All language subtitles for tokyo.trial.s01e02.webrip.x264-w4f

President Webb, Justice Cramer,

Judge Advocate General
and our man to replace Higgins.

-Justice Cramer.
-Justice Webb.

I, uh, read your dossier.

You studied at Harvard.

Yes. Yes, I did.
Did you?

Uh, no. Queensland.

Sir William has a very tough job of it.

But I assure you,
he has both hands on the reins.

[theme music playing]

[narrator] July 1946.

The prosecution's argument
shifts its focus onto atrocities

committed by the Japanese military
on the Chinese mainland.

December 1937.

The ever-advancing Japanese military
occupied Nanking.

The prosecution
begins examining witnesses,

and argues that many prisoners
and non-combatants

were killed at that time.

For the first time,
the judges will hear testimony

from Chinese witnesses on this incident.

Witness Hsu Chuan-Ying
testifies about what he saw

three days after the occupation
of Nanking began.

"On Main Street,
I even started trying to count

the number of corpses
lying on both sides of the street.

And I started to count
more than 500 myself.

I say it was no use counting them."

In cross-examination,
the defense tries to suggest

that there might have been
so-called plainclothed troops

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

Hsu Chuan-Ying answers with,
"That might be.

But still, you see,
we consider them non-combatants

before they gather themselves
together again

to engage in the hostile activities."

On the same day,
Shang Teh-Yi takes the witness stand.

As he does not speak English,

the prosecutor reads
his previously recorded testimony.

"I was taken to the bank
of the Yangtze River

to find more than 1,000
male civilians there.

At about 4:00 p.m.,
a Japanese officer came by

and ordered the Japanese soldiers
to start machine-gunning us.

I slumped to the ground
just before the firing started,

and immediately I was covered
with corpses and fainted.

At about 9:00 p.m.,
I climbed out from the piles of corpses

and ran to my house."

Well, um...

I cannot forgive, um, such atrocities.

However, I think...

we should adjudicate them
as conventional war crimes.

There is no need to categorize them
as, uh, crimes against humanity.

Like the Nazis
with the exterminations of the Jews.

Either way,
the accused who are responsible

cannot escape such terrible crimes.

Well--

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

President Webb,
if you'd please excuse me,

I would rather we deliberate
on the crimes of aggression.

I must assert there's still
a motion on the table to rule out...

waging of aggressive war as a crime.

I'm drafting a denial to the motion.

That is completely out of order.

You can't be serious.

I'm quite serious.

[speaking Russian]

[takes deep breath]

[in English] It is absolutely clear
from the testimony

that the accused plotted to prepare
and wage an aggressive war.

With respect to the General,

the crimes of aggression
did not exist at that time.

Nor did they exist at any time
throughout the conflict in the Pacific.

Nuremberg did put the Nazis on trial
for crimes of aggression.

That was in my mind...

also a questionable act.

These terrible things exceed by far
anything in conventional jurisprudence.

Are you really saying, after everything
we've all seen today...

that you think the Japanese leadership
should be exempt?

No.

I do not condone the atrocities.

But I want to avoid

applying a law that did not exist
at the time these men took actions...

-and for which they now stand at trial.
-[McDougall] No, no.

This is senseless.

We've all agreed.

The charges stand as per the charter.

Agreed.

We also agreed that any dissenting opinion
remain in the room.

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

[Northcroft muttering]

Gentlemen, our nerves are raw enough.

Given the arduous testimony today,

I'm adjourning any further discussion.

[clears throat]

[indistinct chatter]

[Röling] I read that almost 100,000 people
were killed in one night in Tokyo.

Napalm bombs dropped by the Americans.

You were a pilot in the first war?

Yes, fighter pilot...
not bombers.

What was it like?

Dirty, cold... and loud.

The Germans shot my plane
and legs full of holes.

I was in a prisoner of war camp
for the rest of the war.

[Patrick] What do you make of Justice Pal?

And what's your view of his argument?

To reject the charges
of waging aggressive war?

For me, it's complicated.

How complicated can it be?

Before we began,
we all signed the charter.

Justice Jaranilla
wishes to start us off today.

