Comparative analysis of Tokyo and Nuremberg trials

Abstract

The Tokyo Trials occurred in the brief window of time between the end of World War II and the
start of the Cold War. When considering the case of Japanese war criminals, the Nazis'
Nuremberg Trials had a significant influence and created prejudice. It will attempt to refute the
widely held assumption that the Tokyo Trials and the Nuremberg Trials are interchangeable. In
the modern world, the trials are sometimes referred to as Victor's Justice, implying that the
justice dispensed was really skewed and only supported the Allied Nations account of the
conflict.1 The International Military Tribunal (also referred to as the Nuremberg Tribunal) and
the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (also referred to as the Tokyo Tribunal), two
ad hoc international war crimes tribunals the Allies established following World War II to
prosecute alleged atrocity perpetrators from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, respectively, are
contrasted in this paper.

Introduction

Leaders of the Allies discussed how to prosecute Nazi and Japanese war criminals after World
War II. The Yalta Conference laid out the procedure for bringing prominent Nazi leaders to
justice. According to the agreement, not only the German leader but also his lower-ranking allies
would be held accountable for their "atrocious acts." In the wake of World War II, the phrase
"crimes against humanity" was coined. Murder, extermination, expulsion, and other brutal acts
committed against people were considered crimes against humanity. In Nuremberg, 22 Nazi
leaders who had committed crimes against humanity were put on trial. The judicial panel was
formed by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) to supervise prosecutions of accused Nazi
officials. Over 100,000 German papers were analyzed, as well as 25,000 pictures and
considerable film evidence of Nazi crimes. 2 By the end of the trial, 12 Nazi commanders had
been sentenced to death, three to life in prison, and four to jail terms ranging from 10 to 20 years.
On April 29, 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was established
to try Imperial Japanese government officials. Charges of war crimes and crimes against
1
Yves Beigbeder, "The Pioneers: The Nuremberg and Tokyo Military Trials," International Criminal Tribunals,
2011
2
Robert C. Clarke, "Do the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials of Major Axis War Criminals Provide a Customary Legal
Basis for Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine?," SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
humanity were brought against detained Japanese leaders. The Tokyo Trials did not get nearly as
much media or public interest as the Nuremberg trials did. The Tokyo Trials lasted from May 3,
1946, until December 31, 1948. Long-lasting conflict was sparked by disagreement amongst the
presiding judges. Some judges contended that the process had been flawed from the beginning.
More than 2,200 trials against nearly 5,600 alleged war criminals were held in 51 different
places.3 A qualitative research was used to find out the disparities and similarities between
Tokyo and Nuremberg trials.

Research Objective

 To study differences and similarity between Tokyo and Nuremberg trials

Research Question

 What are the differences and similarities between Tokyo and Nuremberg trials?

Research Methodology

Qualitative research methodology was used and data was collected from secondary sources.

Literature review

Following World War II, new international military courts were established, and new regulations
governing military and political authorities were put into effect. A new international justice
standard was established, one that drew criticism, by the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. Judge
Jackson: "We have authentically recorded the Nazi aggressions, persecutions, and atrocities from
German sources." The consequence of the Allies winning the war and upholding what they saw
as justice was the trial of the Germans at Nuremburg and the trial of the Japanese in Tokyo. The
Japanese perpetrators were prosecuted in Tokyo on the basis of the Nuremburg trial, which was
the first international trial on war crimes to ever be held. Although the form of the charters that
granted the judges in these courtrooms the authority to try and determine guilt was almost
comparable, the kind of crimes committed by Germany and Japan were not very similar. The
tribunal's layout, its employees, and how they conducted themselves are all in stark contrast. The
difference that counts the most is the one that significantly influences the decision, which has

3
David M. Crowe, "The Nuremberg and Tokyo IMT Trials," Transnational Encounters between Germany and
Japan, 2016
been widely categorized into three major categories. 4 First, the judge's decision was troubled by
questions of impartiality and political interference. Second, the United States was heavily
involved in the Tokyo Trial's processes. And third, crimes against peace were pursued rather than
crimes against humanity.

