Tokyo Trial (2016) s01e04 Episode Script
Episode 4
1 [narrator.]
On February 11th, 1948, at the Tokyo Tribunal for the Far East, Chief Prosecutor Keenan begins closing arguments.
He states that the responsibility for Japan's militaristic actions rests not with the people but with their leaders.
On April 16th, the proceedings of the Tokyo war crimes trial come to a close.
The world now waits while the tribunal judges consider all of the evidence and arrive at their verdict.
[theme music playing.]
[indistinct chatter.]
[RÃling.]
Good morning.
-[Patrick.]
Justice RÃling.
-[McDougall.]
Good morning.
Um I would like you to know that I would support your position on crime of aggression, if you would agree to certain considerations.
That's interesting.
The crime of aggression is an ex post facto law, which is a problem for me.
However, I have decided to be realistic if I want to shape how this trial ends.
If, as you say, we agree to certain considerations.
Correct.
Let me be clear that my reasons for recognizing crimes of aggression are different than yours.
I have concluded that one can reasonably construe this as comparable to a political crime in domestic law.
Political criminals are at times detained when their actions threaten national stability.
And I think that we should argue from this preestablished legal platform.
Thus, we can state that those responsible for starting a war ought to be subject to punishment on the grounds that, if they remain free, they might disturb the international order.
Otherwise, peace and progress may never be achieved.
I'm afraid not, RÃling.
We will all be upholding the principle established by the precedence of the Nuremberg judgment and by the Pact of Paris of 1928 that wars of aggression are illegal.
Look, we've all come to the same conclusion.
You just came by a different route.
[clears throat.]
Why obsess about it? Uh, because, above all else, our profession is meant to to interpret laws, which, by their very nature, can be understood in different ways.
And nothing is more important than the reasons for that interpretation.
We have to keep in mind that differences in the reasons may lead to differences in the verdicts and the sentencing.
And that is why we cannot waver from our position.
Then, I'll not accept it your way.
[cursing in Dutch.]
[telephone ringing.]
Hello? Ah, President Webb.
I hope I'm not interrupting anything.
No, not at all.
When can I expect the verdicts to be delivered? Well, General, we have 49,000 pages of evidence to consider.
We have to get a move on, sir.
-One orange juice, please.
-Sir.
-Hello.
-[Mei.]
Hmm.
-Is this your wife? -[Mei.]
Yes.
-She's beautiful.
-[chuckles softly.]
I finally heard from her today, on our wedding anniversary.
-She's safe? -Mmm.
Such a relief.
That's fantastic.
I I cannot imagine the strain of being here with a civil war going on in China.
Thank you.
[chuckles.]
This is my family.
[Mei.]
Wow! So many children.
[RÃling sighs.]
Yep.
I would like to have one more, but -I'm not so sure my wife would agree.
-[Mei chuckles.]
Well, we've reached an important, uh, crossroad in our deliberations.
Once those decisions have been made, we can all get back to our lives and families, however large.
I, um I find myself at odds with Patrick's group -and about the crime of aggression.
-Hmm.
And I was wondering if you were joining their camp.
The vast majority of judges are Western.
I want to be sure that what I decide for Asia is good and also seen as fair by the rest of the world.
So I am joining the majority.
Well -[knocking on door.]
-Come in.
-Sir William.
-Lord Patrick.
You asked to see me.
With the evidentiary phase of the trial over, it's a good idea to exchange opinions on how to move forward.
I'm aware that you and some others have banded together.
But as the president, I hope we'll be able to collaborate on our findings.
[clears throat.]
I'm sorry, President Webb, but circumstances have forced a certain number of us to push ahead.
We have decided to write the final judgment ourselves.
I beg your pardon? As we have a clear majority, we are entitled to do so.
Good day.
General MacArthur didn't bring me back here just to stand by and watch.
-I'm going to write my own judgment.
-Your own? As the president, I have the right and the responsibility to write a judgment.
One that speaks for all the judges.
I am glad you've agreed to join the majority.
Hmm.
The majority view is reasonable, proportionate and fair.
It honors the victims.
But, um I have to say I still have some doubts about doing this without Justice Webb.
He is the president of the tribunal.
But on the defense motion to dismiss on the ground that the crime of aggression did not exist, President Webb was unable to write a strong report.
Neither could he unite us all.
Don't you agree? Well, yes.
We appreciate that you want to write the sections pertaining to China.
You are vital in truly bringing some closure to the war with Japan.
Let's hope so.
Are you feeling all right? Just lately, I have become obsessed with eating a piece of good Scottish beef with a decent Yorkshire pudding.
I don't seem to have appetite for anything else at all.
[typing.]
Very good.
Accentuate this point here.
Thank you.
I've just heard that Webb is gonna write his own action.
But how can he do that by himself? It'll run to 500 pages.
Unlike us, he's got his own staff-- Patrick! Help! Someone! Get an ambulance.
Patrick.
Patrick! [indistinct chatter.]
His lungs and circulation are under a great deal of strain.
But they say he'll make a recovery.
What do we do now? -Press ahead.
-Mmm.
But we're gonna need some help.
Right.
Good morning, everyone.
This is Quentin Quentin-Baxter, a specialist in drafting legal documents who I've invited here to help with our cause.
I'm proud to say he's also from New Zealand.
[all chuckling.]
Yes.
Well, I think I best get started right away.
