Support NeoGAF

[///PATRIOT]

Americans were damn if they bomb, damn if they do not. There's no right or easy answer.

 

[En Sama]

Americans were damn if they bomb, damn if they do not. There's no right or easy answer.

I agree with this.

 

[PaddyOCanager]

A bombing only constitutes a war crime if the extent of civilian casualties resulting from the attack is excessive compared to the military advantage gained from the attack.

Japan surrendered, so the answer is NO.

 

[jason10mm]

Japan were given ample warning but did not back down and would have gone to the end. But did they have to drop the bomb in a city with so many civilians?

We told the government, we told the city, it's not a war crime because they had a choice.

The Japanese military industry was often mixed in with civilian interests. Plus there was no concept of precision bombing back then, torching a city to kill a few factories was common then.

We'll likely never know, but I suspect those two relatively low yield nuclear strikes prevented MASSIVE nuclear exchanges or conventional warfare later on. The entire past 80 years of relative peace between major powers is a testament to the lingering lessons of hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[En Sama]

A bombing only constitutes a war crime if the extent of civilian casualties resulting from the attack is excessive compared to the military advantage gained from the attack.

Japan surrendered, so the answer is NO.

So says us the nuclear bomb droppers.

 

[nkarafo]

The justification for the bombing was that millions more would have died in a ground assault on mainland Japan, which would have happened otherwise.

Nah, it wouldn't be millions. A lot, but not millions.

It would also be more american losses. That's what was important to them. The japanese took those losses one way or another in the end anyway.

Either way, even if the intention was to save more lives than they took, it was still a war crime.

Also, its funny to me that there were 2 bombs. One wasn't enough apparently so they had to use another... which was a completely different design. Its almost like they wanted to test those things. Nah, there is no way they did it for testing, humans can't be that cruel, right?

 

[nkarafo]

No it's not because context is really important. The purpose of the bombs was to force Japan to surrender. It was a "lesser of two evils" because hundreds of thousands more lives on both sides will die if the Allies went for amphibious landing instead. The Japanese were willing to defend to the last man literally, even resorting to using the civilian population as meat shields by arming them with makeshift weapons and through propaganda saying it's more honorable to die for the emperor. The battles on places such as Okinawara and Iwo Jima showed that the Japanese were willing to stall and inflict as much as casualties as they can using tactics like kamikazes due to their unwillingness to surrender, despite the fact that by that point, it was impossible for them to win the war.

You should read about Operation Downfall and Operation Ketsugo.

The Japanese committed way worse atrocities with a WAY higher death count in its campaign across China, and South East Asia. Nanjing Massacres, Unit 731, comfort women, now these are war crimes.

Yaah, lets stop/avenge their war crimes with another war crime.

Mass murdering civilians is a war crime, no matter the context. Was it for the best in the end? Who knows but even if it was, it was still a war crime. Americans need to admit it and move on instead of trying to paint it as something else. Whatever the intention was, America got their hands dirty.

 

[lachesis]

Absolutely. Neither Nagasaki or Hiroshima were military targets, it was a targeted attack on civilians. Despicable in every sense.

Hiroshima: Major Army base (5th division & 2nd army HQ) + major port + communication center.
Nagasaki: not as much as Hiroshima nor its original intended target Kokura - but still the one of the most important navy port & to call it as targeted attack on civilians is simply wrong.

Japan should have surrendered way before Tokyo raid. If there's anyone to blame, it's the Japanese war mongers for prolonging the losing war at their own civilian's lives.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

USA wasnt the one trying to take over countries like Germany and Japan. USA (and allies) were just trying to protect their borders and push back the Axis.

It's not like the US had interest to take over all Pacific countries as American soil. Japan seemed to be rampaging all over East and Southern Asia.

All Japan had to do was dont be buddies with Germany trying to take over. But they probably thought the US is the only opponent in the Pacific and that they might be stretched thin across the Pacific and Europe.

Turns out they werent and plastered Japan making them eat two giant bombs, which made all their Imperial leaders surrender.

Lesson learned. And ever since, Japan did a 180 acting totally different. For anyone who hasnt read on WWII, they probably think for 1000s of years Japan is a super nice and clean society where everyone is chill and make TVs and cars. Not so back then.

