is Michio Takeyama.
His latest book is calledHarp of Burma.
I look forward to meeting him again, as he is considered one of Japan's leading intellectuals and the trips to the ocean remind me so much of home.
" So how long have you been writing? Many years.
My real profession is the study of German literature.
-Ah! -[both speaking German.]
Do you speak German? A little I read it better.
[in English.]
I understand.
And have you spent time in Germany? Yes.
Three years.
And were you able to visit my country as well? No.
But I did fall in love with many Dutch painters.
Masters of light and color.
You know that Vincent van Gogh was fascinated by Japanese art.
He was influenced by the ukiyo-e woodblock prints.
Especially the work of Hiroshige.
Yes.
He based two of his paintings on Hiroshige's work.
If I had the chance, I would love to see more of his prints.
[Takeyama.]
I will see that you do.
[RÃling.]
That would be very nice.
Is the trial proceeding as you expected? Well [grunts.]
in many ways, yes, and in others, no.
Can I ask you something? What do the Japanese people think of the tribunal? [sighs.]
There are some who have doubts about the trial.
And why do they have doubts? The militarist should not be tolerated.
But some Japanese believe a few of the accused have been made into scapegoats.
[Webb.]
Justice RÃling has prepared a paper for us.
It's entitled "No Legal Basis for the Charge of Crimes of Aggression.
" So you were with us right up until Justice Pal arrived.
Now you jump ship.
I assure you that I arrived at this opinion on my own.
I wrote this paper so that we might properly consider the legal gaps, which go as far back as the Pact of Paris, right through to our own charter.
Surely we've argued that particular point exhaustively.
-The Paris Convention is quite clear.
-[RÃling.]
Yes.
[Northcroft.]
Waging aggressive war is illegal.
[RÃling.]
But there is no agreement in the Pact of Paris that individuals should be held responsible.
And if we do not examine this problem in our own deliberations, future legal scholars will question our decisions.
[Mei.]
I applaud your concern for scholarship, but, um, future legal minds will always raise questions.
It is their responsibility.
Exactly.
War is a policy executed by a sovereign state.
And if so, then how can we legally determine the level of guilt or punishment for each individual in that state? We have the charter.
It allows us to apply the rule of law.
[Pal.]
No, it does not.
It does not.
It would be possible, if the international community matured to the stage where it has the authority to criminalize aggressive war, or punish individuals who waged such a war.
But, unfortunately, we are not there yet.
People who thought as you do failed to create strong laws after World War I.
And now, here we are, trying to pick up the pieces and prevent future war.
Let me repeat.
According to the Pact of Paris, each country can judge for itself whether its action constitutes self-defense or aggression.
It was described as a sovereign right.
That interpretation is mistaken.
Are you trying to tell us that it allowed the Germans to take whatever they wanted? To murder whomever they chose? That it allowed the Japanese to march into China unchecked? And now are you trying to tell us it, uh, allowed the Japanese to claim it was a war of self-defense? After what they did, you want to let them off the hook? -[Pal.]
I admit -[liquid pouring.]
it is not an ideal position.
It is a harsh reality, given the world as we know it.
So we must dismiss the charges.
[Cramer.]
It's pretty damn hard to ignore a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
That's not the point.
Nobody wants to ignore Pearl Harbor or all the horrible things you are talking about, but please, gentlemen, once again we must be careful not to be moved by, um a feeling of revenge.
Look I support the need for war when the rights and borders of independent nations are threatened.
And I also believe that war criminals should be severely punished.
I first endorsed the charter on political and ethical grounds, and not as an objective jurist.
But after more research and a great deal of thought I now agree with Justice Pal.
[Mei.]
With so many victims, you are willing to overlook the crime of waging such a dreadful war? [Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
The General asks if your views are supported by your country.
-No.
-[interpreter.]
Nyet.
I don't have to ask my government.
[speaking softly in Russian.]
[Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
General Zaryanov calls for you to withdraw the memorandum.
I will not.
[Patrick.]
All right, enough of this.
Sir William, as president of the tribunal, do you at least agree that the charter is the foundation for this tribunal? And that we are legally and morally bound to honor it? Yes, of course I do.
-Thank you.
-[knocking on door.]
Yes? -Gentlemen, five minutes.
-Thank you.