Good man.
Why don't you take that spot over there while I get you a cup of coffee? Okay.
[speaking Russian.]
[interpreter in English.]
General Zaryanov of Soviet Union.
He wants it clear that he will write the section on Shigemitsu.
This man's fate is very important to us.
Great.
He writes the draft, and I'll take a pass at it so that it fits with the rest of our document.
He will be aggravated by your response.
It implies immediate disrespect to say that you'll alter his words.
I thought you were the interpreter.
I have been present in every meeting of this trial from the beginning.
I know the stakes involved, and I know how best to prevent an unnecessary incident.
Tell the General I will be happy to receive his section on Shigemitsu.
[speaking Russian.]
RÃling, how nice of you to come.
How are you? Phlebitis.
Other complications in the legs.
Nothing that will keep me down for long.
[coughing.]
I truly hope you get back up on your feet.
Oh, I'm not so sure you want that too soon.
RÃling understand I once believed the world was full of possibility.
And now? I saw two world wars destroy Europe.
After the first, international conferences didn't stop the second.
[coughs.]
Can you get the pillow? [grunting.]
If we fail again to make a new mark in the sand what is the world to believe? Well, we should focus on interpreting the law correctly if we want to make, as you say, a new mark in the sand.
Nuremberg has given us a legal precedent that could lead us from the violence.
We have to defend and uphold that precedent here or it'll never gain a permanent foothold.
You make it all sound so simple.
Ah I admit it's very complicated.
But people who start wars must be held accountable, and this is the quickest and clearest way to do that.
I wanted to tell you in person that I am writing my own dissenting opinion.
I think that you and I have the same objective.
But as a jurist, I cannot compromise on my principles, even if this means that I'm alone in this.
Now that we are laying our knives upon the table I should tell you that I intend to fulfill the charter.
Good.
All the best.
Thank you.
[indistinct chatter.]
Only missing a time sequence.
Got it here.
Ah, good.
Are you happy with Quentin-Baxter's work? What I like is how he cleverly amended Zaryanov's position against Shigemitsu.
It's less harsh.
[Willink.]
RÃling.
[in Dutch.]
What's so important to bring you out this way? [in Dutch.]
I I have written a dissenting opinion.
You do know that every dissenting opinion can be used to deny the legitimacy of the tribunal and the final judgment.
[speaking in Dutch.]
Too many elements of the majority judgment are in my view very flawed.
I could never put my name to it.
The United Nations passed a resolution that favors the Nuremburg principles.
The Netherlands supported it.
Your dissent will undermine our commitment to international law.
I remind you that I am here as an independent judge.
[groans.]
You've lost your bearings.
You're acting like some sort of misguided post-war resistance hero.
But you will only give hope to war criminals.
Given all the time we judges have spent on this tribunal and all that I have studied and heard, I am doing what I believe is right.
[speaking Dutch.]
[McDougall.]
Hmm.
[woman.]
Excuse me.
-[knocking on door.]
-Come in.
Northcroft.
Here we are.
[door opens.]
[door closes.]
-RÃling, have you seen this? -What? The majority judgment has been submitted.
-Did you see a draft of it? -No.
But Webb must have approved it.
-[knocking continues.]
-[Webb.]
Coming.
Have you submitted a majority judgment? Yes.
I, uh think the content is sensible.
So I've agreed that it should become the official judgment.
If it's any consolation, they dismissed the murder count for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And what about our dissenting opinions? Is any of that considered or included? Unclear, but still possible.
-This is so absurd and disrespectful! -Here Damned if I know how they did it so fast.
Note that the penalties have been left blank.
They acceded to my request that all 11 justices consider the options.
Now, this is our last chance.
I just hope a majority of us will preclude the death penalty.
So we'll start with a discussion on the death penalty, which I personally abhor.
With the emperor absolved, how could we send his subordinates to the gallows? [Webb.]
Very well.
We'll start from this side and move around the table.
The death penalty is essential.
Um, men like Tojo can be blocked from power just with a life sentence.
So, as you know, I am totally against the death penalty.
I agree with Justice Bernard.
Let me add this.
The emperor, who was able to terminate the war could also have prevented it from the start.
Thus, it would be manifestly unjust to hand out death penalties to the cabinet ministers and military officers alone.
If we do not impose the death penalty, then the government could release them when Japan gets back its sovereignty.
They'll have slipped through our hands, and they'll stir up another war.
Justice Northcroft? I personally find the death penalty distasteful.
However, I will be asking for the strongest possible punishment to prevent any further threats to New Zealand.
I will be asking for the death penalty.
Justice Jaranilla? [Jaranilla.]
If we walked from here to the far side of Tokyo and counted every tree, every leaf that's still living the number we arrived at would hardly add up to the soldiers and the civilians killed by this war.
There should be a death penalty.
Uh, I'm not here to seek revenge, but the crimes they committed, the atrocities, are just too horrendous to be overlooked.
Justice Zaryanov, will you uphold Stalin's policy to abandon the death penalty? [speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
He cannot vote death.
We know that you oppose.
I hold each and every one of the accused must not be found guilty.
Justice RÃling, how do you vote? We abolished capital punishment in the Netherlands.
But, right after the war, we implemented a special law that allowed us to execute Nazi collaborators.
It was an exceptional ruling, brought about by unthinkable crimes.
