The Book's Introduction

Active Learning

Learning history extends far beyond accumulating facts about events. It entails challenging perceptions, altering ways of thinking, balancing divergent viewpoints, and making informed decisions based on available evidence, all especially important now with the negative influence of polarization infiltrating news and media. Students who have learned history deeply will not only be able to recall and describe historical events and people but will also have acquired a conceptual understanding of history that empowers them to apply their newfound knowledge in various contexts.

​

For dynamic learning to take place, students’ historical imaginations must be ignited. For the vast majority of them, such a breakthrough in learning cannot be accomplished when they are passive recipients of information conveyed through lectures or PowerPoint presentations, techniques that inspire very few to learn the material deeply or develop the skills to think critically about important historical questions.

​

One highly effective educational tool that enhances understanding of history is the trial simulation, in which students actively engage in historical events, participating rather than merely observing. This hands-on learning experience makes the past relatable and memorable. In addition, simulations encourage critical thinking when students evaluate differing perspectives and formulate their own opinions. By representing historical figures, students gain insight into their motivation, choices, and challenges.

Trial simulations draw on various subjects, including history, civics, law, language arts, sociology, and psychology, promoting interdisciplinary thinking and learning. Participating students must articulate information and arguments clearly and persuasively; doing so enhances their communication and presentation skills. These simulations require students to cooperate with one another. The skills they gain from communication and collaboration help prepare them for college and career.

​

When students simulate these particular trials, they improve their capacity to question assumptions, transform perspectives, reconcile contrasting viewpoints, and make educated choices grounded in evidence. Students will engage deeply with twentieth-century historical content: They will not only remember and be able to explain historical figures and events that shaped the century but will also develop a conceptual grasp of history that will enable them to use their acquired knowledge to think critically about the legal and ethical dilemmas of the time and those of the past as well as those affecting the world today, prompting analysis of ongoing  issues of justice, ethics, and morality.

​

The seven trials were chosen because they matter. Each with high stakes and enduring consequences, those involved in them grappled with important issues. These trials provide both a window to their own time and place and a window to current world events.

The trials range from the genocide of Armenians during World War I to the Protestant and Catholic troubles in Northern Ireland, from Japanese war crimes in World War II to apartheid South Africa, from the killing fields of colonial Congo to the genocide of the Tutsi Rwandans in 1994. Collectively, these trials expose a range of cultures; the role of individuals in shaping history; and violence between groups, within societies, and between nations in the twentieth century.

​

Universal Lessons

​

Throughout history various events have shaped the world in profound ways. Wars, genocides, and crimes against humanity have left lasting scars on societies and individuals. Taken collectively, these trials illuminate what human beings can do to one another when mobilized into believing and then behaving as if others are inferior. According to Armenian author Eric Bogosian, “What happened to the Armenian population in Turkey during World War I was intentional. Men made decisions, men made plans, and those men executed those plans.” Studying these historical trials allows students to explore the past and comprehend the consequences of actions taken by individuals, groups, or nations.

​

The histories of these seven contexts reflect both universal and particular dynamics. Their universality lies in the recurring pattern of hatred and fear serving as catalysts for acts of evil. The atrocities committed during Congo’s colonial era, against Armenians during World War I, in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and during the Rwandan genocide were not inevitable outcomes. Such hatred and fear are learned behaviors, instilled through deliberate teachings that exploit racial, ethnic, or religious differences. Progressive steps—both overt and subtle—fostered this mindset in each case. These same patterns can be observed in Japanese soldiers’ dehumanization of Filipino civilians, Afrikaners’ oppression of Black South Africans, and Protestants’ and Catholics’ animosity toward one another in Northern Ireland.

​

Each of these trials also focuses on individuals who exemplify courage and resistance against hatred and fear. Nelson Mandela’s willingness to risk his life for a democratic South Africa, E.D. Morel’s dedication to exposing and ending forced labor in King Leopold’s Congo, and Hugh Thompson’s decisive action to save nine Vietnamese civilians from massacre by fellow American soldiers serve as powerful examples. If more South Africans like Mandela, more Belgians like Morel, or more individuals at My Lai had acted like Thompson, the course of history could have unfolded with significantly less suffering, destruction, and loss.

​

Individuals testify to abhorrent human behavior In these historical trials; people either lost their moral compass or never had one. Simulating, analyzing, and evaluating decisions of history’s participants provide lessons to promote understanding and counter hate and fear. Studying people in the past who have acted out of hate and fear and those who acted heroically is essential. Understanding the reasons behind past behaviors increases the likelihood that one will pursue justice in the present.