But we must allow all opinions to be heard.
So our focus was on Pal, -then RÃling slipped off into the woods.
-[Patrick.]
Mmm.
I can easily see [clears throat.]
one or two others following.
You know, if we're not careful we are going to find ourselves outflanked.
-The main problem is Webb.
-[Northcroft.]
Mmm.
In trying to be neutral, he allows too many dissenting points of view to arise.
[coughing.]
I'm going to offer my resignation.
You can't be serious.
-The whole tribunal would collapse.
-Precisely.
Even quicker, if all three of us offer our resignations.
Well [clears throat.]
with Higgins already gone three of us go, that'll be quite a scandal.
Our governments won't go for it.
No, they won't, but they'll do whatever it takes to keep us here.
That's quite a risky bet.
We risk more by doing nothing.
When asked what we need to stay on, each of us ask for Webb to be removed.
No.
[clears throat.]
They'll never remove the president.
They will if it prevents the total collapse of the Tokyo tribunal.
Otherwise, the validity of Nuremberg will be tossed out of the window, too.
If all three of us make the same request, we can force the issue.
[man.]
His precise words are, "To withdraw the United Kingdom, Canadian and New Zealand judges.
" Judges McDougall of Canada and Northcroft of New Zealand have also sent resignations to their governments.
MacArthur has to resolve this.
Our man in Tokyo spoke with him already.
He showed no interest in mediating between the judges.
Is Lord Patrick sufficiently aware of the scandal he's about to create? If these three justices abandon their duties, the world will accuse the Commonwealth of sabotaging the trial.
With great respect, Prime Minister Patrick was an RAF captain during the first war.
Despite acute complications with his health, he still went to Tokyo.
He doesn't act without forethought, so we would be wise to assume he is determined to leave if he feels it necessary.
What, then, is our way out? The letter states the problem is with Justice Pal, the Indian, and Justice RÃling, from the Netherlands.
But mainly Webb the presiding judge from Australia.
Let me see it.
[sighs.]
I've asked for you here because I'd like a progress report.
[Webb.]
Well the defense have requested a summer recess, but I'm inclined not to grant it.
Better we continue to work our way through it.
[MacArthur.]
And no dissension in the ranks? Oh, one or two judges are stubborn in their views, -but it's nothing I can't handle.
-Ah.
[grunts.]
That is not what I've heard.
From whom? The United Kingdom's Liaison Mission to Tokyo, for one.
And if what I've heard is correct you best move on, and quickly, before it festers.
Well judges are naturally disputatious, always inclined to debate.
[MacArthur.]
Yes, but towards a common goal.
Correct? That's where I'm steering it.
You know, I've lead men on missions and into battle in Mexico, Europe, the Philippines, and all across the Pacific.
[takes deep breath.]
And if I've learned one thing, it's that even with reconnaissance, preplanning, and the good opinion of the men closest to you, victory always comes down to a will to win.
And that will to win has to start at the very top.
THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEFEA PRAYING FOR PEACE [man in Japanese.]
Exactly two years after the end of the war, at 11:05 on August 9th in Nagasaki City, where an atomic bomb was dropped, all citizens prayed for peace.
TRAIL OF WAR CRIMINALS REACHES A CLIMAX [man in Japanese.]
The trial of the people who caused this war has continued for a year and four months now.
Former minister of finance Ishibashi took the stand on the 11th.
What are the defendants thinking about now? [narrator in English.]
The prosecution ends its case and the defense team begins its rebuttal.
The American lawyer Blakeney tries to establish that key United States officials already foresaw the Japanese attack just before Pearl Harbor.
He calls an American army officer to the stand who had been tasked with decoding a telegram from the Japanese government to its embassy in Washington before Pearl Harbor was bombed.
The telegram was an ultimatum to be conveyed to the US government.
The witness states that the message was decoded and sent to President Roosevelt.
Defense lawyer Blakeney argues that while America did not know that Pearl Harbor would be targeted, it did know that war was imminent.
He insists that the attack on Pearl Harbor was, therefore, not a surprise.
I'm not convinced by Blakeney's argument.
America knowing about Japan's intention to launch an attack is not the same as receiving a formal declaration of war.
And even if Roosevelt saw the decoded message and therefore knew an attack was coming, he still had no idea of, uh, when and where exactly it could take place.