And with that in mind, I support the death penalty for those responsible for atrocities.
But I insist the death penalty not be applied to crimes of aggression.
[Webb.]
Justice McDougall? At Nuremberg, they handed down death sentences but not for those convicted only on the crime of aggression.
So, I stand with RÃling.
Yes for atrocities.
No to the sole charge of aggression.
[Mei.]
I concur with my colleague from the Philippines.
They committed egregious crimes in China and throughout the Pacific.
Of course, some defendants' crimes were more serious than others.
I say that in certain cases the death penalty is required.
[Bernard.]
But did this trial treat the accused fairly enough to the extent that we can, with confidence, say it's permissible to take their lives? There is a danger that we, the Allied powers, may be viewed as exacting revenge on the leaders of the nation we defeated.
[Patrick.]
Before this trial began, some Allied leaders insisted that, instead of convening a tribunal, we should carry out summary executions by firing squad.
We have spent two and a half years hearing evidence from both the defense and the prosecution.
We have even listened to some propaganda-inspired speeches by the accused.
To ensure a fair trial, the Allied powers made the effort to invite 11 justices from 11 Allied nations.
Indeed.
So how much fairer could we have been? -[Webb.]
Very well.
-[pen clicks.]
It's clear that the death penalty is an option.
Although, very few of us seem eager to hand out death sentences on charges of aggression alone.
So then, we proceed to sentencing.
[narrator.]
The accused, Shigetaro Shimada, was minister of the navy in Prime Minister Tojo's cabinet when Japan started the war with the United States, and later doubled as naval chief of staff.
He was charged, not only with responsibility for starting war of aggression, but also with responsibility for atrocities committed by the navy in the form of conventional war crimes.
Admiral Shimada.
There are those of us who do not believe he deserves the death penalty.
I disagree.
Death.
We must mete out harsh penalties, including capital punishment, to those responsible for atrocities.
[McDougall.]
He was Tojo's lackey.
He was a mere briefcase holder.
But he allowed his men to shoot and kill surviving enemy after their ships had sunk.
I agree that Shimada had a lot of authority over his men and that he abused it.
Military leaders should be responsible for what their men do on the battlefield.
Let's vote.
[narrator.]
The accused, Koki Hirota, served as prime minister and foreign minister during the period when Japan expanded the war into China and Asia.
He is charged with the responsibility for starting war of aggression and with responsibility for atrocities or conventional war crimes committed in Nanking.
Hirota chose not to take the witness stand.
Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hirota He remained silent throughout the trial.
Well, to me, that says he considers himself responsible.
Just because a man stays silent, it doesn't mean he's guilty.
Uh, he was given the opportunity to defend himself.
And, uh [clears throat.]
he did not take it.
In Japanese culture, it is considered disgraceful to try and explain what one has done.
He was prime minister when Japan tried to expand its power over Asia in 1936.
[Jaranilla.]
Mmm-hmm.
[Mei.]
It was he who decided on Japan's policy of aggression.
Hirota did believe in expanding Japan's sphere of influence.
The proclamation "Asia for Asians" was just their version of imperialism.
And Hirota tried to accomplish this through economic, not military, means.
Imperialism by itself is not a crime.
Speaking of imperialism, both the Western powers and Japan committed theft from our perspective.
But I think the most recent and worst theft was committed by Japan.
Hirota's economic policies were aggressive.
They're the ones that set Japan on its inevitable course to war.
[speaking softly in Russian.]
[speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
He's right.
Hirota always had his eye on Soviet Union.
The threat of communism may have troubled him.
Just as it did in many other nations.
[Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
Are you trying to mock us while defending fascists? Is the war of aggression justified when the threat of communism reaches a particular level? Let me repeat what I have said many times before.
There will always be strong and weak nations.
War, therefore, is an inevitable evil.
The international community has not reached a stage where war can be considered a crime.
In this circumstance, we cannot try, convict, or punish these individuals.
My turn to repeat.
That approach will soon trigger World War III.
In Europe, waging aggressive war has already become a crime.
[Jaranilla.]
Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration which clearly states "Stern justice should be meted out to all war criminals.
" That should include the national leaders.
Hirota did not voice opposition to a war when he had the chance at that meeting of former premiers immediately before Pearl Harbor.
And despite knowing about the atrocities at Nanking, Hirota did nothing effective to abate it.
In short, he was criminally negligent.
[RÃling.]
There is evidence that he filed a protest with the war minister over what was happening in Nanking.
Then he should have resigned.
A foreign minister could have done little to influence the army.
And beyond that, his hands were tied.
Filing a protest was all he could do? Tell that to the people of China.
Clearly, he was guilty of inaction.
Hirota should have resigned, or spoken directly to the emperor to put an end to the tragedy in Nanking.
I won't vote for his death, though.
Let's call the vote.
As a member of the cabinet, Togo attended all the meetings prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and he consented to all the decisions.
He joined the cabinet to avoid war with America.
The evidence couldn't be clearer.
No, I say that he participated in the Japanese conspiracy to wage war on America.
The trouble is conspiracy can cast too wide a net over everything.
It is a concept only found in the Anglo-American justice system.
Well, where are we? [speaking Russian.]
[interpreter in English.]
Uh, the Japanese were fascists, like Nazis.
Together they schemed the world domination.
[Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[interpreter in English.]
The Soviet Union was their big target.
I'm not so sure there was a clear plan at the outset.
[speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
I tell you, Japan was considering a plan to occupy Australia.
Though I agree with you that Japan planned to occupy my country, I don't think that was part of their original strategy.
Once they started a war on Chinese soil, Japan had to keep pushing its battle lines forward to protect and preserve what it already conquered.
They started a fire they couldn't put out, with the resultant consequence that they ended up going to war with Britain and America.
I think that's how we should look at the whole picture.
What difference could it possibly make how we look at it? In the end, Japan waged aggressive war against China and America and Britain and Australia and the Netherlands.
And it is Togo who is directly responsible for Pearl Harbor.
How was he supposed to stop the military? They were too powerful.
The simple fact is that he didn't resign.
He voted for the war.
He did not discharge his duty as a cabinet member to act in opposition to the war.
Let's vote, gentlemen.
No.
His purpose in remaining in the cabinet was to end, as soon as possible, the war that he had failed to stop.
A man who recognized his moral duty shouldn't be made to pay this price for his courage.
I agree with Justice RÃling.
Otherwise, in the future, nobody will take the risk that Togo took.
As I said earlier, when the Japanese leadership met to decide whether or not go to war with the United States and Great Britain, in the end Togo voted for war.
Had he opposed it, the cabinet would have dissolved and a new prime minister would have been selected.
I hardly call that an attempt on Togo's part to stop the war from happening.
Under the law, he is guilty.
This is the precedent we should set.
Togo is hardly to blame for the war with China.
As for the American Pacific War he cannot be absolved completely.
Let us vote.
[narrator.]
In November 1948, two and a half years after the trial began, President Webb takes seven days to read out in court the final judgment of 1,212 pages.
On the last day of court, the sentences are presented to each of the accused.
A moment dividing them between life or death.
So, at the last moment, you also chose to write a separate opinion? After reading Pal's lengthy paper, I decided it was my primary duty to counter his one-sided defense of the Japanese Mmm.
-with a supplementary opinion.
-Mmm.
Nearly 1,000 days since we began.
-Sometimes it felt interminable.
-Yes.
It's a long time to wait for justice.
[Webb.]
Under the charter, the judgment I have read is the judgment of the tribunal.
The member for India dissents from the majority judgment and has filed a statement of his reasons for such dissent.
The members for France and the Netherlands dissent in part from the majority judgment and have filed statements of their reasons for such dissents.
The member for the Philippines has filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority.
Generally, I share the view of the majority as to the facts, but without recording any dissent I have filed a brief statement of my reasons for upholding the charter and the jurisdiction of the tribunal and some general considerations that influenced me in deciding on the sentences.
These documents will be part of the record and will be available to the supreme commander, the defense counsel, and to others who may be concerned.
Defense counsel have applied for a reading in court of these separate opinions, but the tribunal had already considered the matter and decided that they should not be so read.
The tribunal adheres to this decision.
Accused Hirota Koki, on counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to death by hanging.
Accused Togo Shigenori on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to imprisonment for 20 years.
[spectators muttering indistinctly.]
Accused Shigemitsu Mamoru on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to imprisonment for seven years.
[spectators muttering indistinctly.]
Accused Tojo Hideki on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to death by hanging.
[indistinct chatter.]
General Cramer, I want to thank you sincerely for all the help.
My pleasure, Lord Patrick.
You have the power to mitigate the sentences of Togo, of Hirota, of Shigemitsu.
The tribunal asked me to stay out of the courtroom.
I stayed out.
But you are the only one who can reduce their sentences.
Look, look, look this is not the time to be looking back.
Japan is a democracy.
They have a brand new constitution.
Women have the right to hold political office for the very first time.
They're rebuilding, and the rest of the world is moving on.
Take a look at what's going on in East Berlin, the Korean peninsula, not to mention the Soviets.
There will be other battles to be fought, other wars to be won.
Right now, be grateful that your time here is over.
You get to go home.
[RÃling.]
Some defense lawyers are preparing to file an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States.
And if that appeal is upheld, I would come back to Japan for a retrial and we could see each other again.
[Takeyama.]
Do you personally think this might happen? [RÃling.]
Well, I don't think so.
Two and a half years of work will not be reversed.
[Takeyama sniffles.]
A gift for you.
A Hiroshige print.
Thank you.
-This is beautiful.
-[Takeyama chuckles.]
As Hiroshige did with van Gogh, you provided me with inspiration.
[chuckles.]
I am glad to have met you, Professor Bert RÃling.
I'm glad that I met you, Takeyama-san.
[RÃling.]
Eager to get back to your garden? [chuckles.]
Oh, yes.
I'm looking forward to it a great deal.
I must say how much I appreciated your work, Justice RÃling.
Even some of your arguments.
[RÃling chuckles.]
We may have saved millions of future lives.
[RÃling.]
I hope so.
Northcroft is suggesting a permanent tribunal to try war criminals, but not led by the United States.
Oh, maybe located in the Netherlands.
[indistinct chatter.]
Ah, there you are! All right, let's go.
Here we are.
[Webb.]
Oh, McDougall, nice to see you.
Justice Patrick.
Justice RÃling.
I think you're at the end.
Justice Pal, I'm afraid you're around the back.
So are you, and so are you.
Uh, we're where we are.
Shall we General, pop your pop yourself there, okay? [indistinct chatter.]
[dramatic music playing.]