​

Worldwide, communities find themselves challenged by differences. This was true in the twentieth century, and it is true today. Simulations of these trials will raise moral issues that cause students to use reason, make judgments, and then—one hopes—apply the lessons learned to take appropriate action to counter hate and fear in their own societies.

​

These trials reveal that human nature seems remarkably consistent across history. Analyzing the lives of people living in other times and placs allows us to better understand actions taken by people today, including our own. These trials are as relevant today as they were in the times in which they unfolded.

​

Students will hear from Congolese, Armenian, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Rwandan survivors of violent campaigns against them. These personal accounts transform historical events from mere statistics into relatable stories of pain and resilience. Victim testimonies are crucial for preserving collective memory; they ensure that the stories of those who suffered are not forgotten and that future generations learn from past mistakes.

​

Joseph Stalin may not have actually said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"; nevertheless, hearing that 1.5 million Armenians and 800,000 Tutsi were murdered is indeed impactful. Hearing victims’ words on the stand, however, can bring the statistics to life in a way that no bullet on a PowerPoint slide can do.

​

Moral and Ethical Questions

​

As students engage with these trials, they will grapple with pressing moral and ethical dilemmas concerning justice. They will consider the following questions:

​

• What objectives did the prosecutors at each trial aim to achieve at the time they occurred?

• Did the trial produce a just outcome?

• How were sentences decided?

• To what degree should a society tolerate dissent?

• Can a burning belief in social justice ever justify terrorism?

• What does individual accountability look like when individuals claim to be “following orders”?

• Do some laws take precedence over others?

• How do genocide, crimes against humanity, and wartime killings differ?

• Were the verdicts and sentences fair?

• What does the term “victor’s justice” mean?

• What did justice mean to Armenians in World War I, Filipinos during World War II, Blacks in apartheid South Africa, Vietnamese at My Lai, Catholics in Northern Ireland, and Tutsi in Rwanda?

• How did perpetrators and defendants like Mehmed Talaat, General Yamashita, Lieutenant Calley, and the Rwandan media defendants experience justice?

• What deliberate attempts were made to eliminate entire populations in the Ottoman Empire and Rwanda and to marginalize people in South Africa and Northern Ireland?

• How did dehumanization lead to violence in various parts of the world throughout the twentieth century?

• How did ethnic and religious minorities experience discrimination and resist injustice in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and Rwanda?

• And many more questions that will arise related to justice, the law, and human dignity.

 

This resource is not intended for students to argue facts. In the Armenian genocide trial, no witnesses or lawyers debate whether a genocide took place; the genocide of Armenians is a fact. What can be debated is whether assassins have the right to take the law into their own hands.

​

That the Japanese committed horrible atrocities against the citizens of the Philippines in World War II is an established fact; what can be debated is what General Yamashita knew—or should have known—about the massacres and what a commander’s responsibility is.

​

That American soldiers massacred over 400 defenseless villagers at My Lai is an established fact, but whether Lieutenant Calley was following orders when he killed unarmed Vietnamese and what motivated the Americans of C Company to kill defenseless civilians can be debated. These trials do not put facts up for debate.

​

No political agenda underlies these materials. The agenda is for students to learn modern world history, to find out what really happened, and to truly understand why it happened. Students will become knowledgeable about some of the most significant events in world history at a time when such knowledge is being suppressed. We need to resist all attempts at suppression and instead embrace our world’s history and have the courage to understand it.

​

Chapter I: The Trial that Never Happened

​

George Washington Williams, a Black American historian and author, spent six months in Belgian King Leopold II’s Congo Free State (CFS) in 1890. Leopold’s personal African colony was nearly a million square miles and made him the largest private landholder in history.

​

Williams witnessed the brutal realities of Leopold’s rule. Africans were tricked into signing away their land, Leopold’s military stole food from locals at gunpoint, education and healthcare were absent, and officials generally did not speak African languages. Leopold’s government was heavily involved in slave labor, forcing indigenous people to work throughout the region. The King leased land to private companies that paid him a share of the profits from ivory and rubber extraction. These companies terrorized local communities to acquire resources, with Congolese people facing violent punishments, including mutilation and massacre. During Leopold’s reign the population of the CFS, originally 20 million, was estimated to have been reduced by half.

