Avis des utilisateurs

Not for the impatient, this 4 part series is designed for viewers who are willing to listen to everything that is said.

Ideas about atrocities, crimes against humanity, and what is acceptable in war-making are presented throughout. Always in the background: the Nuremberg Trials and how posterity will view the trial and the judges.

Production values are top-notch but never over the top. There's a very clever interpolation of actual courtroom newsreel footage with scenes from this show -- very good set and color matching.

This is a show about ideas and about how the winners view morality and their roles in defining what is and is not acceptable in warfare.

Recommended.

Good history, fine acting. The moral nuances become very real as the Justices deliberate. I expect my attorney friends will really like this. For the most part the film succeeds in avoiding black and white characters and draws out the complexities of personalities and values. This is not a thriller, more of a morality play based on real high-stakes deliberations. The casting for General MacArthur was a minus, not because of the acting, there was little meat in the role, but there must be thousands of actors who would look like MacArthur and could handle this role. No one else's likeness was relevant, who knew the judges? But...

This is a fascinating, well made four-part miniseries. I watched it on Netflix over four days, but it's so good, I can see how one might want to binge watch it. It reminded me of Twelve Angry Men.

In 1946, eleven Allied Judges were appointed to The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), aka Tokyo Trial or Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. Their job was to try twenty-eight Japanese leaders for conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity. I didn't know anything about this trial.

The participating countries were: Australia, Canada, China, France, British India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Later a twelfth judge from India was added. These dedicated, but very different men, (yep, all men in those days), had legal and moral clashes with regards to how to stay true to the law, remain impartial, and prevent similar atrocities.

This tribunal would form the foundation of how "war as a crime by individuals" would be judged in the future. It had previously existed only part of the Paris Peace Pact of 1928. They ran into a problem with war crimes being ascribed only to a Nation and not to an individual.

There is infighting, cliques, power struggles, and schisms amongst the judges. Pal and Röling are outspoken in their dissent, which created an interesting narrative. Röling is the main protagonist; we get a glimpse into his creative relationship with German pianist Eta Harich-Schneider.

Many of the accused were found guilty, including former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo.

I listed the judges to keep track of them.

• Tim Ahern as Major General Myron C. Cramer (United States)
• Paul Freeman as The Honourable Lord William D. Patrick (United Kingdom)
• Serge Hazanavicius as Henri Bernard (France)
• Marcel Hensema as Professor Bert V.A. Röling (Netherlands)
• Jonathan Hyde as President Sir William Webb (Australia)
• Irrfan Khan as Radhabinod Pal (India)
• Stephen McHattie as Edward Stuart McDougall (Canada)
• David Tse as Mei Ju-ao (China)
• Julian Wadham as Sir Erima H. Northcroft (New Zealand)
• Bert Matias as Colonel Delfín Jaranilla (Philippines)
• Kestutis Stasys Jakstas as Major General I.M. Zaryanov (Soviet Union)
• William Hope as John P. Higgins (United States)

I've spent half a century as a professional historian and thirty as an international criminal lawyer studying, recording and engaged in commentaries on the history and jurisprudence of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. I've also closely studied the records of many, many hundreds of national war crimes trials that followed the Far East and Pacific Conflict, plus other national and international war crimes trials elsewhere from the late nineteenth century to more recent times. The 2 1/2 year Tokyo Trial (IMTFE) was much longer, more complex and covered a more extended period of events than its nine-month international counterpart at Nuremberg. Both of these two trials, however, were 'Class A' war crimes trials, meaning that their central focus was on an alleged conspiracy to plan, prepare, initiate and wage wars of aggression ("Crimes against Peace"). There was plenty on 'Class B/C" offences (violations of the laws and usages of war ("War Crimes" in the usual sense of atrocities against the laws and usages of war) and upon 'Crimes against Humanity' against civilians, but the bulk of those offences were tried in the so-called Minor War Crimes Trials that were held by individual countries and generally in the countries where those crimes had taken place. Only Nuremberg also dealt with Genocide.

This film concentrates on what was considered even at the time as the most important issue, what was called 'the master crime', Crimes against Peace, not only because that was the one thing that set Class A cases apart from others but because there was a deeply flawed general theory that without an aggressive war the other kinds of offences couldn't take place on an organised or systematic basis. But in a more particular sense the importance of this film is that it focusses on the very legality of having a trial concerning 'Crimes against Peace' which behind the scene was questioned by the judges at the Tokyo Trial in ways that didn't gain any traction at all at Nuremberg. The Judges at Nuremberg agreed never to discuss how their deliberations proceeded and how the trial almost collapsed due to the divisions between them. And this is the first time that their struggles over that issue have been aired in a major international film production. what is clear is that they understood that if the view held by the majority did not prevail, all that was achieved at Nuremberg in holding individuals criminally responsible for planning, preparing, initiating and waging wars of aggression would have fallen apart as a new rule of international law. If the couple of dozen defendants in the Tokyo Trial had to pay an heavy price in the process of turning a rule intended to bind states into a rule fit for holding individual leaders criminally responsible even to the point of losing their lives, then that ex post facto lawmaking was considered justifiable by the majority of members of the Tribunal. For others, that was a bridge too far.

