Jump to content

Talk:Radhabinod Pal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tokyo Tribunal Portal?

[edit]

Does something like a Tokyo Tribunal portal exist yet? It would be cool to offer a big navigation box or something that includes all the judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and defendants. That kind of overview makes for excellent browsing imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divad (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I wish to challenge the neutrality of this article. It clearly looks upon Pal's dissenting opinion from the very same 'Western' worldview that he was seeking to highlight and dismiss as being inapplicable to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.98.24 (talk) Justice Radhabinod Pal, Rash behari and Netaji are still respected in Japan: Sushma Swaraj https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK_gJ1AlI2I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.119.233.91 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify further. Your IP address being from the UK is noted unless it is through a VPN. Theheezy (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your peculiar interest in this page has also been noted. God save the queen. Theheezy (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
China is not a "Western" country
and their representative voted for convictions.

International Law?

[edit]

I am reading an article by Ashis Nandy, called "The Other Within," and it states that Pal was not trained in international law and whatever he did know about it, he acquired in Tokyo. Therefore should the line about Pal being an expert in international law be taken out?

There is one idiot in every crowd. We save this guys country from having to learn Japanese and this is the thanks we get. This is why I am against the International Criminal Court. Too many third worlders with strange concepts of law and order.

It seems to me that many lawyers involved with the post-WWII Far Eastern war crimes trials found them to be more about revenge than justice. I suggest looking at the circumstances surrounding General Yamashita's conviction and execution on highly spurious charges that would never have stood in a fair court. Such "justice" throws mud on the reputation of the West. And sign your comments. Kensai Max 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the so called Tokyo Trail was more or less victor's justice. Saving a country from invasion by an agressor is undoubtly a noble act, but the motivation for America to join WWII was pretty much a result of self-interest thinking (yeah right, I forgot, America was "forced" to join the war 'cause it was "ambushed" "without any reason" by the "evil Japs" - and hey look, there's Santa Clause riding Rudy the Reindeer...^^). As a matter of fact, the Japanese committed quite a lot of crimes against humanity during WWII (not only the Nanking Massacre or experiments involving biological warfare in Korea and China), as did the Germans or the Italians. BUT believe it or not, also the American Forces, the Russian Red Army in Europe or the British committed war crimes (raping women and children, annihilating whole cities without any (!) military reason or importance just as an act of retaliation - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Cologne,... -, building concentration camps for Japanese residents in the US - where they were forced to vegetate under worst circumstances and quite many of them died due to the inhuman treatment by the american officials - an so on...). Sure, this doesn't fit the Hollywood-image of the "good" american GI or british rifleman risking his life to battle the "evil" Axis-powers - but unfortunately, the world isn't only black and white and as I stated above those crimes did happen and there were many of them (of course, they don't cover hardly any negative aspect of the angelic allied armies in Hollywood-movies, nor do they teach them in history class in the US or in the UK).

So I think, it is of course necessary to put people, who committed crimes against humanity during any war, on trial, BUT this includes also people on the winning side. You cannot claim them to stand above the law or even above humanity (also see -> Abu Ghraib). The bombing of Nagasaki just 3 days after the - arguably war-shortening - bombing of Hiroshima was in NO way justifiable. People who know of the laggardness of the chain of command in the military as well as in politics and bureaucracy (and I am pretty sure, the American Authorities knew) also know that it was simply not possible for the Japanese leaders to gain information on what happened in Hiroshima, proccessing it, discussing the result and handing in the unconditional surrender within only 3 days, especially if you consider that the whole infrastructure e.g. telephones and the like were completely destroyed, so that it took Tokyo more than 24 hours only to realize what happend there! But, ' hey we still got this plutonium-core type nuclear weapon, so what the heck... let's test it too. Hundreds of thousands of civilians dying...? Ahh, c'mmon - they're only Japs, so what...?! ' - right? ' And those evil Nazi-civilians in remote Dresden... What? Not only Nazis living there? Also democrats, socialists and people from the resistance; evil Nazi-women, evil Nazi-children and evil Nazi-babies; people who actually hated the regime and hoping for a quick end of the war...? So what! They bombed London and Coventry so let's pay it back! Yeehaw! ' Well, is that how the morally superior victors of WWII were thinking during the war? Doesn't sound very morally superior to me...

