All language subtitles for tokyo.trial.s01e04.480p.webrip.x264.rmteam

On February 11th, 1948,
at the Tokyo Tribunal for the Far East,

Chief Prosecutor Keenan
begins closing arguments.

He states that the responsibility
for Japan's militaristic actions

rests not with the people
but with their leaders.

On April 16th, the proceedings
of the Tokyo war crimes trial

come to a close.

The world now waits
while the tribunal judges

consider all of the evidence
and arrive at their verdict.

Good morning.

- Justice Röling.
- Good morning.

Um...

I would like you to know
that I would support...

your position on crime of aggression,

if you would agree
to certain considerations.

That's interesting.

The crime of aggression
is an ex post facto law,

which is a problem for me.

However, I have decided to be realistic
if I want to shape how this trial ends.

If, as you say,
we agree to certain considerations.

Correct.

Let me be clear that my reasons

for recognizing crimes of aggression
are different than yours.

I have concluded that one
can reasonably construe this

as comparable to a political crime
in domestic law.

Political criminals are at times detained

when their actions
threaten national stability.

And I think that we should argue
from this preestablished legal platform.

Thus, we can state
that those responsible for starting a war

ought to be subject to punishment

on the grounds that,
if they remain free,

they might disturb
the international order.

Otherwise, peace and progress
may never be achieved.

I'm afraid not, Röling.

We will all be upholding the principle...

established by the precedence
of the Nuremberg judgment...

and by the Pact of Paris of 1928...

that wars of aggression are illegal.

Look, we've all come
to the same conclusion.

You just came by a different route.

Why obsess about it?

Uh, because, above all else,
our profession is meant to...

to interpret laws,
which, by their very nature,

can be understood in different ways.

And nothing is more important
than the reasons for that interpretation.

We have to keep in mind
that differences in the reasons...

may lead to differences in the verdicts
and the sentencing.

And that is why we cannot waver
from our position.

Then, I'll not accept it your way.

Hello?

Ah, President Webb.

I hope I'm not interrupting anything.

No, not at all.

When can I expect
the verdicts to be delivered?

Well, General, we have 49,000 pages
of evidence to consider.

We have to get a move on, sir.

- One orange juice, please.
- Sir.

- Hello.
- Hmm.

- Is this your wife?
- Yes.

She's beautiful.

I finally heard from her today,
on our wedding anniversary.

- She's safe?
- Mmm.

Such a relief.

That's fantastic.

I... I cannot imagine...

the strain of being here
with a civil war going on in China.

Thank you.

This is my family.

Wow! So many children.

Yep.

I would like to have one more, but...

I'm not so sure my wife would agree.

Well, we've reached an important, uh,
crossroad in our deliberations.

Once those decisions have been made,
we can all get back to our lives

and families, however large.

I, um...

I find myself at odds
with Patrick's group...

- and about the crime of aggression.
- Hmm.

And I was wondering
if you were joining their camp.

The vast majority of judges are Western.

I want to be sure
that what I decide for Asia is good...

and also seen as fair
by the rest of the world. So...

I am joining the majority.

Well...

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.

General MacArthur didn't bring me
back here just to stand by and watch.

- I'm going to write my own judgment.
- Your own?

As the president, I have the right and
the responsibility to write a judgment.

One that speaks for all the judges.

I am glad you've agreed
to join the majority.

Hmm.

The majority view is reasonable,
proportionate and fair.

It honors the victims.

But, um...

I have to say...

I still have some doubts
about doing this without Justice Webb.

He is the president of the tribunal.

But on the defense motion to dismiss

on the ground that the crime of aggression
did not exist,

President Webb was unable
to write a strong report.

Neither could he unite us all.

Don't you agree?

Well, yes.

We appreciate that you want to write
the sections pertaining to China.

You are vital in truly bringing
some closure to the war with Japan.

Let's hope so.

Are you feeling all right?

Just lately, I have become obsessed

with eating a piece of good Scottish beef
with a decent Yorkshire pudding.

I don't seem to have appetite
for anything else at all.

Very good.

Accentuate this point here.

Thank you.

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

But how can he do that by himself?

It'll run to 500 pages.

Unlike us, he's got his own staff...

Patrick!

Help! Someone!

Get an ambulance.

Patrick.

Patrick!

His lungs and circulation
are under a great deal of strain.

But they say he'll make a recovery.

What do we do now?

- Press ahead.
- Mmm.

But we're gonna need some help.

Right.

Good morning, everyone.

This is Quentin Quentin-Baxter,

a specialist in drafting legal documents

who I've invited here
to help with our cause.