In order for them to attack Hawaii by air, the Japanese fleet had to leave Japan more than a week before Pearl Harbor.
But but as Blakeney pointed out, the time required between the warning and the commencement of hostilities is not specified in any international law agreement.
It means it could be just a minute between the two.
It's still a cold-blooded attack.
-[McDougall.]
Morning.
-Morning.
[McDougall.]
Morning.
-Morning.
-Morning.
Well [clears throat.]
my foreign minister got the message loud and clear.
As did mine.
Do you think he knows? [Patrick.]
Hmm.
It isn't my finest maneuver to broadside a decent man, but Webb should go home whilst we lead this trial to the right conclusion.
[bellboy.]
Sir Webb, a letter for you.
[Webb.]
Thank you.
General.
Sir William, I'm late for a meeting.
Here.
-They want you back in Australia? -Yes.
"To adjudicate an important trial.
" Oh, it came completely out of the blue.
I have no desire to leave Tokyo.
What the hell is going on? You said everything was just fine.
Well, as supreme commander, you could overrule their request.
No, no, no.
It would create more of a circus.
This is already gonna feed the papers for months.
[takes deep breath.]
No.
[sighs.]
Sir William, you're gonna have to keep a lid on this and return to Australia.
-Very well.
Thank you.
-[grunts.]
[indistinct chatter.]
Gentlemen I apologize for calling you in at such short notice.
My government has called me back to Australia.
I'm required to take my place at the High Court for an important sitting on the nationalization of Australian banks.
The banks? But but the banks are not so important.
I do not have a choice.
I am at the behest of my country.
Uh, MacArthur will appoint a replacement.
[solemn music playing.]
-Justice Cramer.
-Justice Webb.
I, uh, read your dossier.
You studied at Harvard.
Yes.
Yes, I did.
Did you? Uh, no.
Queensland.
Sir William has a very tough job of it.
But I assure you, he has both hands on the reins.
[theme music playing.]
[narrator.]
July 1946.
The prosecution's argument shifts its focus onto atrocities committed by the Japanese military on the Chinese mainland.
December 1937.
The ever-advancing Japanese military occupied Nanking.
The prosecution begins examining witnesses, and argues that many prisoners and non-combatants were killed at that time.
For the first time, the judges will hear testimony from Chinese witnesses on this incident.
Witness Hsu Chuan-Ying testifies about what he saw three days after the occupation of Nanking began.
"On Main Street, I even started trying to count the number of corpses lying on both sides of the street.
And I started to count more than 500 myself.
I say it was no use counting them.
" In cross-examination, the defense tries to suggest that there might have been so-called plainclothed troops who hid in private homes and staged surprise attacks on the Japanese.
Hsu Chuan-Ying answers with, "That might be.
But still, you see, we consider them non-combatants before they gather themselves together again to engage in the hostile activities.
" On the same day, Shang Teh-Yi takes the witness stand.
As he does not speak English, the prosecutor reads his previously recorded testimony.
"I was taken to the bank of the Yangtze River to find more than 1,000 male civilians there.
At about 4:00 p.
m.
, a Japanese officer came by and ordered the Japanese soldiers to start machine-gunning us.
I slumped to the ground just before the firing started, and immediately I was covered with corpses and fainted.
At about 9:00 p.
m.
, I climbed out from the piles of corpses and ran to my house.
" Well, um I cannot forgive, um, such atrocities.
However, I think we should adjudicate them as conventional war crimes.
There is no need to categorize them as, uh, crimes against humanity.
Like the Nazis with the exterminations of the Jews.
Either way, the accused who are responsible cannot escape such terrible crimes.
Well-- [Webb.]
Let's just leave it there for today, shall we? President Webb, if you'd please excuse me, I would rather we deliberate on the crimes of aggression.
I must assert there's still a motion on the table to rule out waging of aggressive war as a crime.
I'm drafting a denial to the motion.
That is completely out of order.
You can't be serious.
I'm quite serious.
[speaking Russian.]
[takes deep breath.]
[in English.]
It is absolutely clear from the testimony that the accused plotted to prepare and wage an aggressive war.
With respect to the General, the crimes of aggression did not exist at that time.
Nor did they exist at any time throughout the conflict in the Pacific.