Another example? Here you go: Due to the specific (!) policy of Gen. Eisenhower, about one milion german soldiers died during their imprisonment in allied POW-camps! One million POWs! Additional to approximately 5,7 million civilians who were not provided with enough food to survive even though the food actually was there. But it was held back on orders by the american military officials. Ahhh rrrhight must have been all Nazis of course, so what?! American military governor Lucius Dubignon Clay (who later helped the Germans a lot because then, they were needed during the cold war against the Soviets) on that: "Let the Germans suffer!" A truly blazing example of humanitarianism... Other examples can be found easily, well, if you are not afraid of the inconvenient truth, that is.

So, of course, hang the soldiers, general officers, politicians and bureaucrats who committed war crimes and crimes against humanitiy, but deal with them in this way on BOTH sides. Hang Tojo Hideki, hang Kimura Heitaro, hang Hermann Goering and hang Ernst Kaltenbrunner. But then - also do so with the war criminals on the allied/soviet side (Truman, Eisenhower, Patton, Arthur "Bomber" Harris, Georgy Zhukov,...). According to my understanding of the term "justice", anyone who committes crimes has to be put to trial, not only people from the other side, am I wrong? I don't think so, maybe only a little naive ;-)

But, as we all know, they did not bring them to trial - they never do. War trials are always based on victor's justice, no matter what country won the war. That's just the way it works - just don't assume that the allies during WWII have all been gleaming knights in shiny armour fighting "the evil" in a holy war...

And maybe that's just what Mr. Pal was thinking (by the way: Mr. Pal - an idiot?! He was not just an eminently respectable jurist and scholar but also the ONLY (!) judge in the whole trial who had some experience in international law; all the others allied jurists were ingenuous on that field of law and were vastly influenced by the american administration and the US Army - mainly Gen. MacArthur, who basically decided by himself who was to be sentenced to death and who was still needed by the US after the war and was therefore to be spared. So I ask you, who were the idiots? Ah, I forgot, anyone who dares to criticize impeccable America must, by some myterious law of nature, be an idiot, right?! Especially when he's from a third world country with all their "strange concepts of law and order"... What a profound attitude, Sir^^) Btw, I am neither Japanese, German or Indian nor an Arabian - and I am also not a third worlder, sorry ;-) --134.96.76.227 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wouldn't have ruled the way he did if Japan had actually invaded India and burned a couple villages. The guy's a joke, especially when it comes to comprehending an "invasive" war. Blueshirts 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They did. I am startled by the extent of your knowledge. Hornplease 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must contest some of the assertions of 134.96.76.227 above, if only so future readers aren't mislead. The Germans estimate that 1,000,000 German POWs died in SOVIET captivity, not that of the US, UK or Free French! Russian figures are a little over 1/3 that number. Eisenhower is hardly responsible for the conduct of the Red Army or Joseph Stalin (I would also remind people of the treatment handed out to Soviet POWs and civilians by the German Army). I can see some of Mr Pal's points, particularly the retrospective one of "aggressive war", however it should be pointed out that by 1945 those who decided to launch Western conquests in "the East" were dead and gone - even Churchill was only a low ranking officer in the Sudan, and the "mandates" were similar to the US taking the Marshall Islands etc as a "trust territory" after WWII from a defeated enemy. You could hardly put people like Palmerston, or Leon Gambetta or President McKinley on trial in 1945/46! The War Crime trials were trials of individuals rather than a collective trial of the Japanese nation. I think it is reasonable that he ruled out such "retrospective" laws as "aggressive war", but someone must have chosen the brutal treatment of allied civilians who fell under Japanese control - treatment which was far worse that the conditions of internment of "Japanese" in the US (their conditions were clearly not good, but hardly the "worst circumstances" - surely overstatement). I would also point out that there is clearly a difference between an individual soldier looting or abusing his power by raping women is on a different order of magnitude to something like the massacre of Nanking. An individual soldier makes the decision to rape, loot, murder etc, but something like Nanking requires a more general order and premeditation from the leadership. The Japanese army was clearly NOT ORDERED to follow the Geneva Convention regarding POWs - so some capability at least by the Japanese leadership itself in the respect of the fate of the POWs is surely there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Motive"

[edit]