I'm not even American, but one thing you should never do is underestimate Yanks in wars. Chances are pretty good they'll kick the shit out of ya. And luckily for opponents once the war is over they'll ease up, instead of trying to raid and take over a beaten opponent's land mass (when they probably could if they really wanted to).

 

[Tams]

This idea that any and all civilians must be innocent is nonsense.

The level of complicity varies, but even apathy is a form of complicity. And Imperial Japan was a very heavily indocrinated and propagandised society. It's a dirty truth that the Japanese unsurprisingly don't like to bring up.

 

[En Sama]

And Americans are indoctrinated to believe that blowing up innocent civilians with nuclear bombs is A ok.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

It cost countless Japanese lives. It also saved countless American lives continuing a bloody grind of a war that the Japanese were adamant in not surrendering and still didn't want to after both bombs were dropped.

War is ugly, few choices are simple. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. They made a choice to spare soldiers the horrors of grinding out against a die-hard enemy.

Don't think it was a war crime.

I don't think what you said is incompatible with it also being a war crime. Then again, I don't know the specific rules that define a war crime, but hopefully you get what I mean.

 

[Romulus]

América was never invaded, in fact its almost imposible to invade the american continent, so thats excuse is pathethic

Americans are a bloodthirsty salvages, always in the need of war, if they Just wanted to show their nukes, they can do it in an abandoned Island like many of japan and prove their point, but no, they have to commit a genocide, because killing for them feels good and need to prove they are heroes

Ahh ok, with your previous post I almost considered you had a point. This post clears everything up though. Merica bad

 

[Grildon Tundy]

USA wasnt the one trying to take over countries like Germany and Japan. USA (and allies) were just trying to protect their borders and push back the Axis.

It's not like the US had interest to take over all Pacific countries as American soil. Japan seemed to be rampaging all over East and Southern Asia.

All Japan had to do was dont be buddies with Germany trying to take over. But they probably thought the US is the only opponent in the Pacific and that they might be stretched thin across the Pacific and Europe.

Turns out they werent and plastered Japan making them eat two giant bombs, which made all their Imperial leaders surrender.

Lesson learned. And ever since, Japan did a 180 acting totally different. For anyone who hasnt read on WWII, they probably think for 1000s of years Japan is a super nice and clean society where everyone is chill and make TVs and cars. Not so back then.

I'm not even American, but one thing you should never do is underestimate Yanks in wars. Chances are pretty good they'll kick the shit out of ya. And luckily for opponents once the war is over they'll ease up, instead of trying to raid and take over a beaten opponent's land mass (when they probably could if they really wanted to).

Could it be said that the US/Allies didn't take over the losing countries' soil, but instead took them over financially and geopolitically?

 

[NeonGhost]

Nope put them in their place

 

[Tams]

Could it be said that the US/Allies didn't take over the losing countries' soil, but instead took them over financially and geopolitically?

All the countries occupied by the Allies (expect the USSR) quite quickly were allowed to govern themselves again and are now all decent democracies.

This nonsense about a 'Western Empire' or whatever needs to stop.

 

[bitbydeath]

Are people here really deluding themselves, thinking that America or any other country hasn’t attacked and killed mass amounts of civilians in every other war that has ever occurred?

Complaining about this one situation is silly when it’s the status quo for all wars.

 

[En Sama]

Is this not a little bit different though? I mean they were two islands not really connected to the front.

 

[Rival]

I don’t know if it was a war crime but I do know if you fuck around with a rattlesnake and get bitten it’s your fucking fault.

 

[StateofMajora]

This idea that any and all civilians must be innocent is nonsence.

The level of complicity varies, but even apathy is a form of complicity. And Imperial Japan was a very heavily indocrinated and propagandised society. It's a dirty truth that the Japanese unsurprisingly don't like to bring up.

It's likely we'd be no different under those circumstances. Everyone is afraid for their own lives and the lives of their families.

And when I say it's likely, I mean almost certainly.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Had the Germans won, wouldn't they have put some people on trial on the allies side for war crimes?

The Germans didn't really bother with trials and if they did, it was just for show like Sophie Scholl. A few minutes from where I live there is a monument where the Germans executed 10 prisoners as reprisal for sabotage of a railroad in a country they conquered. Does make this sabotage a war crime? Millions of Soviet POWs were murdered after being captured defending their country. War ciminals obviously.

 

[LordCBH]

No.

 

[Mossybrew]

Everyone knows that in a war, you don't attack civilians on purpose.

