Quartermasters can also fight the devils

Another Japanese author, Takeda Koyoko, wrote a book called "Language Needs and Interpretation Arrangements in the Tokyo Trial", which outlines the special language exchange system of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in the Tokyo trials.

During the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, the most prominent feature of the language arrangement was the hierarchical setting. Three groups of people of different races and social backgrounds performed different translation duties. The interpretation and translation in the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East were performed by Japanese. Japanese Americans were responsible for checking the accuracy of the translation of the trial transcripts, while European American officers were responsible for arbitrating differences arising from the translation process.

This design of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East shows that the judges had doubts about the loyalty of the Japanese and even the American people of Japanese descent, because there were indeed no "neutral" translators in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Therefore, how could the International Military Tribunal for the Far East institutionally ensure that translators of the same group as the defendants were non-biased? It had to take some necessary measures to prevent this.

Ms. Koyoko Takeda believes that this problem will be faced not only by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in its Tokyo trials, but also in other trials involving languages ​​other than Western languages, especially trials of minority languages.

Most of the discussions by Chinese scholars on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo are based on a broad perspective. While this approach makes it difficult to control the macro picture, it also provides the convenience of not being constrained by literature.

For example, Cao Shuji said in "International Treaties and Nationalism: Qin Dechun's Testimony and Cross-Examination at the Tokyo Trial" that when the Japanese army launched the "July 7 Incident", Qin Dechun, as the mayor of Peking at the time, was the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Chinese government at the time of the Tokyo Trial of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. He was also the first Chinese witness to testify at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

As Mr. Ni Zhengyu recalled in "Visiting The Hague with Indifference and Calmness", when Qin Dechun testified at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, he said that the Japanese army killed and burned everywhere and did everything they could. This was considered to be an empty statement by the defense lawyer of the Far East Military Tribunal, and he was almost driven off the witness stand.

Therefore, Qin Dechun's testimony at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was widely circulated as a symbol of China's lack of preparation.

Mr. Cao Shuji made a detailed analysis of Qin Dechun's testimony at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and the cross-examination of both parties through the trial records and relevant archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese government at that time, and believed that Qin Dechun's answers to questions about the "July 7 Incident" were appropriate.

This was because the defense lawyers at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East asked Qin Dechun questions about the "September 18th Incident" and other issues that were beyond Qin Dechun's knowledge, which made Qin Dechun inevitably a little panicked at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

However, there are still two thoughts that linger until now. On the one hand, the survivors of the atrocities committed by the Japanese army have passed away one after another, but the stories of these victims of the war are still haunting everyone.

The naked cruelty and inhumanity of the Japanese war criminals who committed, instigated, assisted and condoned atrocities during the war are a bad omen for the survival of the rational spirit of mankind.

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, a Chinese judge once said: "I believe that forgetting past sufferings may lead to future disasters."

Although the Chinese judge did not specify what kind of disaster is hidden in the future and ahead, continuing to argue about the war must be one of them, and the Chinese judge's gentle words do not deny the urgency of learning from history.

The trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, as well as subsequent trials in various countries, also stored these lessons in their respective verdicts, preserving a true historical record for human history. This is far more important than criticizing that the verdict read out by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo represents the "justice of the victor."

The details of the law can always be debated, but in the final analysis, the law serves the purpose of justice. If justice does not exist, dissatisfaction, suspicion and anger will eventually rise, and inner peace for all can only be achieved through the pursuit of justice, which is the same for victims and criminals.

The trials held by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo and the subsequent trials in various countries also partially achieved the goal of upholding justice. These trials were incompatible with the idea of ​​so-called "Asia for Asians".

Some Asians may be angry about the imperialism practiced by Western powers during the trial, but this resentment does not mean that they have reason to absurdly welcome an Asian country's invasion of other Asian countries. At least China does not need this Asian country to "liberate" it.

For all the countries that suffered heavy losses in World War II and can still feel its negative consequences today, the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo and the subsequent trials in various countries also provided these countries with a reasonable outlet to vent their painful emotions. Of course, these trials of Japanese war criminals are not necessarily a panacea to completely cure the aftermath of war.

On the other hand, the trials of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo and subsequent trials in various countries have made great contributions to the establishment of international standards, and the International Criminal Tribunal, the International Criminal Court and many hybrid courts active in the field of international criminal law are all using these standards to judge the acts of wartime crimes.

Moreover, the judgments of these current judicial bodies will no longer be besieged by waves of criticism like the judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, because it was the judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo that set a legal precedent in the full sense for everyone.

Of course, there are also the verdicts of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, the important verdicts issued by the United States Military Tribunal pursuant to Control Council Law No. 10, and the verdicts of domestic courts of various countries on war crimes and crimes against humanity that occurred during World War II. It is precisely because of all these historical judgments that the system now known as international criminal law has been established.

The positive aspects of the IMTFE trials in Tokyo and subsequent trials in various countries were reinforced by the fact that at the end of the trials the label of “victor’s justice” could not be attached to the verdicts of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Because, no matter what, these crimes cannot be separated from the individual criminals. Even if the legality of the war is still a question, it cannot change the illegality of the atrocities, because the atrocities violated customary international law as early as when they occurred.