Disparities

Issue of fairness
When there were differences in the processes, the problem of fairness emerged. British attorneys
were not there because the British government had forbidden them from representing clients in
foreign courts; nonetheless, American attorneys showed up two weeks after the trial had started.
The problem in this case was that the Japanese attorneys were not familiar with the western law
on the lines of which the charter was created, which greatly disadvantaged the defendants. While
only four countries prosecuted the Germans in the Nuremburg trials, eleven countries did so in
the Tokyo tribunal. Additionally, the Asian nations where Japan committed these crimes all had
distinct local languages. Thus, the importance of translators was crucial. Since the prosecution
had more translators than the defense, they were able to do their work more quickly while the
defense found it difficult to keep up. Additionally, there were "continuous security breaches" and
unauthorized media disclosures of sensitive material, which were eventually linked to the
translators working for the prosecution.
Rift between big powers
Throughout the entire tribunal hearings, the gap between the United States and Russia is quite
evident. It was impossible to imagine a society where two opposing philosophies coexisted. By
the trial's conclusion, it was clear that the United States wanted to utilize Japan as an ally in its
fight against the spread of Communism in Asia. United States Representative General
MacArthur indicated that the second round of prosecution of Class A war crimes suspects would
not be carried out once the trial's judgment was made public and the 23 defendants were given
their sentences.5 They were then freed. All of the Japanese prisoners of war onboard had been
freed by the end of the 1960s, with the exception of those in China and Russia. This helped to
make one aspect of the case very clear: the purpose of the trial was never to serve justice, but
4
Francine Hirsch, "The Soviet Union at the Palace of Justice: Law, Intrigue, and International Rivalry in the
Nuremberg Trials," Stalin’s Soviet Justice, 2019
5
Igor I. Lukashuk, "The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials: 50 Years Later," Review of Central and East European
Law 20, no. 2 (1994)
rather to "leave behind a didactic legacy and a specific historical narrative for the future Japanese
Generations," as well as to justify the American attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as retaliation
for the attack on Pearl Harbor and "ethical example of democracy, showing that the law and
justice can be applied even to enemies through a fair trial."6
Involvement of USA
More so than the Nuremburg Trial, the United States was involved in the Tokyo Tribunal. The
London Agreement, which was co-declared by the United States, France, Soviet Russia, and the
United Kingdom and later confirmed by nineteen other countries in addition to these four, served
as the foundation for the Nuremberg trials. On the other hand, General MacArthur, who
represented the United States at the Tokyo trials, was given the power to choose the judges and
the president as well as the ability to review their verdicts through the International Military
Charter of the Far East commission. The four nations that started the London Agreement chose
the judges in Nuremberg at their own discretion.
The turning point in determining that the trial was solely motivated by American political desire
to make Japan an ally in the battle against communism was the granting of immunity to the
Emperor of Japan at General MacArthur's request. There was never even a mention of the
horrors committed by the Japanese army in Korea and Japan, including the mistreatment of
young girls and women by making them serve as sex slaves, also known as comfort women.
This, in my opinion, is a serious offense that qualifies as a crime against humanity. This trial was
reduced to a mere show trial due to the gradual establishment of a new world order during that
period.

Similarities

In the same year as Nuremberg, the United States established the Tokyo Trials to try and convict
a number of Japanese government leaders who had committed war crimes and crimes against
humanity. The legacy of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials is exceptional, and its significance
cannot be overstated. World justice doesn't have to be flawless to be good, as shown by
Nuremberg and the international community's experience with the ad hoc tribunals. Nuremberg
cannot be held to an unreasonable, fabricated standard, and doing so is neither fair nor fruitful.
Nobody would ever forget that the goals of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, as well as the
6
David M. Crowe, "The Nuremberg and Tokyo IMT Trials," Transnational Encounters between Germany and
Japan, 2016
creation of the International Criminal Court years later, were to preserve peace across the globe. 7
By leading the path to deal with international crimes, these historic trials' successes in
prioritizing justice and law over inhumanity and violence provide hope for a brighter future.
Furthermore, the creation and advancement of contemporary international law have been greatly
aided by the global system.

Conclusion

In the end, regardless of whether the trials' professed goals are to bring about a better peace,
survive international scrutiny, correct a wrong, or just see justice done, the reality remains that
their true goal will be to further American foreign policy. The trial's verdict is essentially
meaningless. The trial's acceptability as a whole will be the actual test of its success. Tokyo and
Nuremberg both feature historical case studies that shed light on future trials. The future trial will
have a character somewhere in the center between the somber, methodical occurrences that
defined Nuremberg and the phony affectation that was Tokyo.

References

Beigbeder, Yves. "The Pioneers: The Nuremberg and Tokyo Military Trials." International
Criminal Tribunals, 2011, 20-48. doi:10.1057/9780230305052_2.

Clarke, Robert C. "Do the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials of Major Axis War Criminals Provide a
Customary Legal Basis for Joint Criminal Enterprise Doctrine?" SSRN Electronic
Journal, 2010. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1959463.

Crowe, David M. "The Nuremberg and Tokyo IMT Trials." Transnational Encounters between
Germany and Japan, 2016, 165-184. doi:10.1057/9781137573971_10.

Hirsch, Francine. "The Soviet Union at the Palace of Justice: Law, Intrigue, and International
Rivalry in the Nuremberg Trials." Stalin’s Soviet Justice, 2019.
doi:10.5040/9781350083370.0011.

Lukashuk, Igor I. "The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials: 50 Years Later." Review of Central and
East European Law 20, no. 2 (1994), 207-216. doi:10.1163/157303594x00120.
7
Yves Beigbeder, "The Pioneers: The Nuremberg and Tokyo Military Trials," International Criminal Tribunals,
2011