All sides did this in WW2. It was part of a strategy. Our firebombing killed more civilians than the nukes. It was a different time, you can't apply today's "morality" to it.

 

[Arkangelus0]

Ahh ok, with your previous post I almost considered you had a point. This post clears everything up though. Merica bad

Of course, anyone Who is OK to NUKE 2 citys full Of civilians are fucking evil

Relax. WWII ended almost 80 years ago. You have zero proof showcasing nukes on an abandoned island would make Japan surrender. But blowing up their cities did end it.

US might be part of lots of battles, but dont forget often times they are asked for help. I bet no other country on Earth gets begged more for military and financial help than the US. Most other countries in the world do absolutely zero. There's around 200 countries in the world and same maybe 10 do all the legwork as global protectors. The rest sit there as if nothing happened and just live life hoping they dont get affected. And that even includes some countries right in the middle of warzones (ie. Switzerland). The first thing they do is claim neutrality and try to make money from both sides.

Be appreciative the nukes ended the war, and the US was a big part in Europe too. If it wasnt for the US, we could all be speaking German or Japanese now.

Just because WW2 ended almost 80 years, dont change the fact the american continent is almost imposible to conquest, thats why the US was ever invaded in the first place, even before WW2, the danger Of conquest was irreal, in fact the only time the US was hit in their own terrotory was because of terrorism, not by a fleet or an army, The geography Of América offer full protection, starting with an ocean

And how exactly América help his allies exactly? Taiwan is in danger Of China, its an ally Of the usa, and at the same time, the US denies Taiwán existence and acept the policy Of 1 china

Or Israel, US Long ally, but never help them in war, even when the country was in real danger, in fact the us Just give money to the Iron dome and other project in exchange Of technollgy and Intel, Just quid pro quo

And when that happens, the us is ally Of saudí arabia and even sell them weapons, the country Who give money to terrorist organizations for decades, to destroy Israel, the usa ally...

So yeah i fail to see how the US help the World and allies, when he help both sides to have a bigger and longest conflict

And im not even starting all the proxy wars the US have for decades

And to finish, Germany and Italy alredy lost the war and finish fighting WEEKS before the nukes, so its kind Of stupid to claim if it was for nukes we saved ourself Of speaking Germany Or japanese, and btw América enter the war in europe when the tide alredy changed, The USSR and the british alredy weakened the Nazis and the Facist.

And to add a little extra, in 1973,the yom kipur war, when Israel was attacked by surprise by 2 countrys, they refuse to use nukes, on the sinai desert, because it was a stupid idea

In fact please remove your Ukraine avatar and replace it with the Z logo. You alredy stated you dont care about geneva conventions when you claim everything is fair in war, like the russians, and thanks to the nukes, the otan cant help ukraine thanks to the threat Of nukes by the kremlin

 

[HoodWinked]

fuck that noise.

1. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked
2. Rape of Nanking (even nazis were appaled at what happened)
3. There was a fog of war whether or not the bombs would even end the war at the time. However now in hidesight we can say with almost certainty that less people died as a result of the nukes than to have continued with conventional warfare.

a. Kyūjō incident despite the dropping of two nukes, an assassination coup was attempted to stop the surrender by the Emperor. This is how adamant they wanted to continue with the war.​

4. America help to rebuild and Japan is one of US closest allies as the outcome shows even they recognize that they would have fought to the last man.

 

[TrueLegend]

I like how every dumbass is stuck on this proxy discussion of wether it was right or not...when you cant do much about it. Meanwhile people should actually read USA's current nuclear policy. By any metric of justice you will realise its just pure evil. Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5 highlight it. USA has this trust me bro, I alone should have the power because I alone can be trusted to not use it(meanwhile i am the only country in history that has used nuclear bomb), but I am the good guy bro, trust me. Lol, the latest episode of The Boys summed it perfectly, both the extreme capitalism and warmongering of US.

“To be American means knowing you’re the hero,”. “So what do we do? We sweep all our filthy shit under the rug and we tell ourselves a myth like Soldier Boy. And I get stinking rich selling it.”

 

[Tams]

It's likely we'd be no different under those circumstances. Everyone is afraid for their own lives and the lives of their families.

And when I say it's likely, I mean almost certainly.

Complicity is complicity, no matter how you dress it.

And I don't think you understand quite how fanatic Imperial Japan became.

