World War II Mock Trials

Welcome to your first Mock Trial in AP US History.  Since we’ve recently covered the chapter on World War II, we are going to debate the questions related to the necessity and decision to drop the atom bomb on the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the questions concerning war crimes and the fate of captured NAZI leaders.

Here are some suggested research links for the atom bomb:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

http://chalk.richmond.edu/education/projects/webquests/wwii/

and the Nuremberg Trials:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Nuremberg_trials.html

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/

Here’s a copy of the Atom Bomb packet.

Here’s a copy of the rubric for the roles of lawyers, witnesses and jury members:

Lawyer Grading Rubric

A – Lawyers conduct extensive research and present copies of their findings (in their own words, typed) to the judge.  Lawyers present their case by beginning with a clear, well written and well practiced opening statement.  This opening statement uses background information on current immigration issues, previous immigration laws, relationships between immigration and global politics, world economics and international multiculturalism, as well as civil and human rights.  The cross-examination questions asked of each witness are extremely thoughtful and planned in advance.  Copies are submitted to the judge.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigrant rights and law in the United States.  Lawyers also present hypothetical questions to the witnesses in addition to their provided testimony.

B – Lawyers present their case by beginning with a clear, well written and well practiced opening statement.  This opening statement uses background information on immigration laws and current issues as well as the impact on civil and human rights.  The cross-examination questions asked of each witness are very thoughtful and planned in advance.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigration rights and law in the United States.  Lawyers also present hypothetical questions to the witnesses in addition to their provided testimony.

C – Lawyers present their case by beginning with an opening statement that is clear but uses only a few historical references.  Their opening statement also makes arguments that do not fit well with their witnesses’ statements.  They cross-examine witnesses well and ask probing questions, but fail to take advantage of logical arguments and other opportunities.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigration issues and law.

D – Lawyers present their case and use background information but don’t connect it to their arguments.  They question witnesses but don’t use their testimony in their concluding remarks.  They do some brief research but have gaps of knowledge that the other lawyers exploit.

F – Lawyers present their case with little background information and nothing to sustain their argument.  They poorly question witnesses and make quick introduction and concluding remarks.

Witness Grading Rubric

A – Witnesses who want an A as a grade will prepare everything for three different characters.  They will also act out each of these during the trial.  Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have an excellent understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a great job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  They also appear in the dress of their roles.  Witnesses submit their affidavits (full biographies) to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.  Witnesses also submit their research on their role in a three page typed report.

B – Witnesses who want a B as a grade will prepare everything for two different characters.  They will also act out both of these during the trial.  Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have an excellent understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a great job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  They also appear in the dress of their roles.  Witnesses submit their affidavits to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.  Witnesses also submit their research on their role in a two page typed report.

C – Witnesses conduct research on their character, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have a good understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a good job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  Witnesses submit their affidavits to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.

D – Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have a good understanding of the events, people and issues concerning immigration.  Witnesses also do a good job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned by the lawyers.

F – Witnesses conduct some research on their characters, including brief details about themselves, but only have a basic understanding of the content.

Jury Grading Rubric

A – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a three paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take superb notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will rewrite these notes into transcripts that tell the whole course of the trial.  They will write a three paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content, current circumstances and the events and issues of the trial itself.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  They will verify (check) historical facts used in the trial for truthfulness and write a one page report on the use or misuse of such facts in the trial.  Jury members will also give an extensive statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each in detail.

B – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a two paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take superb notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will rewrite these notes into transcripts that tell the whole course of the trial.  They will write a two paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  Jury members will also give a statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each.

C – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a one paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take very good notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will write a one paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  Jury members will also give a brief statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each.

D – Jury members will research and write a one paged summary of immigration issues in United States history.  Jury members will take good notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will write an opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.

F – Jury members will take notes and write an opinion of the trial that is only somewhat based on historical content, the witness’s testimony and the arguments of the lawyers.

Finally, here’s some awesome student work on the Atom Bomb Trial from our prosecution and defense opening statements.

