Original subtitles

Downloaded from YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX

Between the 1930s and 1940s,

Japan sends troops to the Chinese mainland,

across Southeast Asia and into the Pacific Islands

to engage in warfare that ultimately leaves tens of millions of people dead.

On September 2, 1945,

Japan signs the Instrument of Surrender to end the war.

The Allied powers appoint General Douglas MacArthur their supreme commander

and quickly occupy all of Japan.

Former Japanese cabinet ministers and military leaders are arrested.

In November of the same year,

leaders from Nazi Germany, Japan's ally in the war, go on trial in Nuremberg.

In January 1946,

using Nuremberg as a reference,

Supreme Commander MacArthur enacts a Charter for the Tokyo trial.

Twenty-eight former Japanese leaders are then charged as class A war criminals.

The Tokyo trial begins.

After a long and tiring journey from Amsterdam to Tokyo,

it's nice to finally have some time to relax.

Although it feels strange to be staying in the middle of the devastated city

at the luxurious Imperial Hotel,

which was somehow spared by the American fire bombs,

I'm very excited about this adventure,

never having been so far from home.

But I'm sure to miss Lise and the children dearly.

Meanwhile, most of my colleagues have arrived.

There are nine of us in all,

each hailing from a country that fought against Japan in the war.

William Patrick.

Lord Patrick.

I'm Justice Roling from the Netherlands.

Very nice to meet you.Justice Roling.

A pleasure.

So, it was quite a long trip, isn't it?

Quite.

What's the commotion?

That's Sir William Webb from Australia.

He's our tribunal president.

How long do you expect the trial to last?

Six months.That long?

We are making history, gentlemen, and that takes time.

As the youngest and least experienced of the judges,

I was quite nervous at the first visit at the courthouse.

At the same time, I felt challenged by these distinguished men.

I am Justice Bernard, from France.

Le juge McDougall.

Gentlemen. And lady.

For those of you who have not met him,

may I introduce Mr. Justice Northcroft from New Zealand?

He will also be serving as my acting president.

This grand building will be our working space for the duration of the tribunal.

Follow me, please.

I'm Higgins.

From Massachusetts.

Has the general been to Massachusetts?

The general does not like to visit the places with the names he cannot spell.

With the exception of Zaryanov

from the Soviet Union,

fortunately, all the judges speak English.

Even the Frenchman, Bernard, and Justice Mei from China,

who went to college in America.

How tragic that China should have re-engaged in civil war.

Yes, sir, heartbreaking waste of lives.

Some of my family are missing.

I'm so sorry.

This building once housed the Japanese military academy

and the war ministry.

Some of the accused would have planned their attacks

right here in this room.

Now we will use it to decide their fate.

As individual judges in our own countries, we decide the fate of others

from divorce to fraud to murder.

But the issues we face on this stage are extremely complex.

Please, indulge me

as I take us through a summary of the challenge ahead.

It falls upon us to deal with three categories of crime.

The most striking of which is crimes against peace,

more frequently referred to as crimes of aggression.

We are being asked

whether or not these leaders conspired to plan and wage aggressive war.

Did they conspire to attack nations that did not threaten Japan?

We're also being asked to consider crimes

against humanity.

Including crimes committed by a power on its own citizens.

Finally, we have to consider conventional war crimes.

Ill treatment of prisoners of war

and atrocities committed on the battlefield.

In other words, crimes that violate the traditional rules of war.

The whole world will be following this trial,

and every argument and decision we make,

we face an immense challenge.

I am confident we will find our way through it.

Our courtroom, designed to replicate the one being used to try the Nazis in Nuremberg.

I can't help wondering if we, the judges,

each with his own unique cultural and political background,

will be able to bring this trial to a satisfactory conclusion.

This evening we are going to be shown a film about the Nuremberg Trial

in the hotel cinema.

Some of my colleagues on the Utrecht court were taken away.

All of them Jewish.

I saw a lot of horrors in World War I.

Nothing quite like tonight.

That is why I consider this tribunal to be so important.

Japan occupied Asia-Pacific all the way

from China to here.Mmm-hmm.

