r prisoners.” What was so disturbing about these proceedings was the precedent it set forth for future figures of authority. Countries that may way war in the future, whether of defensive nature or acts of aggression, could face dire consequences if on the losing side. Victors could make up the rules as they went, and the defendants could be tried for crimes that may never have been previously established by international law. At the same time, racism seemed to play a large part in the proceedings. Much of this had to do with the facts that over 25 percent of American and British soldiers were estimated to have died while captives of the Japanese, compared to 4 percent in Germany. In very un-American fashion, the tribunal required only a majority vote to find the defendants guilty, and the rules of evidence were relaxed a great deal, allowing for the admission of hearsay. With such a stacked deck, very few stood a chance of acquittal, but to the end almost all shielded Hirohito from blame. Another serious aspect of the “winner takes all” mentality that occurred during the Tokyo trial was the obvious double standard of justice that the Allies exuded. Nothing ever became of the hundreds of thousand Japanese soldiers who remained under Soviet control, as well as the questionable use of force the Americans displayed during the last months of the war. Were the Tokyo fire bombings, as well as the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not “crimes against humanity?” If “namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed before or during war” is the definition, as stated by Article 5 of the Tokyo charter, than surely the U.S. involvement in the deaths of half a million civilians would fit under this bill. War, though, is never fair, and “to the victors go the spoils” was never so true with regards to the Tokyo war crime tr...