Did the majority do the right thing? Judge for yourself. But did the upholding of the Nuremberg precedent really change the world as hoped? Sadly, no: the International Criminal Court has yet to claim its jurisdiction to try such cases. The architects of the most significant post-1945 aggressive wars have escaped justice, not least in the lands of those Members of the Tokyo Tribunal who were most keen to see that jurisdiction bedded down in national and international trials and in the conduct of states towards each other. As for the acting, the direction, the script and the fairness of this account: the film is awesome and as completely accurate as it is possible to be. This mini-series is a masterpiece.

With so much mindless fluff on television, how great it is to see a serious and superbly done docudrama. Tokyo Trial covers the legal and political battles that were bitterly fought behind closed doors for two years after the Japanese surrender. The tribunal wrestled with the issue of whether Japanese leaders could be punished for aggression when there really was no law against aggression and whether the Japanese incursion into China was really any different from the British in India or the Americans' genocide of their native population. We are privy to some superb behind the scenes legal discussions. The series exudes honesty and accuracy. It uses one very effective technique. The scenes in the courtroom are shown in newsreel style black and white while the dialogue is heard in the tinny, halting voice of the translator. Most effective! The various judges are brilliantly drawn. Each is a unique personality. The clothing, the accents, even the body language, are all carefully presented and give the series a genuine " slice of the past" quality that few films achieve. I sometimes despair that we use our amazing video technology for trivialities and trash. This series shows what television can accomplish but so seldom does.

I was in the United States Army, 1st Cav Division 8th Cav Regt. stationed in Tokyo when this trial was going on. I spent a lot of time with one of the defense attorneys. I attended the trial when I could. One of my interests while I was in Japan (for one and a half years) was to learn as much as i could about the war and the Japanese people. This series was very interesting to me, as it was seen through others eves, not just mine. The scenes of the city were not what I saw, and the General Mac Arthur character did not match up with the real General, who i saw many times. The Imperial Hotel sets brought me back to my first week in Tokyo, as one of my first stops in Tokyo was to visit Frank Lloyd Wright's Masterpiece, The Imperial Hotel. To tell a story as complex as this one was, would take as many years as the trial took and in the end, I am sure we would not know or understand what actually happened and who was at fault. We do know that the Japanese lost the war but in the long run Japan was given a new start and the people of Japan were smart enough to make the most of it.

Saying something negative about this show somehow feels wrong - this kind of show is always needed. I don't regret watching it - you learn something, and you're never really bored. The only issue is: it feels like you're watching a history book. All the dialogues are directed at telling you some fact. Which is already good enough by me. But as a drama, it is not great - it feels way too artificial for that.

Far less remembered than the Nuremberg trials, the Tokyo Trials were nonetheless a turning point in Asian history. This series brilliantly brings out the factors at play during the trial, not least the Colonial history of the Allies.

All characters are thoughtfully portrayed and excellently played, but it's Irrfan Khan as justice Pal who provides the philosophical backbone to the story. He's a last minute addition from India because the Allies wanted some (token) Asians, but ironically India was then still a British colony. The proud Philippine judge, the questioning Dutchman, the British judge who still has a case of colonial hangover: these traits are portrayed through nuance rather than caricature.

Asia still lives in the aftermath of the wounds that the war opened. While the trials drew a line under one traumatic incident, what has followed in the 80 years since almost directly follows those events.

I'm thankful for the show being made and for exploring dissenting opinions. In a time where infantile soaps like Stranger Things are the norm on Netflix, this series was a delight, and it should be to anyone interested in history in general, and Asian history in particular.

This mini-series features the prosecution of the japanese war criminals that committed crimes during WW2. Based on a charter from General Eisenhower, this trial is the de-facto japanese version of the way more famous "Nuremburg Trials".

In four episodes, we will see how the pretty large panel of judges came to their verdict(s). The storyline is thereby built up around the Dutch judge, whom is clearly the main actor in this mini-series. You will see how the Dutch judge wanted to base his judgement on (the lack of) international law, whilst other judges had political motives to deem the defendants guilty before the trial even started. You will see the personal side of the judge in trying to deal with the struggles he has in the process.

Overall, I get the impression that the stance of the Dutch judge was a big reason for later on creating a permanent "International Criminal Court", which would be based in The Netherland.

The acting was very good. I further found the part whereby they show trial proceedings also pretty innovative: this where a combination of real camera shots from the trial are combined with new video material in which we will see the actors.

