The Second “International Military Tribunal for the Far East” is now being held.
- 238
- 4
- 1
After World War Ⅱ, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was held to convict the war crimes. The Japanese politicians who were judged at the trial by victor nations were called class-A war criminals.
Quite few Japanese argue that the trial was extremely unfair and ran counter to the spirit of the International Law. Indeed, Japanese politicians made their wrong way to the war. However, it doesn’t justify the unfair trial.
I don’t necessarily disagree. As one of the Japanese citizens I want to look up to past politicians. As one of the descendants of them I also have to take responsibilities for the war. That’s why, I’m very sorry that the Second “International Military Tribunal for the Far East” is now being held.
Naoto Kan, who was the prime minister when the Fukushima nuclear crisis happened, is called “class-A war criminal” by the Japanese ourselves. He is now examined at the trail, the conclusion of which is made in advance.
I think today isn’t different from that day when Japan rushed to the war. I even think the trail worse in that we ourselves are verdicting “the class-A war criminal.”
Quite few Japanese argue that the trial was extremely unfair and ran counter to the spirit of the International Law. Indeed, Japanese politicians made their wrong way to the war. However, it doesn’t justify the unfair trial.
I don’t necessarily disagree. As one of the Japanese citizens I want to look up to past politicians. As one of the descendants of them I also have to take responsibilities for the war. That’s why, I’m very sorry that the Second “International Military Tribunal for the Far East” is now being held.
Naoto Kan, who was the prime minister when the Fukushima nuclear crisis happened, is called “class-A war criminal” by the Japanese ourselves. He is now examined at the trail, the conclusion of which is made in advance.
I think today isn’t different from that day when Japan rushed to the war. I even think the trail worse in that we ourselves are verdicting “the class-A war criminal.”
After World War Ⅱ, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was held to convict the try Japanese politicians for war crimes.
try = put on trial, convict = find guilty
The Japanese politicians who were judged at the trialled by victor nations were called branded class-A war criminals.
"branded a criminal" suggests unfair judgement. we also say "branded a liar", "branded a cheat" etc...
Quite a few Japanese people argue that the trial was extremely unfair and ran counter to undermined the spirit of the International Law.
It's difficult to explain "Japanese" vs "Japanese people". I think a safe rule is "Japanese" is direct, "Japanese people" is indirect. "Undermined" is more natural than "countered" in this sentence.
Indeed, Japanese politicians made their wrong way to the war.
I think you are trying to say "Japanese politicians did wrong during the war" or "Japanese politicians made their mistakes during the war"?
However, it doesn’t justify the an unfair trial.
As one of the a Japanese citizens, I want to look up to past politicians.
As one of their descendants, of them I also have to take responsibility for the war.
We ourselves call Naoto Kan, who was the prime minister when the Fukushima nuclear crisis happened, is called a “class-A war criminal” by the Japanese ourselves.
Japanese people = "The Japanese themselves", Japanese people (and I am one of them) = "We ourselves". Does that make sense?
He is now being examined at the trail, the conclusion of which is has already been decided. made in advance.
This sounds more natural
I don't think today isn’t any different from that day when Japan rushed to the war.
isn't/ doesn't/ hasn't etc = I don't think...is/does/has.
I even think the trail is made even worse in by the fact that we ourselves are verdicting have already reached the verdict “the class-A war criminal.”
"verdict" is a noun, "to reach a verdict" is the verb form
I find it sad that whole countries take responsibility for a minority who were in the wrong. However, I think it's part of today's human nature to be at war and we definitely have to be careful to avoid something like World War II happening again.
I think in the context of what was written, what pikaso means is "Indeed there was corruption in the Japanese government that resulted in Japan going to war". This is saying that although Japanese politicians had an unfair trial, there were individuals within the Japanese government that were true war criminals.
I hope that makes sense!