​

Upon his return from the Congo, George Washington Williams published his observations in the pamphlet “Open Letter,” which was distributed widely in the United States and Europe. In it Williams described what he witnessed as “crimes against humanity.” Joseph Conrad, author of The Heart of Darkness—the novel based upon his travels in central Africa—called the crimes in the Congo “the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience.”

​

Leopold II died in 1909 as one of the wealthiest men in the world; he had never set foot in the CFS, and he was never tried for crimes committed in the CFS. The trial suimulation provides an opportunity for students to put the monarch on trial for “crimes against humanity”; to hear testimonies from Congolese victims, humanitarians like George Washington Williams, Leopold’s collaborators, and Leopold himself; and to render a modern verdict.

 

 

Chapter II: The Armenian Genocide and the Trial with Two Verdicts

​

On March 15, 1921, in Berlin, Germany, Soghomon Tehlirian, a young Armenian, shot and killed former Ottoman Minister of the Interior Mehmed Talaat. The young assassin had sought revenge for the murder of his family. Talaat had been a key figure in the ruling party of the Ottomans during World War I—and had a prominent hand in orchestrating the genocide of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians.

​

As Minister of the Interior, Talaat oversaw the confiscation of Armenian properties and the implementation of deportations—which turned into death marches—as thousands and thousands of Armenians perished from exposure, starvation, and massacre. In 1919 and 1920 Turkish courts tried Talaat in absentia for war crimes, reaching a guilty verdict and sentencing him to death. At the time of the verdict, Talaat, who was living safely in Germany, had temporarily evaded justice for mass murder. Soghomon Tehlirian made sure Talaat did not evade justice for long.

​

The trial of Soghomon Tehlirian for the murder of Talaat began on June 2, 1921. Tehlirian’s killing of Talaat was not in question; in fact, he freely admitted, “I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer.”

​

In the German Penal Code of 1870—still in effect at the time of the trial—the punishment for murder depended on several factors, one of which was whether Tehlirian had been driven by anger or insulted by his victim. If Tehlirian’s defense could prove that Talaat was responsible for the Armenian Genocide, it would mitigate his chances for conviction.

​

The trial had essentially two verdicts on display for the world: Tehlirian’s for the premeditated murder of Talaat and Talaat’s for orchestrating the Armenian genocide.

​

Chapter III: War Crimes Justice or Victor’s Vengeance?

​

American forces, alongside Filipino guerrilla fighters, initiated an assault to liberate Manila from Japanese occupation in  February 1945. The ensuing three weeks of fierce combat led to significant destruction in Manila, resulting in approximately 100,000 Filipino civilian casualties.

​

The Japanese military, under the command of General Tomoyuki Yamashita, committed horrific war crimes against Manila civilians, American prisoners of war, and Filipino fighters. The Japanese military targeted soldiers and noncombatants, including women, children, and older Filipinos. Manila bore witness to widespread sexual violence; countless women were raped and executed.

Following Japan’s surrender in August 1945, American General Douglas MacArthur established the Philippine War Crimes Commission to hold Japanese military leaders accountable for their actions. Yamashita was charged with war crimes.

​

No evidence existed that the Japanese general gave any orders to massacre civilians, nor did any evidence suggest that he knew atrocities were committed, prompting Yamashita to say, “How can I be convicted of crimes I didn’t even know about?”

Given the enormity and brutality of the crimes, many believed that—whether or not Yamashita ordered the atrocities—he should be held accountable for the actions of his troops.

 

 

Chapter IV: The Trial that Saved South Africa

​

Representing Afrikaner nationalists and promoting White supremacy, the National Party gained control of the South African government In 1948. Their central policy, known as apartheid, aimed to segregate South Africans by race, ensuring that Whites maintained total control over the country and that their interests were prioritized over those of Black South Africans.

Apartheid had dire consequences for Black South Africans. Two thirds of the African population lived in extreme poverty, the infant mortality rate was thirteen times higher than that of White infants, and any form of protest was likely met with extreme violence from government forces.

​

Initially, the African National Congress (ANC), the largest Black political organization in South Africa, embraced nonviolent civil disobedience, leading to mass arrests and increased membership. Then, in March 1960, White police forces killed sixty-nine peaceful demonstrators in Sharpeville. The massacre prompted the ANC to create uMkhonto weSizwe, a separate group focused on sabotaging  the apartheid government.