I found this mini-series a nice watch in which I also learnt a new and important piece of WW2 history. I award this mini-series a score of 7.4/10, making it an IMDb rating of 7 stars.

This is one of the finest courtroom dramas after 12 Angry Men. There is never over the top sentimental (or) emotional narrative despite the subject taken is highly sensitive. This is exactly how judges go about and come to their conclusion inspite of political interference. Fanstically made series based on true history!! Must watch for every Management aspirants!

A great series , a must for historians and legal professionals and of course students and general public. Discussion of judges in their chamber, over different legal principles and appreciation and marshalling of evidence. As a judge I found this series excellent. Irfan Khan as Justice Radhabinod Pal incomparable. He adhered to the principles of criminal law and we saw the way of tribunal as they delivered judgement in th majority of 14 to one ,The line dissenter is yes Justice Radhabinod Pal.

The mini series is well made, all actors and scenes meticulously executed. But I could not stop thinking the show really minimized the reasons of why the trial was being held. Although the main focus of the show was around the trial itself, at the end of watching the series i was only left with the emphasized message of a potential "mistrial".

Scenes of justice Pal especially were depicted with intentional emphasis on "fairness", and scenes with other judges were curated to look more like they were scheming together. It was very clear that the scripts and scenes were structured with a bias.

Japanese war criminals convicted were the leaders of Japanese military forces that committed historically the worst examples of war crimes such as massacres, human experiments, cannibalism and more. These were the individuals who condoned such inhumane crimes and sometimes directly ordered them.

This part being left out completely aligns with Japanese nationalist government's viewpoint on the war and their continued efforts of packaging the history in their favor and denying their wrongdoings, in efforts of portraying Japan as the "victim" of the war, not the instigators. This behavior of Japan has been continuously criticized in comparison so Germany's behavior of acknowledging and addressing their wrongdoings in the WW II.

It is important for us the audience to gain a wholistic understanding of the war itself in order to see the plain truth of inhumane behaviors of Japan and Germany at the time, outside of the short and partially fictional scenes curated by the show.

Based on the war criminal trial at Tokyo this is a must watch, especially to all Indians. Very well directed and edited. Powerful performance by Irfan Khan, as Justice Pal, another unsung hero. Dialogues too are as powerful as acting of all characters

This miniseries starts off a little clunky, but any faults of the first episode, are forgotten by the end of the second episode. If it wasn't for one of the other reviewers who abandoned the series after watching just one episode, I would not have made this remark.

The series attempts to present the personalities and professional conduct of each Justice appointed to conduct the trails. It is not revisionist as some of the other reviewers have stated. We have had decades of documentaries about Japan's involvement in WW2, but none have attempted to cover the due judicial process to the extent of Tokyo Trial. And I think I would not have enjoyed the series if it was not dramatised, as I would have turned off to another narrated documentary.

For performances of the actors, the editing, and production are all good, especially from the end of the second episode. There is a lot to take in, I found myself enthralled by the story, and unexpectedly quite emotional at the end. I have worked on translation projects for academic material, related to this subject, but Tokyo Trial has a richer more human story to tell.

In a nutshell: a great and very important series about the Tokyo Trial taking place after World War II in Asia-Pacific! Having a life-long interest in events surrounding World War II, I was keen to watch this series of which I had never heard before. I read in another review, right here on IMDb, that this series is for people, who are willing to listen to every spoken word. This is absolutely true! This series is not about courtroom-action and thrilling accounts of eyewitnesses and/or defendants, but about the challenges and struggles of an international panel of civilian and military judges in search of common grounds in their demanding daily work. Apart from the character of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, portrayed by Mr. Michael Ironside, I loved the characters (of the judges) of which most of them also looked like the real-life people. As much as I like Mr. Ironside as an actor, I wished the casting crew would have chosen an actor who looked more like the real MacArthur with the same commanding screen presence of Mr. Ironside. Also I would have loved if the creators/producers would have gone even deeper in introducing the judges and their different characters and backgrounds and making it a series with 6-8 episodes. If a good script is paired with great creators, directors, producers and cast, TV has the power not just to entertain but also educate!

I ended up watching all the four episode back, so I found it very interesting. The use of black and white clips for courtroom scenes along with those old sounding trial audio gives a nice sense of taking back to those times. Most of the actors did a great job at giving a true feeling of being from the country they are representing (except for the Chinese one perhaps). I believe it is impossible to be completely fair when dealing with a subject like this. And there will always be many important related subjects and events that won't be covered as much as they deserved to be. So you have to take it as form of informative entertainment and realize that there might be biases of the production houses involved. Overall for me it serves the purpose of informing me about a very important historical event in an entertaining way without too much biased viewpoint. And I did some readings after watching it in an attempt to filter the biases that this could have imposed.