To Dutch East Indies.

Overtaken earlier in the war for strategic purposes.

Japan has no natural oil resources.

Therefore, Indonesia became an important target.Mmm-hmm.

Some of my wife's family were there at the time.

They were forced into Japanese prison camps.

Gentlemen, please join us.

Twenty-eight men are being accused of war crimes.

Now, these men are made up of military leaders, politicians,

and others who may have influenced them.

The jurisdiction of the trial,

the period we're interested in,

starts with the Pact of Paris in 1928

and ends with Japan's surrender in 1945.

I open the floor for discussion.

Yes.I have one question.

How was the list of the accused constructed?

It all looks rather arbitrary.

And then suddenly, two new names have been added at the bottom.

On what grounds?

Justice Zaryanov can answer that.

Shigemitsu participated in Japan's conspiracy when he was an ambassador in Moscow.

I believe our Soviet friends have a keen interest

in prosecuting Shigemitsu and Umezu.

Because they are considered anti-communists?

Moscow asked that they be added.

General MacArthur and the prosecution obviously agreed.

The general does not wish this matter debated in this informal way.

The names are here and the evidence will be presented later.

The Allied forces have decided to add a judge from India and one from the Philippines.

Washington was opposed to representation from India from the beginning.

The State Department has changed its mind.

They seem to think it prudent that we add a few more Asian judges to the mix.

Oh, I can manage the increased number.Oh, good, good, good.

Now, I have some recommendations for you,

and I'd like to speak at the opening of the tribunal.

I think that might help to move things along.

The trial and its affairs are the purview of the judges.

As president of the tribunal,

I cannot let you speak.

Nor can I allow you to influence our deliberations.

You have a definite

lack of detente, Webb.

I like that.

All right.

I'll withdraw my request.

Why has the Emperor Hirohito been excluded from the list of accused?

I have found no tangible evidence

that the Emperor played a decisive role

in the Japanese political decisions of the past decade.

The Emperor Hirohito is a figure of great importance.

It's through him that we can justify and legitimize

our programs of reform going forward.

Yes.

Your next meeting is waiting for you, sir.Thank you.

And thank you.

I would like to discuss the Emperor's culpability in the war.

I imagine this will create debate.

Sir William, he's not been indicted.

I know.This was not on your agenda the other day.

True, but today it is.

It is not for us as judges to tamper with the agenda.

We need to get at the truth regardless of the consequences.

I agree.

The Emperor did have ultimate responsibility,

which is why I want us to consider his part in all of this.

Apropos to this,

I wish to bring up certain protocol of our own.

It is obvious there'll be times when we will differ with each other.

On these hopefully rare occasions,

we should consider how to present our position,

even if we can't come to a unanimous decision.

Uh, he made a joke about

being in school because you put up your hand.

To where we are...

Ah, in my country it is customary

to honor the confidentiality of the judge's chamber.

Ah, in my country, too.

And even a majority verdict is presented as unanimous.

So, dissent or contrary arguments

are never disclosed until after the trial is over,

and I would like to propose that we adopt this process.

I will second the motion.WEBB: All right.

For today, all those in favor of Justice Roling's motion...

Carried.

While Tokyo still lies in ruins

and the populace suffers from the post-war privations,

we are preparing for the start of the trial,

a process which is taking far more time than expected.

In the meantime, our spare moments

are filled with trips, dinners and parties at the hotel,

organized by the Americans.

And that's her, Kate.

Let's hear it boys, give her a ten and a nice big round of applause

for your lovely contestant from Australia.

And now, speaking of occupation, I've got a big preoccupation

with our next contestant. It's none other than Barbara!

Why don't you come on over, Barbara?

I recognize you two from The Stars and Stripes.

You're judges on the tribunal, am I right?

Guilty.

Lieutenant Joseph Parker, US Navy.

Crazy, isn't it?

What's that?

I was in Pearl Harbor when they attacked.

Took some shrapnel in the leg.

Lost some good buddies.

We spent four years pounding the shit out of each other.

Now we're gonna help them rebuild.

Ah, well...

Give them a fair trial.

And hang 'em.

A fair trial.