Thank you.

Uh, before going any further, um...

I wish to say to Justice Pal that,

though I respect your opinion concerning
the charge of crimes against peace...

which we are calling
crimes of aggression...

I find it rather improper.

Many atrocities have been committed
by the Japanese army during this war...

in places like China, Indonesia, Burma...

and in my country, the Philippines.

And these atrocities happened
precisely because the Japanese leaders

engaged in lawless acts of aggression.

So I want to make it clear that I believe

charges against all defendants
are justified.

Justice Pal, as I am writing our response
concerning the defense motion

to dismiss the charge
of crimes of aggression,

do you have anything more
you wish to say?

[Pal] Yes.

I believe what the Japanese
did throughout Asia

was, uh, devilish and horrid.

And they committed
conventional war crimes.

And the Japanese officers
who committed these atrocities

have been tried in local courts
where they took place

and have been given sentences.

However, I implore each of you...

to consider more seriously my position

that there is no legal ground
for the charge of crimes of aggression.

Japan signed the Pact of Paris in 1928.

Now, it clearly states
that all the signatories

agreed to condemn war as a means
of settling international disputes.

They agreed...

to condemn war as an...
as an instrument of national policy.

But it does not provide legal ground
for criminalizing war.

And it doesn't suggest any penalties.

And it certainly doesn't say anything
about the responsibility

of the officer or the politicians
as an individual perpetrators.

Given the way countries and societies
continue to act against each other...

this Pact of Paris
is an idealistic pledge.

Charging the accused
for crimes of aggression

is allowed in our charter.

The charter is wrong.

It was a precondition
to our appointment on this tribunal.

We cannot and we should not debate
whether the charter is right or wrong.

[speaking Russian]

[in English] The General supports
what Justice McDougall says,

and you all should support that.

Yes.

But not by making up laws at will.

I agree. But...
why are we here, Justice Pal?

We are here because
we should be able to discuss...

what is the right step
for humanity to take.

And...

based on the outcome
of that discussion...

we'll make the best decisions for the law.

Respected gentlemen,

I certainly believe

law has the power to guide mankind.

So its principles must be upheld.

That is why we must acquit
all the defendants

on the charge of crimes of aggression.

For this is a law
that does not truly exist yet.

[scoffs]

If you cannot follow the Tokyo Charter,

you should return to Calcutta.

I did not come from a country
that struggles to gain its independence

in order to have my arguments discarded...

or to be told to go home.

Let's adjourn it there for today.

[chuckles softly]

[McDougall] Pal is unbelievably stubborn.

[Northcroft] Oh, we can all agree
about that.

However, he's right when he argues
that, in domestic law,

people can't be tried for actions
that were not crimes

at the time those actions were committed.

But international law evolves
under extreme circumstances.

If the Tokyo tribunal

does not strictly adhere
to Nuremberg principles...

it would mean passing judgment
on the Nazis was a mistake.

We cannot let that happen.

I agree.

Someone on MacArthur's staff

thought my skin color
deserved a lesser hotel.

But Webb fixed it.

That's good. It should have been
like that from the beginning.

Why don't you join me for some tea?

[Röling] Mahatma Gandhi.

By leading India toward independence
in a unique way,

he's an inspiration to the whole world.

What do you think?
Will independence ever truly happen?

Oh, yes.

By next year.

Then the British can pack
their suitcases. [chuckles]

[sighs]

Just what the doctor ordered.

The arguing is getting to you?

No. It's more the heat.

Hmm.

It's cooler outside.
Why don't we take a walk in the garden?

-That's a good idea.
-Mmm-hmm.

[takes deep breath]
You gave Patrick quite a shock.

Yes. He must have thought,

"What is this silly Indian
going to suggest?

The accused be set free?"

I know.
That's what I was thinking.

[Pal chuckles]

Tell me, did you read
the book I left for you

on the Pact of Paris?

Yes.

And I found it in many ways inspiring.

Mmm, good.

But that deals with the past,
not the present.

Here in Tokyo, we are talking about...

the justice in the modern world.

And yet a large part of Asia
is still colonized by the West.

