This 4-part docu-drama does more than provide the history of the military tribunal of the Japanese military and political leaders who waged war against the Allies (most notably China (Manchuria), Philippines (and Polynesian islands), Australia/New Zealand and and the United States. This really examines the legality of holding individuals accountable for a country's act of aggression through colonization or other reasons.
It seems that when it came to the Japanese there was more of a tendency to believe they weren't doing anything different from the other countries with a desire to expand (its borders) ... like that of Britain throughout Europe, Asia and the Bahamas/Caribbean or the French during Napoleon's time or United States throughout parts of North America. The Japanese defense was they cannot be held accountable for laws that didn't exist when they waged war. Additionally they're desire to wage war was for colonization, not the eradication of a certain population of peoples.
Although I agreed with the final outcome, like that of the Nuremberg Trials, it was very interesting to learn the history of the dissenting argument. Many Japanese political officials (and military generals for that matter, like Tojo) were given two options when deciding whether to agree with the majority to wage war: The first was to agree and the other was to disagree followed immediately by committing honorary suicide. As a matter of self-preservation many agreed to war as an alternative to dying. Additionally, they argued there is no difference in its desire for colonization than other countries like Britain, France and the United States. On two different occasions Napoleon Bonaparte was tried for atrocities committed during the French's Napoleonic Wars. Each time he was exiled to a remote island in the South Pacific (where he ultimately died under suspicious circumstances).
I wound encourage anyone with an interest in this part of history to watch. For those, like my dad, who would get frustrated at the notion that what the Japanese did in waging war during WWII could not be tried in a court of law I would still say to watch bc ultimately the decision was held for a trial, and to execute the punishments assigned. For example, Tojo was found guilty and ultimately hung for war crimes.
To be intellectual means you objectively listen to dissenting views to that of your own. All possibilities should be examined before rendering any decisions.
It seems that when it came to the Japanese there was more of a tendency to believe they weren't doing anything different from the other countries with a desire to expand (its borders) ... like that of Britain throughout Europe, Asia and the Bahamas/Caribbean or the French during Napoleon's time or United States throughout parts of North America. The Japanese defense was they cannot be held accountable for laws that didn't exist when they waged war. Additionally they're desire to wage war was for colonization, not the eradication of a certain population of peoples.
Although I agreed with the final outcome, like that of the Nuremberg Trials, it was very interesting to learn the history of the dissenting argument. Many Japanese political officials (and military generals for that matter, like Tojo) were given two options when deciding whether to agree with the majority to wage war: The first was to agree and the other was to disagree followed immediately by committing honorary suicide. As a matter of self-preservation many agreed to war as an alternative to dying. Additionally, they argued there is no difference in its desire for colonization than other countries like Britain, France and the United States. On two different occasions Napoleon Bonaparte was tried for atrocities committed during the French's Napoleonic Wars. Each time he was exiled to a remote island in the South Pacific (where he ultimately died under suspicious circumstances).
I wound encourage anyone with an interest in this part of history to watch. For those, like my dad, who would get frustrated at the notion that what the Japanese did in waging war during WWII could not be tried in a court of law I would still say to watch bc ultimately the decision was held for a trial, and to execute the punishments assigned. For example, Tojo was found guilty and ultimately hung for war crimes.
To be intellectual means you objectively listen to dissenting views to that of your own. All possibilities should be examined before rendering any decisions.