Although the general feeling at home in Holland

is that we must teach those Japs a lesson,

we should, of course, not seek justice from a desire for revenge.

We have to give the accused a fair hearing.

This is not going to be easy.

Not least because none of us can claim to have

any special expertise in international law.

So I am obliged to do a lot of studying on the matter.

Nearly four months after my arrival in Tokyo,

the tribunal is finally ready to start.

The public gallery was filled to the rafters at the opening session.

The Japanese are also greatly interested,

finally getting the chance to see the men accused

of plunging their country into a disastrous war.

Among them is the former prime minister and minister of war,

General Tojo.

Gentlemen, I will speak, ask and respond to questions

on our collective behalf.

All rise.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East is now in session.

There has been no more important criminal trial

in all history.

The accused before us

include former prime ministers,

finance ministers,

chiefs of staff,

and others who have filled the highest places

in the government of Japan.

The former high rank of the accused

entitles them to no greater consideration

than would be extended the humblest Japanese private

or Korean guard.

To our great task

we bring open minds

both on the facts

and the law.

The onus will be on the prosecution

to establish guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will now call on the accused to plead guilty

or not guilty.

Excuse me, Mr. President.

Defense Lawyer Kiyose.

Thank you.

Before the commencement of this arraignment process,

one point I'd like to make is Sir Webb is not qualified

to administer justice in this trial.

On what grounds?

I wish to assure you that this challenge is made

with the greatest respect for this court.

But from a standpoint of fairness,

you should not be permitted to conduct this trial because you have already investigated

alleged Japanese atrocities in New Guinea.

I'll take no part in the response.

Justice Northcroft.

Article two of the Charter

prescribes that the tribunal shall consist

of members appointed by General MacArthur,

the Supreme Commander.

That being so, it does not rest with the tribunal

to unseat anyone

appointed by the Supreme Commander.

Mr. Kiyose,

I will now call on the accused to plead.

Araki Sadao.

How do you plead?

I do not accept any of these charges. Not guilty.

Shigemitsu Mamoru.

How do you plead?

I plead not guilty.

Defendant Tojo,

former Prime Minister?

To all these charges, I plead not guilty.

Delicious meal.

The Japanese defense counsel Kiyose was clever.

Did you feel offended by it?

He questioned my integrity.

He was playing a smart legal card.

Not making a personal insult.

I investigated war crimes in New Guinea based on evidence.

I made my decisions without bias

as I will again do so here in Tokyo.

Water under the bridge, Sir William.

Challenge was nicely rejected by Northcroft.

All in accordance with the Charter.

I shouldn't need the Charter to protect me.

If you'll excuse me, gentlemen, I have some work to do.

Excuse me.

It takes fortitude to maintain a courtroom at this level.

Few men can do it.

I give the floor to the defense counsel, Mr. Kiyose.

I would like to explain the motion I'm putting forward

with respect to the jurisdiction of this tribunal.

The Pact of Paris 1928

condemns war as an instrument of national policy,

but does not consider it a crime.

This tribunal does not have the authority

to try crimes against peace

and therefore the counts related to them should be

excluded immediately.

Order. Order!

Kiyose intends to challenge every count.

In which case, we should all go home.

The Nazis used the same defense,

arguing that war is legal and that the execution and plotting of war

by Nazi officials was also legal.

It didn't work there and it won't work here.

I think we need to discuss the defense arguments at greater length.

To what end?

So that others do not later

question our deliberations and their outcome.

Entertaining

and ultimately rejecting the motion

is a complete and utter waste of time.

Agreed.NORTHCROFT: I agree.

We have no choice but to deny the motion.

We have to press forward.

This was not the first time that Higgins

showed his impatience at how things were proceeding.

What's going on?

I'm going home.

Why?

In all good conscience,

I cannot continue to be part of these proceedings.

But your own president asked you to take on this duty.

He also told me it would take no longer than six to seven months.

Well, that isn't gonna happen, not from where I stand.

The prosecution and defense teams

are stonewalling the entire process.

And our fellow judges have already adopted a position.

We welcome any proposals you might have.

If you leave now it sends a very bad message.