These areas were conquered with violence.

The indigenous people were exploited.

Even our tea...

The British take our best leaves from us,

and we are left to drink with second-grade
or third-grade tea.

But I don't see how that
has anything to do with the court case.

Inequality and racism still exist.

Look at your own country,

how it suppresses Indonesians
in the so-called Dutch East Indies.

Well, we have tried
to bring them prosperity.

We prepared them for independence.

Just recently, you have sent
100,000 soldiers there.

[sighs] With all the chaos,
we had no choice.

Röling... your colonialist spirit
is alive and well. [chuckles]

Do you ever stop banging the same drum?

[chuckles]

There again, you see?

We bang drums while you send troops

to fight so-called terrorists.

In reality, they're freedom fighters
who want to reclaim their country.

So what gives the Dutch, the English,
the French, the Americans

the right to judge the Japanese

for their claim
that they wanted to free Asia?

[stammers] It didn't sound like they
were freeing the people of Nanking,

or the rest of Asia.

I like your fighting spirit, Röling.

[chuckles]

It gives me a reason to keep drumming.

-[piano playing]
-[indistinct chatter]

What do you think?

Well, gentlemen...

that's my argument for the existence
of the charge of crimes of aggression.

I believe it comprehensibly
refutes the defense motion

and puts an end to our closed debates.

It does not change my opinion.

Well, there are some very,
very interesting, uh...

historical references. And--

[Mei] I don't want to sound rude,
but, um...

the content seems written
by first year law students.

[Webb] My assistants drafted it.

Under my direction, of course.

I believe it's erudite,
concise and effective.

On the contrary, it rambles when you quote
Aristotle and the Dutch scholar Grotius.

-[scoffs] Why not also include Confucius?
-[all chuckle]

Grotius is the father
of international law,

as relevant now as he was then.

You should have made clear that this court
is completely in line with Nuremberg.

Short and simple.

Well, as I said, it's only a draft.

Then we'll wait for the next one.

Sir, you once said the trial
would be over in six months.

Can you tell us why you're
so far behind schedule?

There's a lot of evidence to consider.

Sir, I heard some judges aren't
getting along.

We're all working together

to get through this
as quickly as we possibly can.

-Please wait here.
-Yes.

Okay.

Arigato.

[footsteps approaching]

HerrRöling.

Good evening.

I'm glad you accepted my invitation.

Well, I'm very thrilled
that we're going to play together.

Well, that remains to be seen.

The list of violinists I would play with,
in public or private...

is very short.

Mein lieber Gott,do you think me rude?

I think you're very German.

Good, you have a sense of humor.

[chuckles]

I wonder what else
I might get to know about you.

Well...

ask away.

Are you married?

Yes, and we have five children.

How impressive.

And yet you leave them all behind

to sit in that horrible courtroom
and accomplish what?

Justice.

Justice.

Let's see how well you play...

if you can make my short list.

[Webb] I'm bending over backwards
to accommodate your opinion here.

[McDougall] That's what gives us
our structure, our framework.

[Webb] But we must move forward,

or the whole blinking thing
will grind to a halt.

[McDougall] And we'll be left
wandering around in the dark.

We'll be lost.

Gentlemen.
May I?

Please, please.

Oh, just a glass of water, please.

The prosecution will soon start
focusing on the Philippines.

I was witness to the Bataan Death March.

Tens of thousands of Filipino
and American POWs walked for days

under the scorching sun,

only to find themselves
in dreaded prison camps.

In the Battle of Manila, I saw
Japanese soldiers kill civilians.

I was forced to flee as my own home
was burned to the ground.

This experience remains emotional for me.

Thus I have reached a decision not to sit
during the testimony on the Philippines.

But the testimony is about your country.

You must help lead
the discussion afterwards.

Well, I can help, uh, lead the discussion
without hearing the testimony.

[stammers] It's a memory
I live with every day.

I do not want to jeopardize my authority

if I am seen betraying
my emotions in court.

You are an honest man, and you have made
the right decision, I believe.

[violin and piano playing]

Your phrasing is still wrong.
Go again.

Uh, right away?

No, tomorrow.
Of course. Try it again.