DEFENSE: OPENING STATEMENT – Good morning to all in attendance here in the courtroom today. On this day we gather here for the trial of Mr. Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States. President Truman is brought before us today for false accusations of war crimes committed against the people, and former enemies of Japan. This decision in question was that of the one my client made, as commander in chief to drop an atomic bomb of both the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today the prosecution is going to try to sway your opinion against my client by providing you with the destruction that the atom bomb caused, and the civilian toll that it took. Although they may decide to call it inhumane, war laws determined at the Hague Conference, along with others, will prove that my client is innocent of the charges placed against him. You will hear evidence today on such law that allows for this type of warfare as long as military interests were in its decision, and not just barbarity of killing civilians. Today you will hear statistics of the thousands of civilians who died due to this specific bombing, that it was over one hundred thousand; however it is important to note that during World War II, approximately 26,163, 700 civilians died, some of them at the hands of Japanese bombers and in bombs themselves, six thousand of them being American. So are we here today to argue the obvious need and necessity of the atom bomb’s dropping, or just the fact that it was the most powerful bomb to ever be dropped in warfare in the world’s history? Today, my goal as President Truman’s Counsel will be to convince you of both the true necessity and justification of the said bombing that we sit in this courthouse today for. You will hear submitted evidence as well as testimonies proving such need and justification. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, first and foremost saved American lives and ended this war in unconditional surrender, which had been the policy set by the previous administration under the late President Roosevelt. A piece of evidence from General MacArthur himself, will display his concern that possibly one million American men may have lost their lives if an invasion of the Japanese mainland were to take place as an alternative to this bombing, for although Japan may have been economically crippled, it still did have strong military capabilities. In addition in order to prove this, you will also hear from one Japanese official himself, with reference to another, who will testify that Japan had no intention on surrendering, and therefore that the war would continue with its numerous costs to the United States. This therefore concludes that by just simply dropping one of our atom bombs on a deserted island to prove our strength would fail in forcing the Japanese to surrender considering the fact that they refused to surrender even after these economic difficulties had plagued them, including the dropping of the first atom bomb, and the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. This therefore as through evidence will also show that the atom bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end this war, for it sent a message to the Japanese that we would defeat them and with the lives of our military at hand, decided to drop these bombs. But let it be known as well that both cities bombed did in fact have significance. Hiroshima itself was the Second Command Japanese Headquarters which controlled all of Southern Japan. This is important for the United States held Okinawa, just to the South of Japan and its bombing could potentially destroy Japan’s defense of the Southern tier of its mainland. Nagasaki was also of significant importance for it was Japan’s most significant sea port, and being economically crippled was vital to Japanese survival in the war. Finally along with other arguments supporting the acquittal of my client, you will hear from him himself. It is also important to note, that bombings had caused much greater civilian death toll in the past, making this one no more different, as seen by the War Department. In addition, President Truman will take the stand tonight and explain to you his interests in ending this war, saving American lives, and was advised by numerous committees, and even had the support of the bombs’ creator, in dropping these bombs. President Truman had no intentions or interests in these bombs, except to ensure this country’s victory and the retrieval of unconditional surrender from Japan. In closing, I ask of you to listen to the facts presented to you tonight, and decipher what really is barbaric and what is necessary. Barbarism is the unnecessary torture put on prisoners and civilians by the Japanese; necessity was the military actions that my client took in order to defend his country, which as President, he is sworn to do under the Constitution of the United States. Thank you.

PROSECUTION: OPENING STATEMENT – The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, unnecessary, unjustifiable, and a blatant war crime. President Harry S. Truman’s actions wreaked havoc on a country that was already deteriorating at a rapid pace; Japan was crumbling, both literally and figuratively. American air forces had already destroyed over sixty major Japanese cities by the use of conventional bombing, and due to the embargoes and insufficient amount of food and artillery it would have been impossible for Japan to remain immersed in open warfare for much longer. It is safe to state that the atom bomb is the most technologically advanced weapon on earth, light-years ahead of any other weapons that are currently in circulation today. The effect of a single atom bomb is devastating, but the combined effects of two atomic bombs are more catastrophic than we here in this courtroom can fully comprehend. That is, with the exception of two Japanese women who sit among us today, two women who have lived through this harrowing ordeal and have been kind enough to submit their testimonies to this case. Their stories will be added into the comprehensive books of historical records, of the world, albeit situated within one of the darkest chapters of human history mankind have ever had the misfortune to have orchestrated. Mr. Truman’s own generals Mr. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur, and William Lahey, three of the brightest military minds of our generation, all met with Mr. Truman three days before the atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima; the decision between the generals was unanimous; it was unnecessary to drop the atomic bomb and there was no military need to employ such a devastating bomb at this late stage of the war. Over two billion dollars was spent on the creation and development on an atrocity with the power to decimate whole cities in a single blow and kill hundreds of thousands on impact. The atom bomb is indiscriminant; it does not know the value of an innocent; men, women, children, babies; ALL are enemies.  The ratio of civilians to military personnel in the star-crossed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was six to one at the time of the drop. SIX TO ONE! This statistic speaks volumes; this attack was not “solely a military target”. Over 135,000 died in Hiroshima and 64,000 died due to the bombing in Nagasaki, most of which were uninvolved women and children; schools, hospitals, homes; blown off the face of the Earth by either “Little Boy” or “Fat Man”. We as a nation must collectively realize that when we dropped these bombs with the hope of ending the war, we were also waging a war on generations of future Japanese citizens, and humanity itself. The radiation caused by the blast permeates everything; the soil, the water, even the cells and genetics of the indigenous peoples. The “black rain” which immediately followed the blast fell for over an hour, covering broad expanses of land with radioactive debris. In the next few months and years the world we will be able to watch as a pattern emerges:  the civilians who survived the atom bomb itself will begin succumbing to cancers and injuries caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The employment of these atomic bombs is also a clear and distinct violation of existing aerial codes, including the Law and Custom of War on Land (Hague,H). It states, Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing…… (QOUTE IS ON PAPER). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to petrify the Japanese people into submission; a gilded euphemism for something darker and more valid: terrorism.