I am sorry, I have already given this a great deal of thought.

My first sworn duty is to serve

as the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court.

I cannot forsake that for this.

I wish you all good luck.

Higgins said he was abandoning a sinking ship.

I think his description goes too far,

but that the process is not running smoothly is plain to see.

In the meantime, two new judges have arrived

from India and the Philippines.

I'm very curious to meet them.

Justice Roling, I'd like you to meet Justice Jaranilla from the Philippines.

Welcome to Japan.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Not long ago I could not have imagined being on Japanese soil.

Nor handing out justice, I suspect.

Gentlemen, good evening.Evening.

Um, excuse us for a moment.

Of course.

FrauSchneider.

FrauHarich-Schneider.

FrauHarich-Schneider.

My name is Bert Roling.

Should I know you?

I play the violin.ETA: How nice for you.

I thought maybe we could play together someday.

I don't play with amateurs.

General Willink,

is that man an employee of your Dutch liaison?

Justice Roling? He's our man on the tribunal.

Ah.

I would have to assess your ability.

That would be a great honor.

If my schedule is free, we will set a date.

Danke schoen.

Oh, Roling,

let me introduce Mr. Justice Pal from India.

Nice to meet you. Bert Roling.

Oh, you're the judge from Netherlands.

Yes, indeed.

You've got quite some catching up to do, hmm?

Even the majority verdict is presented as unanimous,

dissent is never disclosed.

I beg your pardon?Your words in the chamber.

Hmm.

President Webb, Justice Cramer.

Judge Advocate General, and our man to replace Higgins.

Justice Cramer.CRAMER: Justice Webb.

Sir William has a very tough job of it,

but I assure you, he has both hands on the reigns.

July 1946, the tribunal has now been sitting for three months.

The prosecution's argument shifted its focus

onto atrocities committed by the Japanese military on the Chinese mainland.

In December 1937,

the ever-advancing Japanese military occupied Nanking.

The prosecution began examining witnesses

and argued that many prisoners and non-combatants were killed at that time.

For the first time, we heard testimony

from Chinese witnesses on this incident.

Witness Hsu Chuan-Ying testified about what he saw

three days after the occupation of Nanking began.

On Main Street I even stared 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 tried to suggest

that there might have been so-called plain-clothed troops

who hid in private homes and staged surprise attacks on the Japanese.

The witness' answer was...

That might be,

but still, you see, we considered them non-combatants

before they gathered themselves together again

to engage in the hostile activities.

The same day also saw the appearance of witness Shang Teh Yi.

Because he spoke no English, his statement was read out by a prosecutor.

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...

I don't understand where such barbarity comes from.

Let's just leave it there for today, shall we?

President Webb, if you would please excuse me,

I would rather 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.

No, I'm quite serious.

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.

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 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.

No, no, this is senseless.

We've all agreed.

The charges stand as per the Charter.

Agreed.

And we also agreed that any dissenting opinion remain in the room.

We did not agree. I wasn't here when you decided.

Gentlemen, our nerves are raw enough.

Given the arduous testimony today,

I'm adjourning any further discussion.

I decided not to become involved in the discussion.

Although I must say, I understand Pal's position.

Did Lord Patrick notice this?

And was that why he invited me to join him on his visit to the temple?

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.

Very interesting.Yes.

It's a complete different view on the world.

What do you make of Justice Pal?

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.

Before going any further, um,

I wish to say to Justice Pal

that though I respect your opinion concerning 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 wanna make it clear that I believe

charges against all defendants are justified.

I believe what the Japanese did throughout Asia was 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 of 1928.

Now, it clearly states that all the signatories agreed

to condemn war as a means of settling international disputes.

But it does not provide legal ground for criminalizing war.

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 pre-condition to our appointment on this tribunal.

We cannot and we should not

debate whether the Charter is right or wrong.

The general supports what Justice McDougall says

and you all should support that.

Yes, but not by making up laws at will.

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.

If you cannot follow the Tokyo Charter,

you should return to Kolkata.

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.

Arigato.

HerrRoling.

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.

Do you think me rude?

I think you're very German.