Ja?

-[Röling sighs] I give up.
-[both stop playing]

So...

now it's my turn to ask questions.

Bitte.

How did a German woman end up
in the middle of the war in Japan?

The translation to your question:
am I a Nazi?

Ever heard of Paul Hindemith?

Yes.

He's a brilliant German composer.

The Nazis thought his music was decadent,

so they fired him
from the Academy of Berlin.

I protested.

Because I was rein arisch and famous,
the Nazis had a problem.

I love Asian music,

so the Ministry of Public Enlightenment
and Propaganda

strongly suggested a study trip to Japan.

And when the Nazis attacked
the Soviet Union in '41,

I was not able to return

because I could not take
the Trans-Siberian Railway.

Sorry.

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

Well, you must also have experienced
such nonsense.

[sniffles] What do you mean?

Well, your country
was occupied by the Nazis.

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

Personally, I, uh...

I didn't suffer too much,
compared to others.

[narrator] In December 1946,

the prosecution directs its arguments

towards actions by the Japanese military
in the Philippines.

Along with the Battle of Manila,

the Bataan Death March
was considered a typical example

of Japanese military atrocities.

Donald Ingle. Age is 27, and my
permanent address is Laura, Illinois.

[narrator] In answer to the prosecutor,

Ingle testifies that, "Even the lack
of food could've been stood,

and I suppose that going without water
could've been taken...

but the continued marching for hours
in the burning sun was too much.

Men were continuously taken
out of the column and shot

or bayonetted for no reason."

[Röling] "Dear Lies,
the trial is well past six months now.

And it does not look like it
will come to an end any time soon.

The views I started with are changing,

and so I have decided to present a paper
to my colleagues that reflects my opinion.

It's all very exhausting.

Aside from playing my violin,

I have taken to visiting the seaside
in order to clear my head.

On one of my excursions,

I had the good fortune
to meet a writer of some renown.

His name is Michio Takeyama.

His latest book is calledHarp of Burma.

I look forward to meeting him again,

as he is considered one of Japan's
leading intellectuals...

and the trips to the ocean
remind me so much of home."

So... how long have you been writing?

Many years.

My real profession
is the study of German literature.

-Ah!
-[both speaking German]

Do you speak German?

A little...

I read it better.

[in English] I understand.

And have you spent time in Germany?

Yes. Three years.

And were you able to visit
my country as well?

No.

But I did fall in love
with many Dutch painters.

Masters of light and color.

You know that Vincent van Gogh...

was fascinated by Japanese art.

He was influenced
by the ukiyo-e woodblock prints.

Especially the work of Hiroshige.

Yes.

He based two of his paintings
on Hiroshige's work.

If I had the chance,
I would love to see more of his prints.

[Takeyama] I will see that you do.

[Röling] That would be very nice.

Is the trial proceeding as you expected?

Well... [grunts]

...in many ways, yes, and in others, no.

Can I ask you something?

What do the Japanese people
think of the tribunal?

[sighs] There are some
who have doubts about the trial.

And why do they have doubts?

The militarist should not be tolerated.

But some Japanese believe
a few of the accused

have been made into scapegoats.

[Webb] Justice Röling
has prepared a paper for us.

It's entitled...

"No Legal Basis for the Charge
of Crimes of Aggression."

So... you were with us
right up until Justice Pal arrived.

Now you jump ship.

I assure you that I arrived
at this opinion on my own.

I wrote this paper

so that we might properly
consider the legal gaps,

which go as far back as the Pact of Paris,
right through to our own charter.

Surely we've argued
that particular point exhaustively.

-The Paris Convention is quite clear.
-[Röling] Yes.

[Northcroft] Waging aggressive war
is illegal.

[Röling] But there is no agreement
in the Pact of Paris

that individuals
should be held responsible.

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

future legal scholars
will question our decisions.

[Mei] I applaud
your concern for scholarship,

but, um, future legal minds
will always raise questions.

It is their responsibility.

Exactly.

War is a policy
executed by a sovereign state.

And if so,

then how can we legally determine

the level of guilt or punishment
for each individual in that state?

