Fixel informs Horwitz of the numerous instances in the Tojo Defense Summation where Tojo attempts to "shift responsibility or where he claims he has no responsibility for actions taken." Fixel gives summaries of these instances, referencing topics such as the Manchurian Incident, utilization of POW on the Thailand-Burma Ry, telegram sent from Kwantung Army to the War Ministry on assistance from China in event of war with USSR, decision of the Five Ministers' decision, aerial bombardment in China, fall of the Yonai Cabinet, attack on Pearl Harbor as a crime under international law, the propriety of the trials. Fixel then addresses the Defense attempts to emphasize the notion that Japan was engaged in a war of self defense. He references decisions by the Supreme Court on this matter, ultimately concluding "Unless a similar rule prevails where a nation is vested with power to declare it is required to war in self defense, what recourse would a weak nation have against a powerful aggressor, who, after conquering the weaker nation, merely asserted its notion was in self defense. To test the validity of its claim a court such as IMTFE only determines whether the claim asserted is bona fide, and not a fraudulent or arbitrary exercise of power under the cloak of self defense."