Not long after the start of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, while Douglas MacArthur was Supreme Commander over a conquered Japanese nation, defeated Japanese soldiers and politicians were tried for war crimes. On one side of the ledger, Japanese soldiers committed heinous atrocities on prisoners of war and civilians, contravening so-called rules of war. What makes this book so fascinating, however, is how effectively it raises uncomfortable truths about the victorious allies.
Foremost, is that America had used atomic bombs on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Surely, also a war crime. Japan was accused of starting a war of aggression, a so-called crime introduced after the end of World War II calling into question the legality of trying individuals for crimes not yet invented.
The war of aggression was defined as Japan’s imperial take-over of China. Of the 11 nations with judges at the trial, most were guilty of gross imperialism in the nations surrounding Japan, which argued it was fighting in self-defense. The UK held Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma, and India. The Dutch controlled Indonesia. France occupied Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The U.S. occupied the Philippines, Guam, and Samoa. The Russians were advancing on eastern Europe, Mongolia, and the Stans. All of them operated in China. Moreover, all of the western nations were working to maintain their empires while the trial was going on.
Ultimately, Judgement at Tokyo asks if war crimes tribunals are anything more than vengeance or have any more deterrent impact on war than the death penalty has on domestic crimes. Had Japan won, would America’s racist internment of American citizens of Japanese descent (and not citizens of German and Italian ancestry) or the behavior of American soldiers have withstood the rigors of an inverted trial before Japanese judges?