 

[Tams]

I like how every dumbass is stuck on this proxy discussion of wether it was right or not...when you cant do much about it. Meanwhile people should actually read USA's current nuclear policy. By any metric of justice you will realise its just pure evil. Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5 highlight it. USA has this trust me bro, I alone should have the power because I alone can be trusted to not use it(meanwhile i am the only country in history that has used nuclear bomb), but I am the good guy bro, trust me. Lol, the latest episode of The Boys summed it perfectly, both the extreme capitalism and warmongering of US.

“To be American means knowing you’re the hero,”. “So what do we do? We sweep all our filthy shit under the rug and we tell ourselves a myth like Soldier Boy. And I get stinking rich selling it.”

You berate us, and then come in sounding like a 13-year-old basing your arguments on video games.

Mate...

 

[DragoonKain]

I don't think what you said is incompatible with it also being a war crime. Then again, I don't know the specific rules that define a war crime, but hopefully you get what I mean.

Well let me ask you this. What would make it not a war crime to use an atom bomb? What if Nazi Germany had conquered Russia and built a stronghold in eastern Europe and repelled all the Allies advances into France? Those two fronts were major turning points in the war. Then what if Nazi Germany turned their advances to taking out England and then setting their sights toward America? Would it have been a war crime if we nuked Germany to stop the Nazis in their tracks? I don't think anyone would argue it would be.

So the question then becomes: when is it acceptable to use nuclear weapons? Only when an evil empire ran by a ruthless dictator is about to take over the world? The end purpose is the same. To end a war. Whether it's against Nazi Germany or Japan(not that Japan back then was all peaches and cream either) the premise is entirely the same. To save Allied lives and end a war.

So why would one be a war crime and not another?

 

[Urban]

Thats the point.

And no foreign governments ever attack the US on their soil since then. Just imagine if the US didn't end the pacific war with Japan with nukes. It could had gone on for ages.

Sometimes when someone punches you in the face, you hit them on the head with a baseball bat to end it. If you dont, then you might get into a stupid back and forth match trading punches forever.

Did you go to the military?

 

[Romulus]

Of course, anyone Who is OK to NUKE 2 citys full Of civilians are fucking evil

So a few old dudes that decided to nuke Japan back in the 1940s means all of America is evil. Ok. The overwhelming majority had no idea that was even going to happen, it just did. And even if the majority did "support" there's no way we can prove they would actually have the balls to order that.

 

[Arkangelus0]

So a few old dudes that decided to nuke Japan back in the 1940s means all of America is evil. Ok. The overwhelming majority had no idea that was even going to happen, it just did. And even if the majority did "support" there's no way we can prove they would actually have the balls to order that.

Like i say, and repeat again, anyone Who is OK to NUKE 2 citys full Of civilians are fucking evil, and why bring some old dudes from the 1940 when right now, on this post, are People Who are OK with the fact, its was OK for them too NUKE 2 citys full Of civilians

Thats evil period

 

[TrueLegend]

You berate us, and then come in sounding like a 13-year-old basing your arguments on video games.

Mate...

Yes because only 13 years old play video games and video games cant have deep political & philosophical questions embedded in them. Check the website name you are on dude.

 

[Romulus]

Like i say, and repeat again, anyone Who is OK to NUKE 2 citys full Of civilians are fucking evil, and why bring some old dudes from the 1940 when right now, on this post, are People Who are OK with the fact, its was OK for them too NUKE 2 citys full Of civilians

Thats evil period

Again, being "ok" with it and actually doing it are 2 completely different things. You might sit back on your couch and say it was necessary etc, but actually ordering those bombs being dropped is a whole another level. You said America was evil when only a few people had a say-so.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Yes it was a war crime. The fact that it was used by "The Good Guys" doesn't change the horror that it was.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Yes it was a war crime. The fact that it was used by "The Good Guys" doesn't change the horror that it was.

But not using the bomb and dragging out the war for much longer, either starving or invading Japan would have been even worse. For everyone.

We'd have a topic here arguing not using the bomb was a war crime.

 

[InverseAgonist]

When it comes to war, I'm on the side of anything goes to win.

Brilliant analysis.

There's been some amazing weapons cooked up at Fort Detrick and Gorodomlya Island that you'd enjoy.

