Everything Everywhere Daily — "The Tokyo Trials"

Host: Gary Arndt
Date: January 17, 2026

Episode Overview

In this episode, Gary Arndt explores the origins, conduct, and legacy of the Tokyo Trials, formally known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Held in the aftermath of World War II, these trials prosecuted Japanese political and military leaders for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. Gary presents both the rationale for holding such trials and the controversies that surrounded them, drawing parallels to the better-known Nuremberg Trials in Europe.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

The Context for the Tokyo Trials

• Post-war Reckoning:
  • After World War II, the sheer scale of Japanese atrocities demanded some form of accountability, though prosecuting every perpetrator was impossible.
  • The Allies chose to put Japan’s top leadership on trial in Tokyo, following a similar approach as in Nuremberg for Nazi leaders.
  • The goal: establish responsibility for systematic violence and deter future war crimes.
  • (02:00)

Major Japanese War Crimes Highlighted

• The Rape of Nanjing (Nanking):
  • December 1937–January 1938: At least hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians and soldiers killed, tens of thousands raped.
  • "Bodies lined the streets for literally months after the attack and one third of Nanjing’s buildings were looted or burnt to the ground." (03:30)
• Attack on Pearl Harbor:
  • December 7, 1941: Initiated without a declaration of war, violating international law and marking the U.S. entry into WWII.
  • Destruction of ships, planes, and over 2,000 American deaths.
  • (05:10)
• Bataan Death March:
  • 1942: 78,000 prisoners forced to march 66 miles; thousands died due to brutality, deprivation, and execution.
  • Prisoners were packed into boxcars in deadly conditions.
  • (06:35)

Structure and Charges of the Tokyo Trials

• Three Classes of Crimes:
  • Class A: Crimes against peace (waging wars of aggression). Restricted to top leaders.
  • Class B: Conventional war crimes (violations of the laws of war).
  • Class C: Crimes against humanity (mass murder, enslavement, deportation, etc.), including race- or politically-motivated persecution.
  • (08:15)
• Legal Innovations:
  • New charges were created specifically for these trials, expanding the definition of international crimes.
  • The standards for evidence were less strict: unsourced documents and diaries could be admitted.
  • (10:00)

The Tribunal and Key Defendants

• Formation:
  • Established by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur on January 19, 1946.
  • Eleven allied nations sent justices.
  • (09:10)
• Notable Defendants:
  • Hideki Tojo (Prime Minister & Army General), Koki Hirota, Iwane Matsui, Kenji Doihara, and others.
  • Indictments included systematic murder, maltreatment and maiming, forced labor, and mass atrocities against civilians.
  • (09:45)

Judicial Process and Evidence

• Command Responsibility:
  • The prosecution had to prove the crimes were widespread, the defendant was aware, and had authority to stop them.
  • (11:40)
• Evidence Handling:
  • Any evidence with demonstrative value was permitted, broadly interpreted.
  • The best evidence rule required originals rather than copies if originals remained.
  • (12:25)
• Emperor Hirohito’s Exemption:
  • Emperor was not put on trial; Allies felt his presence was stabilizing in postwar Japan.
  • This immunity was a major point of contention and drew dissenting opinions.
  • (13:10)

Defense Arguments

• Core Arguments:
  • Laws didn’t exist at the time ("ex post facto" principle).
  • Individuals cannot be held for acts of the state.
  • The Allies also committed war crimes; Japan acted in self-defense.
  • Alleging the trials were inherently biased (victor’s justice).
  • (14:25–15:35)

Dissent and Controversy

• Judicial Dissents:
  • 5 out of 11 judges wrote dissenting opinions:
    • Australian and French judges: Criticized Emperor’s exemption.
    • Filipino judge: Punishments too lenient; failed as deterrent.
    • Dutch and Indian judges: Trials were victor’s justice, biased, and should have involved neutral judges or even acquittal.
  • “He claimed that the trials were victor’s justice, meaning that justice is unevenly distributed by the winners of the war… He still believed the atrocities were committed, but rather questioned the legitimacy of the trial.” (17:45)

Verdicts and Aftermath

• Outcomes:
  • 28 on trial:
    • 1 found unfit (Shumei Okawa), 2 died during trial.
    • 7 sentenced to death (including Tojo).
    • Rest imprisoned, some died in prison, others paroled by the 1950s.
  • Emperor Hirohito remained emperor until 1989.
  • Over 5,700 lower-ranking Japanese tried in other tribunals for conventional crimes (e.g., prisoner abuse, sexual slavery, medical experimentation).
  • (19:00)
• Historical Legacy:
  • Set modern precedents: national leaders held personally accountable, ‘just following orders’ not a valid defense, and established individual criminal responsibility under international law.
  • “The postwar trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo were important because they established for the very first time that national leaders could be held personally accountable under international law for waging aggressive war and committing mass atrocities…” (21:00)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the scale of atrocity:

  • “The Second World War was far and away the most horrific war in terms of loss of life in human history. Tens of millions of people died and millions more were subject to horrible conditions, injury and illness.” (02:00)

• On Nanjing massacre:

  • “Bodies lined the streets for literally months after the attack and one third of Nanjing's buildings were looted or burnt to the ground.” (03:40)

• On judicial controversy:

  • “Another dissent was issued by a Filipino judge who found the trial's punishments to be too lenient… failed to provide any deterrence.” (17:20)
  • “The final dissent was delivered by an Indian judge who also found the trial to be biased… He claimed that the trials were victor’s justice, meaning that the justice is unevenly distributed by the winners of the war.” (18:15)

• On legacy:

  • “…they established for the very first time that national leaders could be held personally accountable under international law for waging aggressive war and committing mass atrocities rather than hiding behind state authority or military orders.” (21:00)

Key Timestamps

• [02:00] — Context for the Tokyo Trials and Why They Were Necessary
• [03:30] — Atrocities: The Rape of Nanjing
• [05:10] — Pearl Harbor Attack as War Crime
• [06:35] — The Bataan Death March
• [08:15] — Structure and Charges of the Trials
• [09:10] — Formation of the Tribunal
• [09:45] — Main Defendants
• [11:40] — Prosecution and Legal Logic
• [12:25] — Rules of Evidence
• [13:10] — The Role of Emperor Hirohito
• [14:25] — Main Defense Arguments
• [17:20–18:15] — Judicial Dissents and Critiques
• [19:00] — Verdicts and Aftermath
• [21:00] — Precedents and Legal Legacy

Tone and Delivery

Gary Arndt delivers the episode in a thoughtful, fact-driven, and balanced tone, emphasizing the complexity of postwar justice and the landmark nature of the Tokyo Trials. He does not shy away from controversy or moral ambiguity, presenting both the Allies’ reasoning and the trials’ critics in a fair, clear manner.

For listeners interested in the evolution of international law, postwar justice, or the legacies of World War II, this episode offers a concise, comprehensive, and nuanced overview of the Tokyo Trials—an event that helped set the framework for prosecuting crimes against humanity.