I'm proud to say
he's also from New Zealand.

Yes. Well, I think
I best get started right away.

Good man.

Why don't you take that spot over there
while I get you a cup of coffee?

Okay.

General Zaryanov of Soviet Union.

He wants it clear that he will write
the section on Shigemitsu.

This man's fate is very important to us.

Great. He writes the draft,
and I'll take a pass at it

so that it fits with the rest
of our document.

He will be aggravated by your response.

It implies immediate disrespect
to say that you'll alter his words.

I thought you were the interpreter.

I have been present in every meeting
of this trial from the beginning.

I know the stakes involved,

and I know how best to prevent
an unnecessary incident.

Tell the General I will be happy
to receive his section on Shigemitsu.

Röling, 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.

Röling...

understand...

I once believed
the world was full of possibility.

And now?

I saw two world wars destroy Europe.

After the first, international conferences
didn't stop the second.

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.

You make it all sound so simple.

Ah... I admit it's very complicated.

But people who start wars
must be held accountable,

and this is the quickest
and clearest way to do that.

I wanted to tell you in person...

that I am writing
my own dissenting opinion.

I think that you and I
have the same objective.

But as a jurist,
I cannot compromise on my principles,

even if this means that I'm alone in this.

Now that we are laying our knives
upon the table...

I should tell you that
I intend to fulfill the charter.

Good.

All the best.

Thank you.

Only missing a time sequence.

Got it here.

Ah, good.

Are you happy with Quentin-Baxter's work?

What I like is how he cleverly amended
Zaryanov's position against Shigemitsu.

It's less harsh.

Röling.

What's so important
to bring you out this way?

I... I have written a dissenting opinion.

You do know that every dissenting opinion

can be used to deny the legitimacy
of the tribunal and the final judgment.

Too many elements of the majority judgment
are in my view very flawed.

I could never put my name to it.

The United Nations passed a resolution
that favors the Nuremburg principles.

The Netherlands supported it.

Your dissent will undermine
our commitment to international law.

I remind you that I am here
as an independent judge.

You've lost your bearings.

You're acting like some sort of misguided
post-war resistance hero.

But you will only give hope
to war criminals.

Given all the time we judges
have spent on this tribunal

and all that I have studied and heard,

I am doing what I believe is right.

Hmm.

Excuse me.

Come in.

Northcroft.

Here we are.

- Röling, 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.

If it's any consolation,

they dismissed the murder count
for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And what about our dissenting opinions?

Is any of that considered or included?

Unclear, but still possible.

- This is so absurd and disrespectful!
- Here...

Damned if I know how they did it so fast.

Note that the penalties
have been left blank.

They acceded to my request
that all 11 justices consider the options.

Now, this is our last chance.

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

So... we'll start with a discussion
on the death penalty,

which I personally abhor.

With the emperor absolved, how could we
send his subordinates to the gallows?

Very well.

We'll start from this side
and move around the table.

The death penalty is essential.

Um, men like Tojo can be blocked
from power just with a life sentence.

So, as you know,

I am totally against the death penalty.

I agree with Justice Bernard.

Let me add this.

The emperor,
who was able to terminate the war...

could also have prevented it
from the start.

Thus, it would be manifestly unjust
to hand out death penalties

to the cabinet ministers
and military officers alone.

If we do not impose the death penalty,

then the government could release them
when Japan gets back its sovereignty.

They'll have slipped through our hands,
and they'll stir up another war.

Justice Northcroft?

I personally find
the death penalty distasteful.

However, I will be asking for
the strongest possible punishment...

to prevent any further threats
to New Zealand.

I will be asking for the death penalty.

Justice Jaranilla?

If we walked from here
to the far side of Tokyo...

and counted every tree,

every leaf that's still living...

the number we arrived at
would hardly add up

to the soldiers and the civilians
killed by this war.

There should be a death penalty.

Uh, I'm not here to seek revenge, but...

the crimes they committed,
the atrocities,

are just too horrendous to be overlooked.

Justice Zaryanov,

will you uphold Stalin's policy
to abandon the death penalty?

He cannot vote death.

We know that you oppose.

I hold each and every one of the accused
must not be found guilty.

Justice Röling, how do you vote?

We abolished capital punishment
in the Netherlands.

But, right after the war,
we implemented a special law

that allowed us to execute
Nazi collaborators.

It was an exceptional ruling,
brought about by unthinkable crimes.

And with that in mind,
I support the death penalty

for those responsible for atrocities.

But I insist the death penalty
not be applied to crimes of aggression.

Justice McDougall?