Good, you have a sense of humor.

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?

But first, let's see how well you play,

if you can make my short list.

Your phrasing is still wrong, go again.

Right away?

No, tomorrow. Of course, try it again. Yeah?

So...

Now it's my turn to ask questions.

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.

Sorry.

You were very brave and I was, um, rude to ask.

Well, you must also have experienced such nonsense.

What do you mean?

Well, your country was occupied by the Nazis.

I imagine as a judge they find ways to make you miserable.

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.

We have tried to bring them prosperity.

We prepared them for independence.

Just recently you have sent 100,000 soldiers there.

With all the chaos we had no choice.

Roling, your colonialist spirit is alive and well.

While you send troops to fight so-called terrorists,

in reality, they are 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?

I have to admit that I'm quite impressed with the imperturbable Pal

and his statements concerning colonialism and racism,

and, yes, also crimes of aggression have got me thinking.

And so I have decided to write a memo on crimes of aggression.

Justice Roling 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 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 exhaustedly.

The Paris Convention is quite clear.

Yes.

Waging aggressive war is illegal.

And if we do not examine this problem in our own deliberations,

future legal scholars will question our decisions.

Future legal minds will always raise questions.

It is their responsibility.

We have the Charter. It allows us to apply the rule of law.

No, 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 wage 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 you're trying to tell us it allowed

the Japanese to claim it was a war of self-defense?

After what they did, you wanna let them off the hook?

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 a 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.

With so many victims,

you are willing to overlook the crime of waging such a dreadful war.

The general asks if your views are supported by your country.

No, I don't have to ask my government.

General Zaryanov calls for you to withdraw the memorandum.

I will not.

So our focus was on Pal,

and then Roling slipped off into the woods.

Mmm.

I can easily see one or two others following him.

You know, if we're not careful,

we are going to find ourselves out-flanked.

The main problem is Webb.

In trying to be neutral, he allows too many dissenting points of view to arise.

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,

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.

Well, 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.

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.

His precise words are,

"To withdraw the United Kingdom,

"Canadian and New Zealand judges."

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's 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 Roling, from the Netherlands.

But mainly Webb,

the presiding judge from Australia.

Let me see it.

Morning.Morning.

Well...

My foreign minister got the message loud and clear.

As did mine.

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've 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.

No.

Sir William, you're gonna have to keep a lid on this

and return to Australia.

Hmm.

Good evening.

Justice Roling.

Suddenly, my government

is pressuring me to fall in with the rest of you.

I beg your pardon?

Did you, by any chance, initiate this?

What you and your government discuss is none of my business.

This trial is historically significant.

The truth is, nothing will be achieved if you separate from the group.

The autonomy of every judge on this trial

should come before all else.

Excuse me.

HerrRoling.

What a pleasant surprise.

FrauSchneider.

Come in.Thank you.

Have a seat.

Well, you look tired.

Have you been working too hard?

I needed to get away from the hotel.

With all this tension and...

And I had nowhere to go to but here.

Well, start with a drink.

This is very good.

Ooh.

I know that

I shouldn't talk about this, but...

I'm sorry.

I came to Tokyo when I was sure about

what we all could accomplish together.

And now I find myself in some kind of legal purgatory.

How can that be?

Well...

The bench is divided on certain fronts.

That sounds very complicated.

It is very complicated.

And to make it even worse,

my government gave me a stern message

to side with the majority.

And I suspect you may not...

I hate such interference.ETA: Yeah.

And accused men wait in prison.

Eta Schneider was far more interested in the tribunal that I expected.

She seemed particularly concerned with the possible fate of the accused.

Naturally, I avoided going into any details.

Nearly two years have passed

and matters have proceeded very differently from how I expected.

It is much more difficult and exhausting,

so I grab any opportunity to get away.

The beaches around Tokyo are especially attractive to me.

Although they remind me of how much I miss Holland, Lise, and the children.

Meanwhile, MacArthur has appointed a replacement for President Webb.

He had first asked Lord Patrick

who refused for health reasons.

Eventually the role fell to his fellow American, General Cramer.

No Justice Pal?

