Quartermasters can also fight the devils

Although Emperor Hirohito of Japan only talked about the reasons for the fall and did not mention the questions he raised, Emperor Hirohito of Japan did have the power to bring down the Tojo Hideki cabinet.

In this section, Japan's Emperor Hirohito also said that "my feelings cannot be conveyed to all officials or to the people through Tojo", but the reason was not that Tojo Hideki was above Emperor Hirohito, but that "Tojo Hideki had too many part-time jobs and was extremely busy."

In "The Man Hideki Tojo", Emperor Hirohito of Japan talked about an "unprecedented" memorial requesting the cancellation of the Emperor's "approval". This happened because in 1944, due to objections within the Japanese government, Hideki Tojo no longer served as the Chief of Staff of the Japanese Imperial Headquarters. Tojo then consulted Prince Fushimi about whether Empress Jun could continue to serve as the Chief of Staff of the Japanese Imperial Headquarters, but Prince Fushimi thought it was inappropriate.

When Tojo Hideki reported to the emperor, Emperor Hirohito said: "The Marshal's opinion is reasonable. I asked him if he had any suggestions for more important candidates. After Tojo Hideki retired, he mistakenly sent the memorial of the harem for the chief of staff. I still approved it. Tojo Hideki seemed to feel my meaning, so he did not stick to my approval and immediately requested to cancel the memorial about the chief of staff and recommended Umezu. Tojo Hideki's cancellation of the approved memorial was not only unprecedented, but also unprecedented."

From this incident, we can actually find that not only the orders of Emperor Hirohito of Japan are influential, but even the "intentions" in Emperor Hirohito's heart also have a huge influence on the Japanese government and military.

After the Koiso Cabinet, the Japanese army suffered a series of defeats, and the contradictions between the army and the navy became increasingly acute. Koiso was finally forced to resign. One of the successor candidates, Suzuki Kantaro, was originally unwilling to serve as prime minister. Later, after the Japanese Emperor Hirohito came forward for communication, he changed his attitude and became prime minister. Therefore, at that time, no one could or tried to go against the will of the Japanese Emperor Hirohito.

In sharp contrast to the Nuremberg trials which are constantly mentioned, the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo have basically disappeared from public discourse in the Western world since their conclusion, with only a few scholars publishing limited articles.

The most famous of these is McNeill's "The Justice of the Winners," published in 1971. The book was written because the author McNeill strongly criticized the United States' Vietnam War policy, but this left-wing stance became a reinforcement for the Japanese right wing, which was beyond the author McNeill's expectations.

Since the 90s, especially in recent years, there have been more studies in the West. It is particularly worth mentioning that unlike Japan's recent research works which mostly take a historical perspective, Boyst and Carlyle's "Reappraisal of the Tokyo International Military Tribunal" discussed in detail legal issues such as the dispute over the jurisdiction of the Tokyo Trial, especially the impact of the Tokyo Trial on the future development of international law and the construction of war crime tribunals such as the International Criminal Court.

Several Japanese scholars have evaluated the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo from the perspective of historical significance. Among them, the views of two Japanese scholars, one old and one young, are very representative. One is Shinichi Arai and the other is Yuma Toya.

Arai Shinichi is nearly 90 years old. While he has long been committed to the study of issues such as Japan's war responsibility, Arai Shinichi also serves as a representative of the Japan War Responsibility Information Center and the South Korean and North Korean Cultural Relics Repatriation Committee, and takes practical actions to hold Japan accountable for its war responsibility.

Yuma Toya is a scholar who grew up in Japan, studied in the West and teaches in the United States. The English and Japanese versions of her "Tokyo Trial: The Pursuit of Law and Justice after World War II" were published by Harvard University Press in the United States and Shobo in Japan respectively.

The dispute over the trial of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo was a debate between the prosecution and the defense. If the negative faction that still advocates "the justice of the victor" today has largely inherited the mantle of the defense during the trial, the other side of the "transcendence" theorists have greatly differed from the "civilized trial" that they advocated back then. Even today's "left-wing" views are no longer comparable to the high praise for the Tokyo Trial back then.

Shinichi Arai's views reflect the typical position of the Japanese "left". Shinichi Arai believes that there are three problems in the trial of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo.

The first is that Western countries, which accounted for only 10% of the victims, accounted for 70% of the judges in the Tokyo Trial. "The Tokyo court of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which was majority composed of representatives of colonial powers, did not become a place for direct trial of the victims inflicted on local people."

The second was that Japan had not been prosecuted for crimes against humanity, "which had an impact on almost all issues, including postwar reparations."

The third is that the trial of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo ended ahead of schedule, allowing a large number of Japanese war criminal suspects who should have been tried to return to politics, and "gave Japan's conservative leaders a sense of innocence and victimhood, which soon led to an atmosphere of condemning the 'Tokyo Trial Historical View', to the point that those who pursued war responsibility and war crimes were regarded as perpetrators."

Shinichi Arai used more than half of the article to discuss the selective trials of crimes by the "Western colonial powers" led by the United States, and listed the bombings of Japanese cities such as Tokyo by the United States and Japan's bombings of Chinese cities that should have been tried but were not, as well as Japan's biological and chemical warfare against China.

Yuma Totani's report carefully reviewed the trial process of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, and believed that the significance of studying the trial of Japanese war criminals lies in: "Examining our own judicial awareness through examining the merits and demerits of the trials."

Yuma Totani believes that through the study of the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, we can see what kind of "judicial power" we expect and how to "achieve justice". Through the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, we can examine the discussion of issues such as applicable law, judicial procedures, defendants' rights, and judicial theory of individual criminal responsibility, which will inspire us on how we should solve the universal human problem of "judicial power" and "achieving justice."

However, the views of the negative factions of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo continued to strengthen later, which was related to their "ideological" stance. However, it cannot be denied that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo did leave many difficult problems to be solved.

The relationship between the court's decision and personal responsibility, or the relationship between the decision and personal responsibility, cannot be said to be completely problem-free from a legal perspective. This is one of the reasons why the "victor's judgment" theory has not yet ceased.