Nuremberg did put the Nazis on trial for crimes of aggression.
That was in my mind also a questionable act.
These terrible things exceed by far anything in conventional jurisprudence.
Are you really saying, after everything we've all seen today that you think the Japanese leadership should be exempt? No.
I do not condone the atrocities.
But I want to avoid applying a law that did not exist at the time these men took actions -and for which they now stand at trial.
-[McDougall.]
No, no.
This is senseless.
We've all agreed.
The charges stand as per the charter.
Agreed.
We also agreed that any dissenting opinion remain in the room.
But we did not agree.
I wasn't here when you decided.
[Northcroft muttering.]
Gentlemen, our nerves are raw enough.
Given the arduous testimony today, I'm adjourning any further discussion.
[clears throat.]
[indistinct chatter.]
[RÃling.]
I read that almost 100,000 people were killed in one night in Tokyo.
Napalm bombs dropped by the Americans.
You were a pilot in the first war? Yes, fighter pilot not bombers.
What was it like? Dirty, cold and loud.
The Germans shot my plane and legs full of holes.
I was in a prisoner of war camp for the rest of the war.
[Patrick.]
What do you make of Justice Pal? And what's your view of his argument? To reject the charges of waging aggressive war? For me, it's complicated.
How complicated can it be? Before we began, we all signed the charter.
Justice Jaranilla wishes to start us off today.
Thank you.
Uh, before going any further, um I wish to say to Justice Pal that, though I respect your opinion concerning the charge of crimes against peace which we are calling crimes of aggression I find it rather improper.
Many atrocities have been committed by the Japanese army during this war in places like China, Indonesia, Burma and in my country, the Philippines.
And these atrocities happened precisely because the Japanese leaders engaged in lawless acts of aggression.
So I want to make it clear that I believe charges against all defendants are justified.
Justice Pal, as I am writing our response concerning the defense motion to dismiss the charge of crimes of aggression, do you have anything more you wish to say? [Pal.]
Yes.
I believe what the Japanese did throughout Asia was, uh, devilish and horrid.
And they committed conventional war crimes.
And the Japanese officers who committed these atrocities have been tried in local courts where they took place and have been given sentences.
However, I implore each of you to consider more seriously my position that there is no legal ground for the charge of crimes of aggression.
Japan signed the Pact of Paris in 1928.
Now, it clearly states that all the signatories agreed to condemn war as a means of settling international disputes.
They agreed to condemn war as an as an instrument of national policy.
But it does not provide legal ground for criminalizing war.
And it doesn't suggest any penalties.
And it certainly doesn't say anything about the responsibility of the officer or the politicians as an individual perpetrators.
Given the way countries and societies continue to act against each other this Pact of Paris is an idealistic pledge.
Charging the accused for crimes of aggression is allowed in our charter.
The charter is wrong.
It was a precondition to our appointment on this tribunal.
We cannot and we should not debate whether the charter is right or wrong.
[speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
The General supports what Justice McDougall says, and you all should support that.
Yes.
But not by making up laws at will.
I agree.
But why are we here, Justice Pal? We are here because we should be able to discuss what is the right step for humanity to take.
And based on the outcome of that discussion we'll make the best decisions for the law.
Respected gentlemen, I certainly believe law has the power to guide mankind.
So its principles must be upheld.
That is why we must acquit all the defendants on the charge of crimes of aggression.
For this is a law that does not truly exist yet.
[scoffs.]
If you cannot follow the Tokyo Charter, you should return to Calcutta.
I did not come from a country that struggles to gain its independence in order to have my arguments discarded or to be told to go home.
Let's adjourn it there for today.
[chuckles softly.]
[McDougall.]
Pal is unbelievably stubborn.
[Northcroft.]
Oh, we can all agree about that.
However, he's right when he argues that, in domestic law, people can't be tried for actions that were not crimes at the time those actions were committed.
But international law evolves under extreme circumstances.
If the Tokyo tribunal does not strictly adhere to Nuremberg principles it would mean passing judgment on the Nazis was a mistake.
We cannot let that happen.
I agree.
Someone on MacArthur's staff thought my skin color deserved a lesser hotel.
But Webb fixed it.
That's good.
It should have been like that from the beginning.