He continues to avoid court days

while staying locked away in his rooms.

This is a dereliction of his duty.

Enter.

Hello.

What's on your mind, Justice Roling?

You haven't been in court on several occasions now

and I just wondered why.

I need time to work on my judgment.

But we haven't heard all the testimony yet.

So, how can you produce a judgment?

I've heard much of the testimony,

read the transcripts,

spent my time researching on the legal texts.

The chronology of events in the Pacific,

even the history of Japan.

For instance, during Edo period,

the Japanese were a feudal nation

that preferred isolation from the rest of the world.

Yes.

When that ended in 1868,

they somehow became obsessed

with imitating Western nations,

and most of whom were expanding and colonizing

for economic profit.Yes.

Japan followed the example of the West.

And that didn't quite work out, did it?

Indeed, no.No.

But from the beginning, their desire to build a strong economy

put them at odds with those they were imitating, with many nations.

But the Japanese military were after more than economic dominance in Asia.

And that's what triggered a war.

So the Americans fire-bombed Tokyo?

Dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

cities full of innocent people?

The question to ask is,

who first started this aggressive war?

Who first started this war? It's...

To look at it that way is very simplistic.

The real question is,

on what legal ground can we charge them?

Roling, you wrote a paper that argued

as a jurist

we must be objective.Mmm-hmm.

Don't tell me you've decided to

bow down to the pressures of your government

and to the majority.

Indeed, I am no longer so sure of my convictions.

During the last few months,

I have spent long hours thinking and reading

and am now inclined to reverse my previously-held position.

My colleagues may well consider me a weathercock.

But a scholar must never be afraid of changing his mind.

President Webb.

Justice Bernard.

Are you officially back in the fold?

Of course. A miracle.

Well, I did say a prayer or two.

Then God and I both leaned on General MacArthur.

Hang on a minute. I'll come right back to you.

Of course.

Gentlemen. Don't... Don't let me interrupt your dinner.

Well, I'm back.

I'll see you all in chambers, uh, on Monday morning.

Oh, and, uh, Justice Cramer,

the gavel is once again mine.

Have a nice evening.

Did you not know about this?

No, I didn't.

MacArthur probably had no choice but to let him back in,

for fear of the noise he'd make in the press.

It's an important day, I'm told.

I was very curious to hear the testimony of Togo,

the former minister of foreign affairs.

In the run up to the war, there were differences of opinion

between the military and government ministers

concerning going to war with America.

Togo, who was known to be an opponent of such a war,

was only asked to join the cabinet in October 1941

in the hope that he could save the stalled peace talks.

He was cross-examined vigorously by prosecutor Keenan

about what he saw as his great dilemma,

remain in the cabinet or resign.

Mr. Togo, I am asking a very simple question

and you are not answering it at all.

I am asking you if it isn't a fact

that if you had remained in the cabinet

and had refused to give your affirmative consent to war,

if it isn't a fact

that there could not have been war lawfully made by Japan?

Now, will you answer the question?

Well, I was trying.

I have been attempting to explain the situation to you

because even if I did oppose war, war action came.

Mr. President, I have attempted to be

as patient as I know how with this witness.

May I ask the court to direct this witness

to answer the question asked of him?

Well, I will ask him the question as I understand it.

To go to war, was it necessary

for your cabinet to be unanimous?

If I cast an opposing vote, we cannot.

No cabinet decision could be reached.

But what the situation at the time was

requires some explanation.

It was the feeling in Japan that Japan was being forced

to choose between war and suicide.

And so, the opinion agreed

that, under such a situation,

there was no alternative, no choice for Japan

but to engage in war for her self-defense.

I cannot conceive that I could have prevented war

by acting in such a manner, that is, by resignation.

The Japanese were still engaged in negotiations with us

right up to the day of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Your point being?

They may have been stalling for time

while they made their war plans.

Oh, absolutely!

Dealing with the Americans as foreign minister,

and knowing your leadership was planning war...

It means Togo was part of the conspiracy.

I tend to believe that he was against war.

Then he should have stood up to the others

and resigned.

Without unanimous agreement,

the whole cabinet would have had to resign.

