This article examines the legal basis of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, Douglas MacArthur’s U.S. Senate testimony, and statements by Justice Radhabinod Pal and Major General Charles Willoughby, while questioning Japanese historians’ support for the “Tokyo Trial view of history.”

August 29, 2020
The following is a continuation of the preceding chapter.
■ The International Military Tribunal for the Far East
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which was conducted from 1946 to 1948 (hereinafter referred to simply as the Tokyo Trials), bore the name of a “trial,” but had no underlying law, and was therefore nothing more than a lynching carried out by the victorious nations in disregard of both the “principle of legality” and the “principle of non-retroactivity of law.”
If one were compelled to identify one, the “Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East,” issued by MacArthur, was its underlying law.
However, after the Korean War, MacArthur himself testified before a U.S. Senate military committee to the effect that the Tokyo Trials had been wrong, pointing out that the economic blockade and oil embargo imposed on Japan by the Allied Powers had driven Japan into a grave predicament, and that “the war Japan fought was a war of self-defense.”
At the Tokyo Trials, seven men were convicted of crimes against peace (Class-A war crimes), hanged, and their ashes were discarded in Tokyo Bay.
Is that something people from civilized nations would do?
In addition, approximately 2,000 people were executed for war crimes (Class-B war crimes) and crimes against humanity (Class-C war crimes).
Many international-law scholars around the world later pointed out that, since it had been a war, it was unjust for only the officers and soldiers of the defeated nations to be condemned.
Immediately before the end of the war, Japan was already in a lame-duck state and was even attempting to ask the Soviet Union to mediate a peace settlement—which, of course, the United States knew—so there was absolutely no need to drop the atomic bombs in order to bring the war to an early end.
President Truman deliberately decided to drop them for the purpose of testing the atomic bombs and demonstrating power to the Soviet Union, thereby slaughtering 300,000 people.
He was the true Class-B and Class-C war criminal.
Justice Pal of India stated: “It was the Western powers that were primarily responsible for the invasion of Asia. Nevertheless, you teach your own children that ‘Japan committed crimes’ and that ‘Japan dared to perpetrate the outrage of aggression.’ (Omitted) I cannot overlook the way in which young Japanese people bear a distorted sense of guilt, become servile, and suffer the devastation of their spirits.”
5: MacArthur’s testimony: Testimony given on May 3, 1951, before the U.S. Senate Joint Committee on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations.
He testified: “Japan had practically no indigenous resources except silkworms. (Omitted) All of those things existed in the Asiatic basin. There was a fear that if those supplies were cut off, 10 million to 12 million people would be unemployed in Japan. Therefore, their purpose in going to war was largely dictated by security.”
Even Major General Charles Willoughby, who occupied the important post of chief of GHQ’s Military Intelligence Section and personally engaged in the work of indoctrinating the Japanese people through intelligence operations and censorship, believed that the Tokyo Trials had gone too far, saying: “This trial was the worst hypocrisy in history. (Omitted) I believe that if America had been placed in the same circumstances as Japan, it would undoubtedly have gone to war just as Japan did.”
Nevertheless, as will be discussed two sections later, Japanese historians at the time unanimously supported the Tokyo Trial view of history, leaving one utterly at a loss for words (!).
To be continued.