Why don't you join me for some tea? [RÃling.]
Mahatma Gandhi.
By leading India toward independence in a unique way, he's an inspiration to the whole world.
What do you think? Will independence ever truly happen? Oh, yes.
By next year.
Then the British can pack their suitcases.
[chuckles.]
[sighs.]
Just what the doctor ordered.
The arguing is getting to you? No.
It's more the heat.
Hmm.
It's cooler outside.
Why don't we take a walk in the garden? -That's a good idea.
-Mmm-hmm.
[takes deep breath.]
You gave Patrick quite a shock.
Yes.
He must have thought, "What is this silly Indian going to suggest? The accused be set free?" I know.
That's what I was thinking.
[Pal chuckles.]
Tell me, did you read the book I left for you on the Pact of Paris? Yes.
And I found it in many ways inspiring.
Mmm, good.
But that deals with the past, not the present.
Here in Tokyo, we are talking about the justice in the modern world.
And yet a large part of Asia is still colonized by the West.
These areas were conquered with violence.
The indigenous people were exploited.
Even our tea The British take our best leaves from us, and we are left to drink with second-grade or third-grade tea.
But I don't see how that has anything to do with the court case.
Inequality and racism still exist.
Look at your own country, how it suppresses Indonesians in the so-called Dutch East Indies.
Well, we have tried to bring them prosperity.
We prepared them for independence.
Just recently, you have sent 100,000 soldiers there.
[sighs.]
With all the chaos, we had no choice.
RÃling your colonialist spirit is alive and well.
[chuckles.]
Do you ever stop banging the same drum? [chuckles.]
There again, you see? We bang drums while you send troops to fight so-called terrorists.
In reality, they're freedom fighters who want to reclaim their country.
So what gives the Dutch, the English, the French, the Americans the right to judge the Japanese for their claim that they wanted to free Asia? [stammers.]
It didn't sound like they were freeing the people of Nanking, or the rest of Asia.
I like your fighting spirit, RÃling.
[chuckles.]
It gives me a reason to keep drumming.
-[piano playing.]
-[indistinct chatter.]
What do you think? Well, gentlemen that's my argument for the existence of the charge of crimes of aggression.
I believe it comprehensibly refutes the defense motion and puts an end to our closed debates.
It does not change my opinion.
Well, there are some very, very interesting, uh historical references.
And-- [Mei.]
I don't want to sound rude, but, um the content seems written by first year law students.
[Webb.]
My assistants drafted it.
Under my direction, of course.
I believe it's erudite, concise and effective.
On the contrary, it rambles when you quote Aristotle and the Dutch scholar Grotius.
-[scoffs.]
Why not also include Confucius? -[all chuckle.]
Grotius is the father of international law, as relevant now as he was then.
You should have made clear that this court is completely in line with Nuremberg.
Short and simple.
Well, as I said, it's only a draft.
Then we'll wait for the next one.
Sir, you once said the trial would be over in six months.
Can you tell us why you're so far behind schedule? There's a lot of evidence to consider.
Sir, I heard some judges aren't getting along.
We're all working together to get through this as quickly as we possibly can.
-Please wait here.
-Yes.
Okay.
Arigato.
[footsteps approaching.]
HerrRÃling.
Good evening.
I'm glad you accepted my invitation.
Well, I'm very thrilled that we're going to play together.
Well, that remains to be seen.
The list of violinists I would play with, in public or private is very short.
Mein lieber Gott,do you think me rude? I think you're very German.
Good, you have a sense of humor.
[chuckles.]
I wonder what else I might get to know about you.
Well ask away.
Are you married? Yes, and we have five children.
How impressive.
And yet you leave them all behind to sit in that horrible courtroom and accomplish what? Justice.
Justice.
Let's see how well you play if you can make my short list.
[Webb.]
I'm bending over backwards to accommodate your opinion here.
[McDougall.]
That's what gives us our structure, our framework.
[Webb.]
But we must move forward, or the whole blinking thing will grind to a halt.
[McDougall.]
And we'll be left wandering around in the dark.
We'll be lost.
Gentlemen.
May I? Please, please.
Oh, just a glass of water, please.
The prosecution will soon start focusing on the Philippines.
I was witness to the Bataan Death March.
