Comparing Nuremberg And The Tokyo Process

Another distinction concerns the category of crimes for which the representatives of the two states were prosecuted. According to Kaufman (2010), the Tokyo Process required a nexus between the crimes allegedly committed by the defendants and “crimes against peace”, whereas the Nuremberg Trial did not require such prerequisite for prosecution (p.758). Thus, if the accused, for example, committed a crime against humanity in Tokyo, but failed to establish a direct link with crimes against peace, it did not mean that the person was innocent, but that he had to be prosecuted through other transitional justice options. Also, compared to Nuremberg, the Tokyo Trial extended the category of crimes against humanity written in Article 6. The Nuremberg
This difference reflected the fact that the Tokyo process placed even more emphasis on individuals and it attempted to avoid mass accusations. In the case of the Third Reich, one could say that the preparation of the war was indeed primarily the work of Adolf Hitler, and his officers, ministers and officials were only fulfilling the command of their leader. In the case of Japan, however, the head of state, Emperor Hirohito, knew about the preparation of the war and had formal responsibility for it, but he did not participate in any specific plans, and the war atmosphere was indeed born in the government and the army headquarters of the imperial
In the case of Germany, the situation was simplified by symbolically "pointing the finger" at one person: Adolf Hitler, the head of the state and the primary reason for all the war crimes committed. Nobody thought of defending a person responsible for the genocide of Jews (Rolling, 1955, p.53). The situation in Japan was different. With the Emperor's declaration of innocence and the refusal to stand him before the War Tribunal, he managed to maintain a considerable continuity with the pre-war and war era. It was impossible to make a dividing line between the past and future since the same person remained Emperor. The psychological stigma forcing the nation to reflect upon its past was much less present in Japan than in Germany.
In the case of the Tokyo process, it was also not possible to provide as much evidence to the public as it was possible in Nuremberg. Many hours of detailed film material showing the consequences of the Nazi dictatorship were produced during the liberation of the concentration camps. Of course, there was plenty of evidence to convict the Japanese former ministers, but official documents and diplomatic notes did not have such a direct impact on the public as audio-visual material could have. This factor also partially contributed to a different way of dealing with the past in the case of the Japanese