At Nuremberg,
they handed down death sentences...

but not for those convicted
only on the crime of aggression.

So, I stand with Röling.

Yes for atrocities.

No to the sole charge of aggression.

I concur with my colleague
from the Philippines.

They committed egregious crimes
in China and throughout the Pacific.

Of course, some defendants' crimes
were more serious than others.

I say that in certain cases...

the death penalty is required.

But did this trial...

treat the accused fairly enough

to the extent that we can,
with confidence,

say it's permissible to take their lives?

There is a danger that we,
the Allied powers,

may be viewed as exacting revenge

on the leaders of the nation we defeated.

Before this trial began,

some Allied leaders insisted that,
instead of convening a tribunal,

we should carry out
summary executions by firing squad.

We have spent two and a half years

hearing evidence from both
the defense and the prosecution.

We have even listened
to some propaganda-inspired speeches

by the accused.

To ensure a fair trial,
the Allied powers made the effort

to invite 11 justices
from 11 Allied nations.

Indeed.

So how much fairer could we have been?

Very well.

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

Although, very few of us seem eager
to hand out death sentences

on charges of aggression alone.

So then, we proceed to sentencing.

The accused, Shigetaro Shimada,
was minister of the navy

in Prime Minister Tojo's cabinet

when Japan started the war
with the United States,

and later doubled as naval chief of staff.

He was charged,
not only with responsibility

for starting war of aggression,

but also with responsibility
for atrocities committed by the navy

in the form of conventional war crimes.

Admiral Shimada.

There are those of us who do not believe
he deserves the death penalty.

I disagree.

Death.

We must mete out harsh penalties,

including capital punishment,

to those responsible for atrocities.

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.

The accused, Koki Hirota,

served as prime minister
and foreign minister

during the period when Japan
expanded the war into China and Asia.

He is charged with the responsibility
for starting war of aggression

and with responsibility for atrocities
or conventional war crimes

committed in Nanking.

Hirota chose not to take
the witness stand.

Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister Hirota...

He remained silent throughout the trial.

Well, to me, that says
he considers himself responsible.

Just because a man stays silent,
it doesn't mean he's guilty.

Uh, he was given the opportunity
to defend himself.

And, uh...
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.

He's right.

Hirota always had his eye on Soviet Union.

The threat of communism
may have troubled him.

Just as it did in many other nations.

Are you trying to mock us
while defending fascists?

Is the war of aggression justified

when the threat of communism
reaches a particular level?

Let me repeat
what I have said many times before.

There will always be
strong and weak nations.

War, therefore, is an inevitable evil.

The international community
has not reached a stage

where war can be considered a crime.

In this circumstance, we cannot try,
convict, or punish these individuals.

My turn to repeat.

That approach
will soon trigger World War III.

In Europe, waging aggressive war
has already become a crime.

Japan accepted
the Potsdam Declaration...

which clearly states...

"Stern justice should be meted out
to all war criminals."

That should include the national leaders.

Hirota did not voice opposition to a war
when he had the chance...

at that meeting of former premiers
immediately before Pearl Harbor.

And despite knowing
about the atrocities at Nanking,

Hirota did nothing effective to abate it.

In short, he was criminally negligent.

There is evidence...

that he filed a protest
with the war minister

over what was happening in Nanking.

Then he should have resigned.

A foreign minister could have done
little to influence the army.

And beyond that, his hands were tied.

Filing a protest was all he could do?

Tell that to the people of China.

Clearly, he was guilty of inaction.

Hirota should have resigned,
or spoken directly to the emperor

to put an end to the tragedy in Nanking.

I won't vote for his death, though.

Let's call the vote.

As a member of the cabinet,

Togo attended all the meetings

prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor,

and he consented to all the decisions.

He joined the cabinet
to avoid war with America.

The evidence couldn't be clearer.

No, I say that he participated

in the Japanese conspiracy
to wage war on America.

The trouble is conspiracy can cast
too wide a net over everything.

It is a concept only found
in the Anglo-American justice system.

Well, where are we?

Uh,
the Japanese were fascists, like Nazis.

Together they schemed
the world domination.

The Soviet Union was their big target.

I'm not so sure
there was a clear plan at the outset.

I tell you,

Japan was considering a plan
to occupy Australia.

Though I agree with you
that Japan planned to occupy my country,

I don't think that was
part of their original strategy.

Once they started a war on Chinese soil,

Japan had to keep pushing
its battle lines forward

to protect and preserve
what it already conquered.

They started a fire they couldn't put out,

with the resultant consequence

that they ended up going to war
with Britain and America.