Tens of thousands of Filipino and American POWs walked for days under the scorching sun, only to find themselves in dreaded prison camps.
In the Battle of Manila, I saw Japanese soldiers kill civilians.
I was forced to flee as my own home was burned to the ground.
This experience remains emotional for me.
Thus I have reached a decision not to sit during the testimony on the Philippines.
But the testimony is about your country.
You must help lead the discussion afterwards.
Well, I can help, uh, lead the discussion without hearing the testimony.
[stammers.]
It's a memory I live with every day.
I do not want to jeopardize my authority if I am seen betraying my emotions in court.
You are an honest man, and you have made the right decision, I believe.
[violin and piano playing.]
Your phrasing is still wrong.
Go again.
Uh, right away? No, tomorrow.
Of course.
Try it again.
Ja? -[RÃling sighs.]
I give up.
-[both stop playing.]
So now it's my turn to ask questions.
Bitte.
How did a German woman end up in the middle of the war in Japan? The translation to your question: am I a Nazi? Ever heard of Paul Hindemith? Yes.
He's a brilliant German composer.
The Nazis thought his music was decadent, so they fired him from the Academy of Berlin.
I protested.
Because I was rein arisch and famous, the Nazis had a problem.
I love Asian music, so the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda strongly suggested a study trip to Japan.
And when the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union in '41, I was not able to return because I could not take the Trans-Siberian Railway.
Sorry.
You were very brave, and I was, um rude to ask.
Well, you must also have experienced such nonsense.
[sniffles.]
What do you mean? Well, your country was occupied by the Nazis.
I imagine, as a judge, they find ways to make you miserable.
Personally, I, uh I didn't suffer too much, compared to others.
[narrator.]
In December 1946, the prosecution directs its arguments towards actions by the Japanese military in the Philippines.
Along with the Battle of Manila, the Bataan Death March was considered a typical example of Japanese military atrocities.
Donald Ingle.
Age is 27, and my permanent address is Laura, Illinois.
[narrator.]
In answer to the prosecutor, Ingle testifies that, "Even the lack of food could've been stood, and I suppose that going without water could've been taken but the continued marching for hours in the burning sun was too much.
Men were continuously taken out of the column and shot or bayonetted for no reason.
" [RÃling.]
"Dear Lies, the trial is well past six months now.
And it does not look like it will come to an end any time soon.
The views I started with are changing, and so I have decided to present a paper to my colleagues that reflects my opinion.
It's all very exhausting.
Aside from playing my violin, I have taken to visiting the seaside in order to clear my head.
On one of my excursions, I had the good fortune to meet a writer of some renown.
His name is Michio Takeyama.
His latest book is calledHarp of Burma.
I look forward to meeting him again, as he is considered one of Japan's leading intellectuals and the trips to the ocean remind me so much of home.
" So how long have you been writing? Many years.
My real profession is the study of German literature.
-Ah! -[both speaking German.]
Do you speak German? A little I read it better.
[in English.]
I understand.
And have you spent time in Germany? Yes.
Three years.
And were you able to visit my country as well? No.
But I did fall in love with many Dutch painters.
Masters of light and color.
You know that Vincent van Gogh was fascinated by Japanese art.
He was influenced by the ukiyo-e woodblock prints.
Especially the work of Hiroshige.
Yes.
He based two of his paintings on Hiroshige's work.
If I had the chance, I would love to see more of his prints.
[Takeyama.]
I will see that you do.
[RÃling.]
That would be very nice.
Is the trial proceeding as you expected? Well [grunts.]
in many ways, yes, and in others, no.
Can I ask you something? What do the Japanese people think of the tribunal? [sighs.]
There are some who have doubts about the trial.
And why do they have doubts? The militarist should not be tolerated.
But some Japanese believe a few of the accused have been made into scapegoats.
[Webb.]
Justice RÃling has prepared a paper for us.
It's entitled "No Legal Basis for the Charge of Crimes of Aggression.
" So you were with us right up until Justice Pal arrived.
Now you jump ship.
I assure you that I arrived at this opinion on my own.
I wrote this paper so that we might properly consider the legal gaps, which go as far back as the Pact of Paris, right through to our own charter.
Surely we've argued that particular point exhaustively.
-The Paris Convention is quite clear.
-[RÃling.]
Yes.
[Northcroft.]