On February 11th, 1948, at the Tokyo Tribunal for the Far East, Chief Prosecutor Keenan begins closing arguments.
He states that the responsibility for Japan's militaristic actions rests not with the people but with their leaders.
On April 16th, the proceedings of the Tokyo war crimes trial come to a close.
The world now waits while the tribunal judges consider all of the evidence and arrive at their verdict.
[theme music playing.]
[indistinct chatter.]
[RÃling.]
Good morning.
-[Patrick.]
Justice RÃling.
-[McDougall.]
Good morning.
Um I would like you to know that I would support your position on crime of aggression, if you would agree to certain considerations.
That's interesting.
The crime of aggression is an ex post facto law, which is a problem for me.
However, I have decided to be realistic if I want to shape how this trial ends.
If, as you say, we agree to certain considerations.
Correct.
Let me be clear that my reasons for recognizing crimes of aggression are different than yours.
I have concluded that one can reasonably construe this as comparable to a political crime in domestic law.
Political criminals are at times detained when their actions threaten national stability.
And I think that we should argue from this preestablished legal platform.
Thus, we can state that those responsible for starting a war ought to be subject to punishment on the grounds that, if they remain free, they might disturb the international order.
Otherwise, peace and progress may never be achieved.
I'm afraid not, RÃling.
We will all be upholding the principle established by the precedence of the Nuremberg judgment and by the Pact of Paris of 1928 that wars of aggression are illegal.
Look, we've all come to the same conclusion.
You just came by a different route.
[clears throat.]
Why obsess about it? Uh, because, above all else, our profession is meant to to interpret laws, which, by their very nature, can be understood in different ways.
And nothing is more important than the reasons for that interpretation.
We have to keep in mind that differences in the reasons may lead to differences in the verdicts and the sentencing.
And that is why we cannot waver from our position.
Then, I'll not accept it your way.
[cursing in Dutch.]
[telephone ringing.]
Hello? Ah, President Webb.
I hope I'm not interrupting anything.
No, not at all.
When can I expect the verdicts to be delivered? Well, General, we have 49,000 pages of evidence to consider.
We have to get a move on, sir.
-One orange juice, please.
-Sir.
-Hello.
-[Mei.]
Hmm.
-Is this your wife? -[Mei.]
Yes.
-She's beautiful.
-[chuckles softly.]
I finally heard from her today, on our wedding anniversary.
-She's safe? -Mmm.
Such a relief.
That's fantastic.
I I cannot imagine the strain of being here with a civil war going on in China.
Thank you.
[chuckles.]
This is my family.
[Mei.]
Wow! So many children.
[RÃling sighs.]
Yep.
I would like to have one more, but -I'm not so sure my wife would agree.
-[Mei chuckles.]
Well, we've reached an important, uh, crossroad in our deliberations.
Once those decisions have been made, we can all get back to our lives and families, however large.
I, um I find myself at odds with Patrick's group -and about the crime of aggression.
-Hmm.
And I was wondering if you were joining their camp.
The vast majority of judges are Western.
I want to be sure that what I decide for Asia is good and also seen as fair by the rest of the world.
So I am joining the majority.
Well -[knocking on door.]
-Come in.
-Sir William.
-Lord Patrick.
You asked to see me.
With the evidentiary phase of the trial over, it's a good idea to exchange opinions on how to move forward.
I'm aware that you and some others have banded together.
But as the president, I hope we'll be able to collaborate on our findings.
[clears throat.]
I'm sorry, President Webb, but circumstances have forced a certain number of us to push ahead.
We have decided to write the final judgment ourselves.
I beg your pardon? As we have a clear majority, we are entitled to do so.
Good day.
General MacArthur didn't bring me back here just to stand by and watch.
-I'm going to write my own judgment.
-Your own? As the president, I have the right and the responsibility to write a judgment.
One that speaks for all the judges.
I am glad you've agreed to join the majority.
Hmm.
The majority view is reasonable, proportionate and fair.
It honors the victims.
But, um I have to say I still have some doubts about doing this without Justice Webb.
He is the president of the tribunal.
But on the defense motion to dismiss on the ground that the crime of aggression did not exist, President Webb was unable to write a strong report.
Neither could he unite us all.
Don't you agree? Well, yes.
We appreciate that you want to write the sections pertaining to China.
You are vital in truly bringing some closure to the war with Japan.
Let's hope so.
Are you feeling all right? Just lately, I have become obsessed with eating a piece of good Scottish beef with a decent Yorkshire pudding.
I don't seem to have appetite for anything else at all.
[typing.]
Very good.
Accentuate this point here.
Thank you.
I've just heard that Webb is gonna write his own action.
But how can he do that by himself? It'll run to 500 pages.
Unlike us, he's got his own staff-- Patrick! Help! Someone! Get an ambulance.
Patrick.
Patrick! [indistinct chatter.]
His lungs and circulation are under a great deal of strain.
But they say he'll make a recovery.
What do we do now? -Press ahead.
-Mmm.
But we're gonna need some help.
Right.
Good morning, everyone.
This is Quentin Quentin-Baxter, a specialist in drafting legal documents who I've invited here to help with our cause.
I'm proud to say he's also from New Zealand.
[all chuckling.]
Yes.
Well, I think I best get started right away.
Good man.
Why don't you take that spot over there while I get you a cup of coffee? Okay.