Tokyo trial - probably one of the best series on how our modern world has shaped. There is and there was no right or wrong...it has all been perceptional. In the middle of the this, true justice gets tested to the hilt. Brilliant!

I read the synopsis for each of the episodes and thought - BORING!!! But I noted that it had some good reviews, so hesitantly I thought I would just check out the first episode.

It was a big surprise, and whilst being far from a fast paced show, I found it refreshing to watch something that was intellectually stimulating as opposed to the usual meaningless diatribe that I enjoy.

I found the show made me start to think about and question views that I had previously held thinking they were obviously correct. The show highlights the grey areas around subjects that many consider to be black and white.

Whilst I am no expert it also seems to be historically accurate and seamlessly blends historical footage into the episodes.

I recommend giving it a view, I mean there are only 4 episodes and if you don't like it you can stop after the first - but you won't.

The show questions who is in this world a 'Just party'. Is it Really black and white as to who can termed as criminal and who a victim.. Some Hard hitting Fine points we all have to decide in our practical lives i believe..

There have been quite a few screen depictions of the Nuremberg trials - the famous movie and a miniseries. But the Japanese equivalent isn't depicted that often. So kudos to the producers for making this 4 part mini series. The sets and settings seem quite authentically recreated.

The famous war crimes appear Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Bataan, but gruesome details are not explored enough. Emperor Hirohito's role is touched upon. I don't know if it's because it is a Japanese co-production but there seems to be quite a lot of justification arguments for the Japanese - mainly about an aggressive war not being a crime and comparisons to colonial namely British and Dutch atrocities in India and Indonesia respectively.

First of all, even if one accepts waging an aggressive war is not a crime, murdering innocent civilians is a crime and should be punishable in any war legitimate or not.

Secondly it's untenable to say that because others did wrong and got away with it so should the Japanese. Any country who did wrong to the civilians of another is answerable. The Japanese war criminals were conquered so they were rightly punished. Just think about this - because some murderers aren't caught, found guilty and punished doesn't mean you don't punish those who are caught and found guilty.

Some of the judges namely from India and the Netherlands were really irritating. But I guess they didn't suffer as catastrophically from the Japanese aggression as China and other countries.

Well done Netflix.

I'm a history buff and was really interested in the theme of this mini serie. Unfortunately the script is soooooo slow, the acting sooooo card board cutout-ish and the storyline sooooo fragmented that whole series falls apart at the seams. I caught up on some untold history by watching a 4 parts but feel I need to read the book to understand how the real trial went.

"Give them a fair trial and hang-'em"!

Although the pact of Paris- Kellogg Brian's Pact of 1928 condemns war as an instrument of national policy. But it does not consider war as a crime. After all not everything is fair in war and it should not be. Remember Kurukshetra!!!

It took two and a half years, 800 court sessions and 12 renowned justices from all across the world including China, Philippines and even India to decide the fate of some 35 high-ranking Japanese military and political leaders and officials who were indicted on 50+ counts of various categories of war crimes viz Crime Against Peace (Class A) , Conventional War Crimes (Class B) and Crime Against Humanity (Class C). The tribunal was established by the supreme commander of the Allied powers, General Douglas MacArthur. Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor , Imperialism all but the A-bomb were part of the deliberations of the tribune that consisted majority of white justices whose ultimate goal was to model Nuremberg charter annexed to prosecute and punish the axis powers for its atrocities.

All but the Indian justice found the defendants guilty of war crimes although they did differ on categorizing the crimes and hence on the penalties.

Indian justice Radhavinod Pal who was the last addition to the tribune dissented as he believed that conqueror should not pass judgement on conquered and that it was not aggression of war and the actions were carried out in the absence of some of the laws. He also argued that if Japanese were to be indicted on the basis of aggression then US as well must be on the same basis for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so should British for forcing Indians to fight in WWII and looting india. Well! From legality standpoint, his arguments were not unfounded and should have been included. But the majority of the verdict is often presented as unanimous and the dissent is never disclosed. His 1200+ pages dissent with a verdict to acquit all was banned by the tribunal!!!

The question we should ask ourselves is that have we been able to uphold this and Nuremberg? What happened to the real architects of the war? In 2002 ICC (International Criminal Court) was established and till today US, Russia and China are not part of it! Ironically, the same countries who influenced the verdict of Tokyo trial!!!! These three superpowers do not recognize ICC's jurisdiction, authority and even legitimacy!!!! Interesting to see how Russia would be indicted for its 'illegal' war, the current war of aggression on Ukraine in international court!!!!!!

Interesting plot, slow but measured pace and convincing performances.. Irfan Khan who plays Justice Pal somewhat succeeds to bring out the nonchalant personality of the character. It is however, a MUST see as it unfolds a little less known but important chapter of history.