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

[Pal] No, it does not.

It does not.

It would be possible,

if the international community matured

to the stage where it has the authority
to criminalize aggressive war,

or punish individuals
who waged such a war.

But, unfortunately, we are not there yet.

People who thought as you do...

failed to create strong laws
after World War I.

And now, here we are,

trying to pick up the pieces
and prevent future war.

Let me repeat.

According to the Pact of Paris,
each country can judge for itself

whether its action constitutes
self-defense or aggression.

It was described as a sovereign right.

That interpretation... is mistaken.

Are you trying to tell us

that it allowed the Germans
to take whatever they wanted?

To murder whomever they chose?

That it allowed the Japanese
to march into China unchecked?

And now are you trying to tell us

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

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

-[Pal] I admit...
-[liquid pouring]

...it is not an ideal position.

It is a harsh reality,
given the world as we know it.

So we must dismiss the charges.

[Cramer] It's pretty damn hard...

to ignore a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

That's not the point.

Nobody wants to ignore Pearl Harbor

or all the horrible things
you are talking about,

but please, gentlemen, once again...

we must be careful
not to be moved by, um...

a feeling of revenge.

Look...

I support the need for war

when the rights and borders
of independent nations are threatened.

And I also believe that war criminals
should be severely punished.

I first endorsed the charter
on political and ethical grounds,

and not as an objective jurist.

But...

after more research
and a great deal of thought...

I now agree with Justice Pal.

[Mei] With so many victims,

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

[Zaryanov speaking Russian]

[in English] The General asks if your
views are supported by your country.

-No.
-[interpreter] Nyet.

I don't have to ask my government.

[speaking softly in Russian]

[Zaryanov speaking Russian]

[in English] General Zaryanov
calls for you to withdraw the memorandum.

I will not.

[Patrick] All right, enough of this.

Sir William, as president of the tribunal,

do you at least agree that the charter
is the foundation for this tribunal?

And that we are legally
and morally bound to honor it?

Yes, of course I do.

-Thank you.
-[knocking on door]

Yes?

-Gentlemen, five minutes.
-Thank you.

But we must allow
all opinions to be heard.

So our focus was on Pal,

-then Röling slipped off into the woods.
-[Patrick] Mmm.

I can easily see... [clears throat]
one or two others following.

You know, if we're not careful...
we are going to find ourselves outflanked.

-The main problem is Webb.
-[Northcroft] Mmm.

In trying to be neutral,

he allows too many
dissenting points of view to arise.

[coughing]

I'm going to offer my resignation.

You can't be serious.

-The whole tribunal would collapse.
-Precisely.

Even quicker,
if all three of us offer our resignations.

Well... [clears throat]

with Higgins already gone...

three of us go,
that'll be quite a scandal.

Our governments won't go for it.

No, they won't,

but they'll do whatever it takes
to keep us here.

That's quite a risky bet.

We risk more by doing nothing.

When asked what we need to stay on,
each of us ask for Webb to be removed.

No. [clears throat]
They'll never remove the president.

They will if it prevents
the total collapse of the Tokyo tribunal.

Otherwise, the validity of Nuremberg
will be tossed out of the window, too.

If all three of us make the same request,
we can force the issue.

[man] His precise words are,

"To withdraw the United Kingdom,
Canadian and New Zealand judges."

Judges McDougall of Canada
and Northcroft of New Zealand

have also sent resignations
to their governments.

MacArthur has to resolve this.

Our man in Tokyo spoke with him already.

He showed no interest
in mediating between the judges.

Is Lord Patrick sufficiently aware
of the scandal he's about to create?

If these three justices
abandon their duties,

the world will accuse the Commonwealth
of sabotaging the trial.

With great respect, Prime Minister...

Patrick was an RAF captain
during the first war.

Despite acute complications
with his health, he still went to Tokyo.

He doesn't act without forethought,
so we would be wise to assume

he is determined to leave
if he feels it necessary.

What, then, is our way out?

The letter states the problem
is with Justice Pal, the Indian,

and Justice Röling, from the Netherlands.

But mainly Webb...
the presiding judge from Australia.