Waging aggressive war is illegal.
[RÃling.]
But there is no agreement in the Pact of Paris that individuals should be held responsible.
And if we do not examine this problem in our own deliberations, future legal scholars will question our decisions.
[Mei.]
I applaud your concern for scholarship, but, um, future legal minds will always raise questions.
It is their responsibility.
Exactly.
War is a policy executed by a sovereign state.
And if so, then how can we legally determine the level of guilt or punishment for each individual in that state? We have the charter.
It allows us to apply the rule of law.
[Pal.]
No, it does not.
It does not.
It would be possible, if the international community matured to the stage where it has the authority to criminalize aggressive war, or punish individuals who waged such a war.
But, unfortunately, we are not there yet.
People who thought as you do failed to create strong laws after World War I.
And now, here we are, trying to pick up the pieces and prevent future war.
Let me repeat.
According to the Pact of Paris, each country can judge for itself whether its action constitutes self-defense or aggression.
It was described as a sovereign right.
That interpretation is mistaken.
Are you trying to tell us that it allowed the Germans to take whatever they wanted? To murder whomever they chose? That it allowed the Japanese to march into China unchecked? And now are you trying to tell us it, uh, allowed the Japanese to claim it was a war of self-defense? After what they did, you want to let them off the hook? -[Pal.]
I admit -[liquid pouring.]
it is not an ideal position.
It is a harsh reality, given the world as we know it.
So we must dismiss the charges.
[Cramer.]
It's pretty damn hard to ignore a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
That's not the point.
Nobody wants to ignore Pearl Harbor or all the horrible things you are talking about, but please, gentlemen, once again we must be careful not to be moved by, um a feeling of revenge.
Look I support the need for war when the rights and borders of independent nations are threatened.
And I also believe that war criminals should be severely punished.
I first endorsed the charter on political and ethical grounds, and not as an objective jurist.
But after more research and a great deal of thought I now agree with Justice Pal.
[Mei.]
With so many victims, you are willing to overlook the crime of waging such a dreadful war? [Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
The General asks if your views are supported by your country.
-No.
-[interpreter.]
Nyet.
I don't have to ask my government.
[speaking softly in Russian.]
[Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
General Zaryanov calls for you to withdraw the memorandum.
I will not.
[Patrick.]
All right, enough of this.
Sir William, as president of the tribunal, do you at least agree that the charter is the foundation for this tribunal? And that we are legally and morally bound to honor it? Yes, of course I do.
-Thank you.
-[knocking on door.]
Yes? -Gentlemen, five minutes.
-Thank you.
But we must allow all opinions to be heard.
So our focus was on Pal, -then RÃling slipped off into the woods.
-[Patrick.]
Mmm.
I can easily see [clears throat.]
one or two others following.
You know, if we're not careful we are going to find ourselves outflanked.
-The main problem is Webb.
-[Northcroft.]
Mmm.
In trying to be neutral, he allows too many dissenting points of view to arise.
[coughing.]
I'm going to offer my resignation.
You can't be serious.
-The whole tribunal would collapse.
-Precisely.
Even quicker, if all three of us offer our resignations.
Well [clears throat.]
with Higgins already gone three of us go, that'll be quite a scandal.
Our governments won't go for it.
No, they won't, but they'll do whatever it takes to keep us here.
That's quite a risky bet.
We risk more by doing nothing.
When asked what we need to stay on, each of us ask for Webb to be removed.
No.
[clears throat.]
They'll never remove the president.
They will if it prevents the total collapse of the Tokyo tribunal.
Otherwise, the validity of Nuremberg will be tossed out of the window, too.
If all three of us make the same request, we can force the issue.
[man.]
His precise words are, "To withdraw the United Kingdom, Canadian and New Zealand judges.
" Judges McDougall of Canada and Northcroft of New Zealand have also sent resignations to their governments.
MacArthur has to resolve this.
Our man in Tokyo spoke with him already.
He showed no interest in mediating between the judges.
Is Lord Patrick sufficiently aware of the scandal he's about to create? If these three justices abandon their duties, the world will accuse the Commonwealth of sabotaging the trial.
With great respect, Prime Minister Patrick was an RAF captain during the first war.
Despite acute complications with his health, he still went to Tokyo.