The article specifically says that the "high procedural standards" of Pal's jurisprudence as displayed before and after this decision indicates that narrow politics are not a useful explanation. Please do not reintroduce the segment without drastic re-editing to indicate that. Hornplease 08:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Much of it is in any case based on Roling's recollection, which is somewhat self-serving. Pal never confirmed the 'just war'-sympathy with Japan theory, except in general terms about admiration for Japan, which was common among that generation of Indians.Hornplease 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article specifically says "[Pal] used legal arguments to excuse the charges against Japan's orders, but it was a political logic of anti-imperialism that directed him to do so". And "as an Easterner was to support the East in its struggle to resist and separate itself from the West". His anti-western imperialism stance was very clear in his dissenting opinion. Blueshirts 08:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that reporting a mistaken view. The conclusion is that "high procedural standards" are at least as likely. Please do not keep re-inserting this. Hornplease 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article goes into detail on Pal's politics behind his highly legal arguments and you can't possibly exclude this from the article. "While delcining to find Japan guilty of waging aggresive war, [Pal] indicated that the Allied Powers were guilty of committing aggression in Asia". Blueshirts 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, part of an argument which you are quoting out of context. Please. The point being made was that Pal's concern with the legality of the tribunal provided a possible reason for what may appear contradictory statements. Quote from the conclusion rather than the middle of the article. That is simple, basic research methodology. Hornplease 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context? Yes the article is about the inadequacy of a ex post facto military tribunal but also goes into length about the motivations behind his seemingly highly legal but not exactly moral or just dissent opinion. Trying to whitewash this fact does not cut it. Blueshirts 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It reports the political context as one of anti-imperialism. It reports that Bose and the INA were popular in India. All this is for, presumably, the underinformed who did not already know that. It further reports that one of Pal's fellow judges made a claim about his motives. Yes, that's a reliable source. That's the extent of the basis of your re-insertion, and it is insufficient. The article starts off by indicating it wishes to specifically discredit the crippled viewpoint you appear to wish this article to espouse. Hornplease 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article merely states that Pal's legal reasonings in this landmark decision should more or less offset any political leanings. Blueshirts 18:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote to substantiate. From the conclusion. You have paraphrased a tiny passage poorly in your interpolated section. Pal's politics were completely mainstream for Indians, as the article spells out, and to claim that was 'motive' is selective, misrepresentative, and OR.Hornplease 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the high procedural standard to which Pal worked should more than balance the charge that he dissented over the Rape of Nanking for narrowly political reasons" and also the previous quote are both from the conclusion. Blueshirts 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The 'charge'. Which the author points out on p 677 is unfair. Please read that page. If necessary I will quote the entire passage, but I don't see why I should if you have the paper with you. Hornplease 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look, I have reinstated both his political background balanced with his presumed technical "excellence" in his legal reasoning. If you are so bent on removing such information I have nothing else to treat it other than vandalism. Blueshirts 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced quotation?

[edit]

"As for the present war, the Principality of Monaco, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, would have taken up arms against the United States on receipt of such a note as the State Department sent the Japanese Government on the eve of Pearl Harbour."

This is verbatum quotation from Albert Jay Nock's "Memoirs of a Superflous Man" - while I do realize that this quotation is him quoting "contemporary historians", it confuses the reader into thinking that those actual words belong to Rabahadinod Pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.118.32.8 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References and Citations

[edit]

We still need to improve these per the info banner. I've cleaned up grammar, punctuation and style and will keep a watch out for vandalism for as long as I can. I'm a bilingual Japanese with very little tolerance of the kinds of racist comments left by others in years past on this talk page. You have been warned. LoveJapanChika (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on Japanese Military

[edit]

Putting in fake quotes of him criticizing the Japanese is Anti-Japanese Sentiment. He was also against the atomic bombs, but that is not in the article.--NipponSun7 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your tag. The complaint you voice here is not related to whether the article portrays Japan's imperialistic wartime behavior in a good light. Instead, your complaint here is easily fixed by adding something he said about the atomic bombs. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names of his sons and daughters

[edit]

I have added the names of the nine daughters and five sons of Radhabinod Pal. This is based on the family tree created by his granddaughter Dr. Madhumita Pal Roy. She can be contacted for authenticity of the names. I have also made some additional minor edits. I wanted to upload an image of the family tree created by Dr. Madhumita Pal Roy, however, apparently I don't have sufficient rights as an editor to add this image. I would like to add this image, hoping that it is appropriate to add the image to this article, and would require some help from an administrator.

Adat1961 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Radhabinod Pal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radhabinod_Pal&oldid=1212599369"