All language subtitles for Tokyo.Trial.2017.720p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

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.