He doesn't act without forethought, so we would be wise to assume he is determined to leave if he feels it necessary.
What, then, is our way out? The letter states the problem is with Justice Pal, the Indian, and Justice RÃling, from the Netherlands.
But mainly Webb the presiding judge from Australia.
Let me see it.
[sighs.]
I've asked for you here because I'd like a progress report.
[Webb.]
Well the defense have requested a summer recess, but I'm inclined not to grant it.
Better we continue to work our way through it.
[MacArthur.]
And no dissension in the ranks? Oh, one or two judges are stubborn in their views, -but it's nothing I can't handle.
-Ah.
[grunts.]
That is not what I've heard.
From whom? The United Kingdom's Liaison Mission to Tokyo, for one.
And if what I've heard is correct you best move on, and quickly, before it festers.
Well judges are naturally disputatious, always inclined to debate.
[MacArthur.]
Yes, but towards a common goal.
Correct? That's where I'm steering it.
You know, I've lead men on missions and into battle in Mexico, Europe, the Philippines, and all across the Pacific.
[takes deep breath.]
And if I've learned one thing, it's that even with reconnaissance, preplanning, and the good opinion of the men closest to you, victory always comes down to a will to win.
And that will to win has to start at the very top.
THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEFEA PRAYING FOR PEACE [man in Japanese.]
Exactly two years after the end of the war, at 11:05 on August 9th in Nagasaki City, where an atomic bomb was dropped, all citizens prayed for peace.
TRAIL OF WAR CRIMINALS REACHES A CLIMAX [man in Japanese.]
The trial of the people who caused this war has continued for a year and four months now.
Former minister of finance Ishibashi took the stand on the 11th.
What are the defendants thinking about now? [narrator in English.]
The prosecution ends its case and the defense team begins its rebuttal.
The American lawyer Blakeney tries to establish that key United States officials already foresaw the Japanese attack just before Pearl Harbor.
He calls an American army officer to the stand who had been tasked with decoding a telegram from the Japanese government to its embassy in Washington before Pearl Harbor was bombed.
The telegram was an ultimatum to be conveyed to the US government.
The witness states that the message was decoded and sent to President Roosevelt.
Defense lawyer Blakeney argues that while America did not know that Pearl Harbor would be targeted, it did know that war was imminent.
He insists that the attack on Pearl Harbor was, therefore, not a surprise.
I'm not convinced by Blakeney's argument.
America knowing about Japan's intention to launch an attack is not the same as receiving a formal declaration of war.
And even if Roosevelt saw the decoded message and therefore knew an attack was coming, he still had no idea of, uh, when and where exactly it could take place.
In order for them to attack Hawaii by air, the Japanese fleet had to leave Japan more than a week before Pearl Harbor.
But but as Blakeney pointed out, the time required between the warning and the commencement of hostilities is not specified in any international law agreement.
It means it could be just a minute between the two.
It's still a cold-blooded attack.
-[McDougall.]
Morning.
-Morning.
[McDougall.]
Morning.
-Morning.
-Morning.
Well [clears throat.]
my foreign minister got the message loud and clear.
As did mine.
Do you think he knows? [Patrick.]
Hmm.
It isn't my finest maneuver to broadside a decent man, but Webb should go home whilst we lead this trial to the right conclusion.
[bellboy.]
Sir Webb, a letter for you.
[Webb.]
Thank you.
General.
Sir William, I'm late for a meeting.
Here.
-They want you back in Australia? -Yes.
"To adjudicate an important trial.
" Oh, it came completely out of the blue.
I have no desire to leave Tokyo.
What the hell is going on? You said everything was just fine.
Well, as supreme commander, you could overrule their request.
No, no, no.
It would create more of a circus.
This is already gonna feed the papers for months.
[takes deep breath.]
No.
[sighs.]
Sir William, you're gonna have to keep a lid on this and return to Australia.
-Very well.
Thank you.
-[grunts.]
[indistinct chatter.]
Gentlemen I apologize for calling you in at such short notice.
My government has called me back to Australia.
I'm required to take my place at the High Court for an important sitting on the nationalization of Australian banks.
The banks? But but the banks are not so important.
I do not have a choice.
I am at the behest of my country.
Uh, MacArthur will appoint a replacement.
[solemn music playing.]