[speaking Russian.]
[interpreter in English.]
General Zaryanov of Soviet Union.
He wants it clear that he will write the section on Shigemitsu.
This man's fate is very important to us.
Great.
He writes the draft, and I'll take a pass at it so that it fits with the rest of our document.
He will be aggravated by your response.
It implies immediate disrespect to say that you'll alter his words.
I thought you were the interpreter.
I have been present in every meeting of this trial from the beginning.
I know the stakes involved, and I know how best to prevent an unnecessary incident.
Tell the General I will be happy to receive his section on Shigemitsu.
[speaking Russian.]
RÃling, how nice of you to come.
How are you? Phlebitis.
Other complications in the legs.
Nothing that will keep me down for long.
[coughing.]
I truly hope you get back up on your feet.
Oh, I'm not so sure you want that too soon.
RÃling understand I once believed the world was full of possibility.
And now? I saw two world wars destroy Europe.
After the first, international conferences didn't stop the second.
[coughs.]
Can you get the pillow? [grunting.]
If we fail again to make a new mark in the sand what is the world to believe? Well, we should focus on interpreting the law correctly if we want to make, as you say, a new mark in the sand.
Nuremberg has given us a legal precedent that could lead us from the violence.
We have to defend and uphold that precedent here or it'll never gain a permanent foothold.
You make it all sound so simple.
Ah I admit it's very complicated.
But people who start wars must be held accountable, and this is the quickest and clearest way to do that.
I wanted to tell you in person that I am writing my own dissenting opinion.
I think that you and I have the same objective.
But as a jurist, I cannot compromise on my principles, even if this means that I'm alone in this.
Now that we are laying our knives upon the table I should tell you that I intend to fulfill the charter.
Good.
All the best.
Thank you.
[indistinct chatter.]
Only missing a time sequence.
Got it here.
Ah, good.
Are you happy with Quentin-Baxter's work? What I like is how he cleverly amended Zaryanov's position against Shigemitsu.
It's less harsh.
[Willink.]
RÃling.
[in Dutch.]
What's so important to bring you out this way? [in Dutch.]
I I have written a dissenting opinion.
You do know that every dissenting opinion can be used to deny the legitimacy of the tribunal and the final judgment.
[speaking in Dutch.]
Too many elements of the majority judgment are in my view very flawed.
I could never put my name to it.
The United Nations passed a resolution that favors the Nuremburg principles.
The Netherlands supported it.
Your dissent will undermine our commitment to international law.
I remind you that I am here as an independent judge.
[groans.]
You've lost your bearings.
You're acting like some sort of misguided post-war resistance hero.
But you will only give hope to war criminals.
Given all the time we judges have spent on this tribunal and all that I have studied and heard, I am doing what I believe is right.
[speaking Dutch.]
[McDougall.]
Hmm.
[woman.]
Excuse me.
-[knocking on door.]
-Come in.
Northcroft.
Here we are.
[door opens.]
[door closes.]
-RÃling, have you seen this? -What? The majority judgment has been submitted.
-Did you see a draft of it? -No.
But Webb must have approved it.
-[knocking continues.]
-[Webb.]
Coming.
Have you submitted a majority judgment? Yes.
I, uh think the content is sensible.
So I've agreed that it should become the official judgment.
If it's any consolation, they dismissed the murder count for the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And what about our dissenting opinions? Is any of that considered or included? Unclear, but still possible.
-This is so absurd and disrespectful! -Here Damned if I know how they did it so fast.
Note that the penalties have been left blank.
They acceded to my request that all 11 justices consider the options.
Now, this is our last chance.
I just hope a majority of us will preclude the death penalty.
So we'll start with a discussion on the death penalty, which I personally abhor.
With the emperor absolved, how could we send his subordinates to the gallows? [Webb.]
Very well.
We'll start from this side and move around the table.
The death penalty is essential.
Um, men like Tojo can be blocked from power just with a life sentence.
So, as you know, I am totally against the death penalty.
I agree with Justice Bernard.
Let me add this.
The emperor, who was able to terminate the war could also have prevented it from the start.
Thus, it would be manifestly unjust to hand out death penalties to the cabinet ministers and military officers alone.
If we do not impose the death penalty, then the government could release them when Japan gets back its sovereignty.
They'll have slipped through our hands, and they'll stir up another war.
Justice Northcroft? I personally find the death penalty distasteful.
However, I will be asking for the strongest possible punishment to prevent any further threats to New Zealand.
I will be asking for the death penalty.
Justice Jaranilla? [Jaranilla.]
If we walked from here to the far side of Tokyo and counted every tree, every leaf that's still living the number we arrived at would hardly add up to the soldiers and the civilians killed by this war.
There should be a death penalty.
Uh, I'm not here to seek revenge, but the crimes they committed, the atrocities, are just too horrendous to be overlooked.
Justice Zaryanov, will you uphold Stalin's policy to abandon the death penalty? [speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
He cannot vote death.
We know that you oppose.
I hold each and every one of the accused must not be found guilty.
Justice RÃling, how do you vote? We abolished capital punishment in the Netherlands.
But, right after the war, we implemented a special law that allowed us to execute Nazi collaborators.
It was an exceptional ruling, brought about by unthinkable crimes.
And with that in mind, I support the death penalty for those responsible for atrocities.
But I insist the death penalty not be applied to crimes of aggression.