Let me see it. [sighs]

I've asked for you here
because I'd like a progress report.

[Webb] Well...

the defense have requested
a summer recess,

but I'm inclined not to grant it.

Better we continue
to work our way through it.

[MacArthur] And no dissension
in the ranks?

Oh, one or two judges
are stubborn in their views,

-but it's nothing I can't handle.
-Ah.

[grunts] That is not what I've heard.

From whom?

The United Kingdom's
Liaison Mission to Tokyo, for one.

And if what I've heard is correct...

you best move on, and quickly,
before it festers.

Well... judges are naturally disputatious,

always inclined to debate.

[MacArthur] Yes,
but towards a common goal. Correct?

That's where I'm steering it.

You know, I've lead men on missions

and into battle in Mexico,
Europe, the Philippines,

and all across the Pacific.

[takes deep breath]
And if I've learned one thing,

it's that... even with
reconnaissance, preplanning,

and the good opinion
of the men closest to you,

victory always comes down...

to a will to win.

And that will to win
has to start at the very top.

THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEFEAT

PRAYING FOR PEACE

[man in Japanese] Exactly two years
after the end of the war,

at 11:05 on August 9th in Nagasaki City,

where an atomic bomb was dropped,

all citizens prayed for peace.

TRAIL OF WAR CRIMINALS REACHES A CLIMAX

[man in Japanese] The trial
of the people who caused this war

has continued for a year
and four months now.

Former minister of finance Ishibashi
took the stand on the 11th.

What are the defendants
thinking about now?

[narrator in English]
The prosecution ends its case

and the defense team begins its rebuttal.

The American lawyer Blakeney
tries to establish

that key United States officials
already foresaw the Japanese attack

just before Pearl Harbor.

He calls an American army officer
to the stand

who had been tasked
with decoding a telegram

from the Japanese government
to its embassy in Washington

before Pearl Harbor was bombed.

The telegram was an ultimatum
to be conveyed to the US government.

The witness states that the message

was decoded and sent
to President Roosevelt.

Defense lawyer Blakeney

argues that while America did not know
that Pearl Harbor would be targeted,

it did know that war was imminent.

He insists that the attack on Pearl Harbor
was, therefore, not a surprise.

I'm not convinced by Blakeney's argument.

America knowing about Japan's intention
to launch an attack

is not the same as receiving
a formal declaration of war.

And even if Roosevelt
saw the decoded message...

and therefore knew an attack was coming,

he still had no idea of, uh, when
and where exactly it could take place.

In order for them to attack Hawaii by air,

the Japanese fleet had to leave Japan
more than a week before Pearl Harbor.

But... but as Blakeney pointed out,

the time required between the warning
and the commencement of hostilities

is not specified
in any international law agreement.

It means it could be just a minute
between the two.

It's still a cold-blooded attack.

-[McDougall] Morning.
-Morning.

[McDougall] Morning.

-Morning.
-Morning.

Well... [clears throat]

my foreign minister got the message
loud and clear.

As did mine.

Do you think he knows?

[Patrick] Hmm. It isn't my finest maneuver
to broadside a decent man,

but Webb should go home...

whilst we lead this trial
to the right conclusion.

[bellboy] Sir Webb, a letter for you.

[Webb] Thank you.

General.

Sir William, I'm late for a meeting.

Here.

-They want you back in Australia?
-Yes.

"To adjudicate an important trial."

Oh, it came completely out of the blue.
I have no desire to leave Tokyo.

What the hell is going on?
You said everything was just fine.

Well, as supreme commander,
you could overrule their request.

No, no, no.
It would create more of a circus.

This is already gonna feed
the papers for months.

[takes deep breath]

No. [sighs]

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

and return to Australia.

-Very well. Thank you.
-[grunts]

[indistinct chatter]

Gentlemen...

I apologize for calling you in
at such short notice.

My government
has called me back to Australia.

I'm required to take my place
at the High Court

for an important sitting on
the nationalization of Australian banks.

The banks? But...
but the banks are not so important.

I do not have a choice.
I am at the behest of my country.

Uh, MacArthur will appoint a replacement.

[solemn music playing]