They would have appointed a new prime minister.

And history might have taken a different course.

Togo himself said

that they would have replaced him with someone else who supported war.

That is pure conjecture.

I say we leave conjecture out of it, and stick to the facts.

It was nice meeting you. Bye-bye.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Are you leaving?Yes.

You played quite nicely tonight.

Thank you very much, but I have a great teacher.

Though you can be very strict.

These women you were talking with,

I saw you with them at the courthouse.

I only met Edith that very day.

She's also German.

And what's her interest in the trial?

I discovered that she's the wife of the former foreign minister, Togo.

Ise is their daughter.

Edith is very worried.

Her husband was only doing his duty as a politician.

Please forgive me.

Bert, please come back inside.

You compromised my position.

People's lives are at stake, Roling.

There are some good, decent men at that dock.

Men this country is going to need in order to rebuild itself.

I need to make decisions based on my own research,

on my own ability.

And to put me in the company

of people who are related to defendants

jeopardizes my position.

Please,

leave me off your invitation lists from now on.

I have only myself to blame.

In previous conversations with Eta,

I have perhaps been too frank

about my position in the tribunal.

But this was the limit.

I had no choice but to end my friendship with her,

however much I will miss playing music together.

In the meantime, I'm trying to get clear in my mind

the varying positions taken by the military

and civil leaders in the different cabinets.

I was surprised to discover

how may there were, who, like Togo,

tried to avoid war.

One of the last to be cross-examined was Hideki Tojo.

Both prime minister and minister of war

when Japan carried out its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

During his solitary confinement at the Sugamo Prison,

he had compiled a huge document

to support his own defense.

Later, Tojo was interrogated

by the defense council for the Marquis Kido,

the Emperor's closest adviser throughout the war

and also the liaison between Hirohito and the government.

Mr. Logan.

If the tribunal pleases,

this is on behalf of accused Kido.

Do you know of any instance where Marquis Kido

gave any advice contrary

to the Emperor's wishes for peace?

Insofar as I know, there was no such instance whatsoever.

There is no Japanese subject

who would go against the will of His Majesty.

Most particularly, among high officials of the Japanese government.

Do you know the implications resulting from your reply?

President Webb,

do you think that Tojo meant that the Emperor approved the war?

Sir, any comment at all?

Here. Eight days before Pearl Harbor,

the Emperor had a meeting with the navy minister

and chief of staff of the navy.

So, he could have vetoed the attack.

Absolutely.And he didn't.

It might be an appropriate moment to ask you a few questions

on the relative position of yourself and the Emperor of Japan

on the matter of waging war in December of 1941.

You have told us

that the Emperor, on repeated occasions,

made known to you that he was a man of peace

and did not want war. Is that correct?

Of course it was.

Furthermore, you also said three days ago

that no Japanese subject

would go against the will of His Majesty.

Is that also correct?

I was then speaking to you of my feelings towards the Emperor

as a subject,

and that is quite a different matter from the problem of responsibility,

that is, the responsibility of the Emperor.

Well, you did make war against the United States,

Great Britain and the Netherlands, did you not?

War was decided on in my cabinet.

Was that the will of the Emperor Hirohito that war should be instituted?

It might have been against the Emperor's will,

but it is a fact that, because of my advice

and because of the advice given by the high command,

the Emperor consented,

though reluctantly, to the war.

The Emperor's feelings in this regard

can be clearly ascertained from...

Tojo now denied the Emperor's responsibility for starting the war.

That is to say, the Imperial Rescript

contains words to this effect,

"The war is indeed unavoidable and is against my own desire."

Do you claim that as prime minister of Japan,

in whatever you had to do with the war

that commenced with the attack on Pearl Harbor,

that you committed no legal wrong and no moral wrong?

I feel that I committed no wrong.

I feel that I did what was right and true.

After more than two years since the end of the war,

Tokyo has changed considerably,

and the population is starting to dream of a better future.

At the tribunal, all the witnesses have been heard

and we can finally start to work on our judgment.

For me, this means

that it's high time to inform the others of my conclusions

regarding crimes of aggression.

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.

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.

Good morning.Justice Roling.