[Webb.]
Justice McDougall? At Nuremberg, they handed down death sentences but not for those convicted only on the crime of aggression.
So, I stand with RÃling.
Yes for atrocities.
No to the sole charge of aggression.
[Mei.]
I concur with my colleague from the Philippines.
They committed egregious crimes in China and throughout the Pacific.
Of course, some defendants' crimes were more serious than others.
I say that in certain cases the death penalty is required.
[Bernard.]
But did this trial treat the accused fairly enough to the extent that we can, with confidence, say it's permissible to take their lives? There is a danger that we, the Allied powers, may be viewed as exacting revenge on the leaders of the nation we defeated.
[Patrick.]
Before this trial began, some Allied leaders insisted that, instead of convening a tribunal, we should carry out summary executions by firing squad.
We have spent two and a half years hearing evidence from both the defense and the prosecution.
We have even listened to some propaganda-inspired speeches by the accused.
To ensure a fair trial, the Allied powers made the effort to invite 11 justices from 11 Allied nations.
Indeed.
So how much fairer could we have been? -[Webb.]
Very well.
-[pen clicks.]
It's clear that the death penalty is an option.
Although, very few of us seem eager to hand out death sentences on charges of aggression alone.
So then, we proceed to sentencing.
[narrator.]
The accused, Shigetaro Shimada, was minister of the navy in Prime Minister Tojo's cabinet when Japan started the war with the United States, and later doubled as naval chief of staff.
He was charged, not only with responsibility for starting war of aggression, but also with responsibility for atrocities committed by the navy in the form of conventional war crimes.
Admiral Shimada.
There are those of us who do not believe he deserves the death penalty.
I disagree.
Death.
We must mete out harsh penalties, including capital punishment, to those responsible for atrocities.
[McDougall.]
He was Tojo's lackey.
He was a mere briefcase holder.
But he allowed his men to shoot and kill surviving enemy after their ships had sunk.
I agree that Shimada had a lot of authority over his men and that he abused it.
Military leaders should be responsible for what their men do on the battlefield.
Let's vote.
[narrator.]
The accused, Koki Hirota, served as prime minister and foreign minister during the period when Japan expanded the war into China and Asia.
He is charged with the responsibility for starting war of aggression and with responsibility for atrocities or conventional war crimes committed in Nanking.
Hirota chose not to take the witness stand.
Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hirota He remained silent throughout the trial.
Well, to me, that says he considers himself responsible.
Just because a man stays silent, it doesn't mean he's guilty.
Uh, he was given the opportunity to defend himself.
And, uh [clears throat.]
he did not take it.
In Japanese culture, it is considered disgraceful to try and explain what one has done.
He was prime minister when Japan tried to expand its power over Asia in 1936.
[Jaranilla.]
Mmm-hmm.
[Mei.]
It was he who decided on Japan's policy of aggression.
Hirota did believe in expanding Japan's sphere of influence.
The proclamation "Asia for Asians" was just their version of imperialism.
And Hirota tried to accomplish this through economic, not military, means.
Imperialism by itself is not a crime.
Speaking of imperialism, both the Western powers and Japan committed theft from our perspective.
But I think the most recent and worst theft was committed by Japan.
Hirota's economic policies were aggressive.
They're the ones that set Japan on its inevitable course to war.
[speaking softly in Russian.]
[speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
He's right.
Hirota always had his eye on Soviet Union.
The threat of communism may have troubled him.
Just as it did in many other nations.
[Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
Are you trying to mock us while defending fascists? Is the war of aggression justified when the threat of communism reaches a particular level? Let me repeat what I have said many times before.
There will always be strong and weak nations.
War, therefore, is an inevitable evil.
The international community has not reached a stage where war can be considered a crime.
In this circumstance, we cannot try, convict, or punish these individuals.
My turn to repeat.
That approach will soon trigger World War III.
In Europe, waging aggressive war has already become a crime.
[Jaranilla.]
Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration which clearly states "Stern justice should be meted out to all war criminals.
" That should include the national leaders.
Hirota did not voice opposition to a war when he had the chance at that meeting of former premiers immediately before Pearl Harbor.
And despite knowing about the atrocities at Nanking, Hirota did nothing effective to abate it.
In short, he was criminally negligent.
[RÃling.]
There is evidence that he filed a protest with the war minister over what was happening in Nanking.
Then he should have resigned.
A foreign minister could have done little to influence the army.
And beyond that, his hands were tied.
Filing a protest was all he could do? Tell that to the people of China.
Clearly, he was guilty of inaction.
Hirota should have resigned, or spoken directly to the emperor to put an end to the tragedy in Nanking.
I won't vote for his death, though.
Let's call the vote.
As a member of the cabinet, Togo attended all the meetings prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and he consented to all the decisions.
He joined the cabinet to avoid war with America.
The evidence couldn't be clearer.
No, I say that he participated in the Japanese conspiracy to wage war on America.
The trouble is conspiracy can cast too wide a net over everything.
It is a concept only found in the Anglo-American justice system.
Well, where are we? [speaking Russian.]
[interpreter in English.]
Uh, the Japanese were fascists, like Nazis.
Together they schemed the world domination.
[Zaryanov speaking Russian.]
[interpreter in English.]
The Soviet Union was their big target.
I'm not so sure there was a clear plan at the outset.
[speaking Russian.]