​

In retaliation for acts of sabotage, the government raided an ANC safehouse in Rivonia in 1963. The raid led to the arrest of key ANC leaders, including  the charismatic Nelson Mandela, and culminated in the Rivonia Trial, where the defendants faced charges of sabotage and conspiracy. A guilty verdict, which seemed inevitable, could lead to a death sentence for Mandela and the others.

The trial provided a world stage for Mandela to declare, “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”  It was a pronouncement—and a trial—that changed the course of history.

​

Chapter V: A Few Bad Apples or a Bad Barrel?

​

In the midst of the war in Vietnam, the small village of My Lai became the site of tragic events on March 16, 1968, when Captain Ernest Medina gathered one hundred men from Charlie Company for a search-and-destroy mission directed at the 48th Battalion of the Viet Cong.

​

Medina assured the troops that no innocent civilians would be present in the village. Although he denied instructing his men to kill everyone, some soldiers recalled receiving explicit orders to “kill everything that moved,” but others heard no such order at all; still others felt that the captain’s intentions were implied.

​

A massacre unfolded when Charlie Company entered the village. Expecting to engage in combat, they instead found the village occupied by unarmed women, children, and older villagers, with no military-aged men or resistance present. In an act of shocking brutality, U.S. soldiers indiscriminately shot at villagers as they attempted to flee or surrender. The assault included heinous acts, such as clubbing, stabbing, and raping civilians. Survivors were gathered into groups and executed with automatic weapons.

During the four-hour assault, over four hundred unarmed villagers were killed, with over forty U.S. soldiers participating in the atrocities without encountering any enemy fire.

​

What could have caused these Americans to lose their moral compass? Was it just the moral failings of individual soldiers (bad apples), psychological responses to combat stress, the dehumanization of the enemy, or the inevitable result of American military policy decisions (a bad barrel)?

​

Chapter VI: The Troubles and the Trial

​

The Troubles in Northern Ireland, a violent conflict between Protestants and Catholics that lasted from the late 1960s to 1998, stemmed from deep-seated political, cultural, and religious divisions. The Protestant majority was supported by the United Kingdom, which sent troops to secure Protestant rule. The Catholic minority faced historical discrimination in housing, employment, and voting rights, fueling resentment. Protests escalated into widespread sectarian violence, paramilitary campaigns, and clashes between Catholic groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Protestant groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force.

​

The IRA was determined to drive the British out of Northern Ireland. They killed British soldiers and police officers; they detonated bombs. Many IRA members had been arrested and incarcerated in the notorious prison known as the Maze.

​

On November 26, 1978, two IRA assassins killed Maze prison official Albert Miles. Five years later, twenty-four-year-old Catholic Kevin Barry Artt was put on trial for Miles’ murder. Artt had confessed to the crime but later claimed innocence, stating that the confession had been coerced through seven days of ill-treatment and threats. The trial raised many questions: Was Artt guilty? If not Artt, then who had killed Albert Miles? What was the IRA’s role in the murder? Was the British judicial system in Northern Ireland capable of delivering a just verdict?

​

The trial of Kevin Barry Artt helps explain the Troubles in Northern Ireland: the struggles of the working-class Catholics, prejudicial law enforcement, British judges, excessive police interrogation, the violent tactics of the IRA, and the distrust and enmity on both sides of the sectarian divide.

​

Trial VII: Incitement to Genocide

​

In 1990, the Hutu extremist magazine Kangura published the Hutu Ten Commandments. The directives included the following: “Every Hutu should know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. His only aim is the supremacy of his ethnic group,” “The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi,” and “The Hutu must be firm and vigilant against their common Tutsi enemy.” Four years later, militant Hutu systematically slaughtered 800,000 defenseless men, women, and children.

​

The Rwandan genocide stands as one of the most tragic events in modern history. The extermination campaign targeted Tutsi, who despite sharing race, language, and religion with the Hutu, became their victims of unimaginable atrocities. The orgy of violence showed what human beings are capable of when they are mobilized to believe that other human beings are threatening and inferior.

​

What had mobilized such hatred? The Hutu‒Tutsi conflict was rooted in colonial rule when the Belgians favored the Tutsi minority over the Hutu majority, creating deep-seated resentment among the Hutu. After gaining independence, Hutu-led governments enacted discriminatory policies against the Tutsi, further escalating tension. But what was the influence of the Hutu hate media? Did hate media directly cause the genocide? And what was the motive of the media? Was it to incite violence or to sell magazines?

In 2003 the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda sought to hold media individuals accountable for their actions, emphasizing that incitement to violence is a crime under international law.