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 said,

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 pre-established 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.

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 way we cannot waiver from our position.

Then I'll not accept it your way.

There is no option left to me

but to do what Pal has done

and write a dissenting opinion and publish it.

Even though by doing so, I am breaking the confidentiality

of the judges' chambers.

Something which, ironically, I proposed.

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.

General MacArthur didn't bring me back here

just to stand by and watch.

I'm gonna 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've just heard that Webb is gonna write his own action.

Well, 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!

I want to thank you all

for your hard work and dedication.

Now we're entering the final stretch.

We have much work before us.

So let's get to it.

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.

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.

Yes. Well, I think it's best I get started right away.

Good man.

Why don't you take that spot over there?

I'll I get you a cup of coffee.

Nice to meet you.

Roling. How nice of you to come.

How are you?

Phlebitis.

Other complications in the legs.

Nothing that will keep me down for long.

I truly hope you get back up on your feet.

Oh, I'm not so sure you want that too soon.

Roling,

understand.

I once believed the world was full of possibility.

I saw two World Wars destroy Europe.

After the first, international conferences

didn't stop the second.

Can you get the pillow?

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.

I wanted to tell you in person that...

I'm 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 it 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.

Very good.

Accentuate this point here.

Thank you.

Only missing a time sequence.

Got it here.

Ah, good.

Excuse me.

Come in.

Northcroft.

Here we are.

Roling. Roling!

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.

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.

Damned if I know how they did it so fast.

And what about our dissenting opinions?

Is any of that considered or included?

Unclear, but still possible.

This is so absurd and disrespectful.

Note that the penalties have been left blank.

They acceded to my request

that all 11 justices consider the options.

I hope a majority of us will preclude the death penalty.

So Webb forced the concession

that the judges would discuss the principal

of the death penalty first.

He was himself strongly opposed to its use,

because, he argued, as long as the Emperor

remained immune to prosecution,

hanging a subordinate would be unjust.

To his deep disappointment,

the majority disagreed with him.

Including me.

Very well.

It's clear that the death penalty is an option.

And so the process of deciding

each defendant's punishment begins.

I pleaded for the acquittal

of three former foreign ministers.

Togo, Shigemitsu and Hirota,

who was also, for a short time, prime minister.

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...

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.

Mmm-hmm.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mmm.

I won't vote for his death, though.

Let's call the vote.

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.

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.

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't cast too wide a net over everything.

It is a concept only found

in the Anglo-American justice system.

Well, where are we?

Uh, the Japanese were fascists, like Nazis.

Together they schemed the world domination.

The Soviet Union was their big target.

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 Roling.

Otherwise, in the future,

nobody will take the risk that Togo took.

Under the law, he is guilty.

This is the precedent we should set.

Let us vote.

Nearly 1,000 days since we began.

Sometimes it felt interminable.

Yes, it's a long time to wait for justice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And so, the die is cast.

Unlike at Nuremberg, no one has been found innocent here.

Sixteen of the accused received life sentences

and seven will be hung.

Convicted of conventional war crimes

and crimes of aggression.

Hirota is the only civilian to receive the death penalty.

That pains me.

In any case,

after two and a half years,

I'm just happy to be able to go home

and take my wife and children in my arms.

But I will be leaving Tokyo with mixed feelings.

Despite all our internal disagreements,

I hope we have contributed to the progress of human rights,

and perhaps we have even helped prevent

a future war with nuclear weapons.

Only time will tell.

Eager to get back to your garden?

Oh, yes.

I'm looking forward to it a great deal.

I must say how much I appreciated your work, Justice Roling.

Even some of your arguments.

We may have saved millions of future lives.

I hope so.

Northcroft is suggesting a permanent tribunal

to try war criminals,

but not led by the United States.

Maybe locate it in the Netherlands.

Here we are.

Oh, McDougall, nice to see you.

Justice Patrick. Justice Roling.

I think you're at the end.

Justice Pal, I'm afraid you're around the back.

So are you, and so are you, Mr. McDougall.

And, uh, we're where we are.

Shall we... General, if you'd like to pop your...

Pop yourself down there.