I think that's how
we should look at the whole picture.

What difference could it possibly make
how we look at it?

In the end, Japan waged
aggressive war against China

and America and Britain
and Australia and the Netherlands.

And it is Togo who is directly responsible
for Pearl Harbor.

How was he supposed to stop the military?

They were too powerful.

The simple fact is that he didn't resign.

He voted for the war.

He did not discharge his duty
as a cabinet member

to act in opposition to the war.

Let's vote, gentlemen.

No.

His purpose in remaining in the cabinet
was to end, as soon as possible,

the war that he had failed to stop.

A man who recognized his moral duty

shouldn't be made to pay
this price for his courage.

I agree with Justice Röling.

Otherwise, in the future,
nobody will take the risk that Togo took.

As I said earlier,
when the Japanese leadership met to decide

whether or not go to war
with the United States and Great Britain,

in the end Togo voted for war.

Had he opposed it,
the cabinet would have dissolved

and a new prime minister
would have been selected.

I hardly call that an attempt on Togo's
part to stop the war from happening.

Under the law, he is guilty.

This is the precedent we should set.

Togo is hardly to blame
for the war with China.

As for the American Pacific War...

he cannot be absolved completely.

Let us vote.

In November 1948,

two and a half years
after the trial began,

President Webb takes seven days
to read out in court

the final judgment of 1,212 pages.

On the last day of court,

the sentences are presented
to each of the accused.

A moment dividing them
between life or death.

So, at the last moment,

you also chose
to write a separate opinion?

After reading Pal's lengthy paper,

I decided it was my primary duty

to counter his one-sided defense
of the Japanese...

Mmm.

- ...with a supplementary opinion.
- Mmm.

Nearly 1,000 days since we began.

- Sometimes it felt interminable.
- Yes.

It's a long time to wait for justice.

Under the charter,

the judgment I have read
is the judgment of the tribunal.

The member for India
dissents from the majority judgment

and has filed a statement of his reasons
for such dissent.

The members for France and the Netherlands

dissent in part from the majority judgment

and have filed statements
of their reasons for such dissents.

The member for the Philippines
has filed a separate opinion

concurring with the majority.

Generally, I share the view
of the majority as to the facts,

but without recording any dissent...

I have filed a brief statement
of my reasons

for upholding the charter

and the jurisdiction of the tribunal...

and some general considerations
that influenced me

in deciding on the sentences.

These documents will be part of the record

and will be available
to the supreme commander,

the defense counsel,

and to others who may be concerned.

Defense counsel have applied
for a reading in court

of these separate opinions,

but the tribunal
had already considered the matter

and decided that
they should not be so read.

The tribunal adheres to this decision.

Accused Hirota Koki,

on counts of the indictment
on which you have been convicted,

the International Military Tribunal
for the Far East

sentences you...

to death by hanging.

Accused Togo Shigenori...

on the counts of the indictment
on which you have been convicted...

the International Military Tribunal
for the Far East...

sentences you to imprisonment
for 20 years.

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.

General Cramer, I want to thank you
sincerely for all the help.

My pleasure, Lord Patrick.

You have the power
to mitigate the sentences of Togo,

of Hirota, of Shigemitsu.

The tribunal asked me
to stay out of the courtroom.

I stayed out.

But you are the only one
who can reduce their sentences.

Look, look, look...
this is not the time to be looking back.

Japan is a democracy.

They have a brand new constitution.

Women have the right to hold
political office for the very first time.

They're rebuilding,
and the rest of the world is moving on.

Take a look at what's going on
in East Berlin,

the Korean peninsula,
not to mention the Soviets.

There will be other battles to be fought,
other wars to be won.

Right now, be grateful
that your time here is over.

You get to go home.

Some defense lawyers
are preparing to file an appeal

with the Supreme Court
of the United States.

And if that appeal is upheld,

I would come back
to Japan for a retrial...

and we could see each other again.

Do you personally think
this might happen?

Well, I don't think so.

Two and a half years of work
will not be reversed.

A gift for you.

A Hiroshige print.

Thank you.

This is beautiful.

As Hiroshige did with van Gogh,

you provided me with inspiration.

I am glad to have met you,
Professor Bert Röling.

I'm glad that I met you, Takeyama-san.

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 Röling.

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.

Oh, maybe located in the Netherlands.

Ah, there you are!
All right, let's go.

Here we are.

Oh, McDougall, nice to see you.

Justice Patrick.
Justice Röling.

I think you're at the end.

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

So are you, and so are you.

Uh, we're where we are.

Shall we... General, pop your...
pop yourself there, okay?