[in English.]
I tell you, Japan was considering a plan to occupy Australia.
Though I agree with you that Japan planned to occupy my country, I don't think that was part of their original strategy.
Once they started a war on Chinese soil, Japan had to keep pushing its battle lines forward to protect and preserve what it already conquered.
They started a fire they couldn't put out, with the resultant consequence that they ended up going to war with Britain and America.
I think that's how we should look at the whole picture.
What difference could it possibly make how we look at it? In the end, Japan waged aggressive war against China and America and Britain and Australia and the Netherlands.
And it is Togo who is directly responsible for Pearl Harbor.
How was he supposed to stop the military? They were too powerful.
The simple fact is that he didn't resign.
He voted for the war.
He did not discharge his duty as a cabinet member to act in opposition to the war.
Let's vote, gentlemen.
No.
His purpose in remaining in the cabinet was to end, as soon as possible, the war that he had failed to stop.
A man who recognized his moral duty shouldn't be made to pay this price for his courage.
I agree with Justice RÃling.
Otherwise, in the future, nobody will take the risk that Togo took.
As I said earlier, when the Japanese leadership met to decide whether or not go to war with the United States and Great Britain, in the end Togo voted for war.
Had he opposed it, the cabinet would have dissolved and a new prime minister would have been selected.
I hardly call that an attempt on Togo's part to stop the war from happening.
Under the law, he is guilty.
This is the precedent we should set.
Togo is hardly to blame for the war with China.
As for the American Pacific War he cannot be absolved completely.
Let us vote.
[narrator.]
In November 1948, two and a half years after the trial began, President Webb takes seven days to read out in court the final judgment of 1,212 pages.
On the last day of court, the sentences are presented to each of the accused.
A moment dividing them between life or death.
So, at the last moment, you also chose to write a separate opinion? After reading Pal's lengthy paper, I decided it was my primary duty to counter his one-sided defense of the Japanese Mmm.
-with a supplementary opinion.
-Mmm.
Nearly 1,000 days since we began.
-Sometimes it felt interminable.
-Yes.
It's a long time to wait for justice.
[Webb.]
Under the charter, the judgment I have read is the judgment of the tribunal.
The member for India dissents from the majority judgment and has filed a statement of his reasons for such dissent.
The members for France and the Netherlands dissent in part from the majority judgment and have filed statements of their reasons for such dissents.
The member for the Philippines has filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority.
Generally, I share the view of the majority as to the facts, but without recording any dissent I have filed a brief statement of my reasons for upholding the charter and the jurisdiction of the tribunal and some general considerations that influenced me in deciding on the sentences.
These documents will be part of the record and will be available to the supreme commander, the defense counsel, and to others who may be concerned.
Defense counsel have applied for a reading in court of these separate opinions, but the tribunal had already considered the matter and decided that they should not be so read.
The tribunal adheres to this decision.
Accused Hirota Koki, on counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to death by hanging.
Accused Togo Shigenori on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to imprisonment for 20 years.
[spectators muttering indistinctly.]
Accused Shigemitsu Mamoru on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to imprisonment for seven years.
[spectators muttering indistinctly.]
Accused Tojo Hideki on the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentences you to death by hanging.
[indistinct chatter.]
General Cramer, I want to thank you sincerely for all the help.
My pleasure, Lord Patrick.
You have the power to mitigate the sentences of Togo, of Hirota, of Shigemitsu.
The tribunal asked me to stay out of the courtroom.
I stayed out.
But you are the only one who can reduce their sentences.
Look, look, look this is not the time to be looking back.
Japan is a democracy.
They have a brand new constitution.
Women have the right to hold political office for the very first time.
They're rebuilding, and the rest of the world is moving on.
Take a look at what's going on in East Berlin, the Korean peninsula, not to mention the Soviets.
There will be other battles to be fought, other wars to be won.
Right now, be grateful that your time here is over.
You get to go home.
[RÃling.]
Some defense lawyers are preparing to file an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States.
And if that appeal is upheld, I would come back to Japan for a retrial and we could see each other again.
[Takeyama.]
Do you personally think this might happen? [RÃling.]
Well, I don't think so.
Two and a half years of work will not be reversed.
[Takeyama sniffles.]
A gift for you.
A Hiroshige print.
Thank you.
-This is beautiful.
-[Takeyama chuckles.]
As Hiroshige did with van Gogh, you provided me with inspiration.
[chuckles.]
I am glad to have met you, Professor Bert RÃling.
I'm glad that I met you, Takeyama-san.
[RÃling.]
Eager to get back to your garden? [chuckles.]
Oh, yes.
I'm looking forward to it a great deal.
I must say how much I appreciated your work, Justice RÃling.
Even some of your arguments.
[RÃling chuckles.]
We may have saved millions of future lives.
[RÃling.]
I hope so.
Northcroft is suggesting a permanent tribunal to try war criminals, but not led by the United States.
Oh, maybe located in the Netherlands.
[indistinct chatter.]
Ah, there you are! All right, let's go.
Here we are.
[Webb.]
Oh, McDougall, nice to see you.
Justice Patrick.
Justice RÃling.
I think you're at the end.
Justice Pal, I'm afraid you're around the back.
So are you, and so are you.
Uh, we're where we are.
Shall we General, pop your pop yourself there, okay? [indistinct chatter.]
[dramatic music playing.]