 

[Arkangelus0]

Again, being "ok" with it and actually doing it are 2 completely different things. You might sit back on your couch and say it was necessary etc, but actually ordering those bombs being dropped is a whole another level. You said America was evil when only a few people had a say-so.

Wow, how fucking "Hard" must me to push a button and feel a little guilty, making tens Of Thousand to die in a instant, and the few Who survive must endure terrible burns and cáncer,for life.
those are the 1 Who have them Hard, not the fucking guy with the button.

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

No, because the us wasnt the agressor.

 

[InverseAgonist]

Americans were damn if they bomb, damn if they do not. There's no right or easy answer.

I agree. This is perhaps the most rational post in this thread.

Nuclear weapons, especially of the era that ranged around 10kt, aren't more deadly than the strategic air war that the USAAF and British conducted over Germany and Japan.

The history is extremely fascinating and I highly recommend Malcom Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia for a brief introduction. There was such early promise in the idea of precision high-altitude bombings against industrial targets in Germany enabled by the Norden bombsite. But the technology of the era just prevented it and we ended up with the sheer statistics, some of which were computed by none other than Robert McNamara, leading the legendary Curtis LeMay is move to low level mass bombing. And thus Dresden and Berlin were destroyed, at great cost on both sides. Moving to low-level bombing means you're exposed and B17/B29 losses went up dramatically. Getting put on a B17 was a death ticket.

And in Japan, once LeMay and McNamara and crew moved to the Pacific, it didn't take long to look at the data and experiments on explosives and realize that Japan was a tinderbox and that the newly developed napalm would rip right through. Tokyo was hit by literally, imagine hundreds of B29s loaded with firebombs in March of 45 which burned the city so bad the pilots toward the end were almost throwing up from the smell of burning flesh. Look it up. And that's just Tokyo. Osaka. Kure. Kobe. Nishinomiya. LeMay burned down 68.9% of Okayama, 85% of Tokushima, 99% of Toyama. No 15kt nuclear bomb could do that. 67 Japanese cities in all over 6 months. People have no clue what happened.

Also, people are so afraid when they hear nuclear. And I fucking hate when people say "nuke". They aren't all the same and equivalent to some "cobalt-thorium G" device that ends all life on earth -- props if you get that reference. They come in many yeilds, many are realtime variable and selectable. Some get more yeild from fission, some from fusion. Some boosted. Some jacketed to be dirty, while others are 'clean'.

Famously, Manhattan Project physician Harold Jacobson said that nothing would grow in Hiroshima for 70 years. Within a month red Canna flowers sprouted. The next year the cherry trees came back.

 

[Kamina]

2. Rape of Nanking

FUCK!

 

[Romulus]

Wow, how fucking "Hard" must me to push a button and feel a little guilty, making tens Of Thousand to die in a instant, and the few Who survive must endure terrible burns and cáncer,for life.
those are the 1 Who have them Hard, not the fucking guy with the button.

What?

 

[InverseAgonist]

All the countries occupied by the Allies (expect the USSR) quite quickly were allowed to govern themselves again and are now all decent democracies.

This nonsense about a 'Western Empire' or whatever needs to stop.

Funny, you should really have a talk to the Biden administration about this then as they have the entire world sacrificing for the "Liberal World Order" by supporting the proxy war in Ukraine.

Interesting given that "other" thread and our history...

 

[InverseAgonist]

Meanwhile people should actually read USA's current nuclear policy. By any metric of justice you will realise its just pure evil.

I'm interested. I have a history in this field, cold war nuclear doctrine specifically, from some time at SAIS. What exactly is "pure evil"?

 

[Nobody_Important]

But not using the bomb and dragging out the war for much longer, either starving or invading Japan would have been even worse. For everyone.

We'd have a topic here arguing not using the bomb was a war crime.

If you tell me I can either kill 5 people or a single person I will choose the single person in order to save 4 lives. It does not mean I am innocent of murder.


A war crime used "for the greater good" and to avoid a greater calamity is still a war crime.

 

[BLAUcopter]

The justification for the bombing was that millions more would have died in a ground assault on mainland Japan, which would have happened otherwise.

So, there’s a very real case to suggest the bombing of Hiroshima saved many more lives than it took.

It’s up to you to decide whether you believe this was the correct course of action or not, but for me, it was a hideous, but inevitable consequence of Japan’s ongoing imperialistic depredations, and did bring the war to a close far quicker than would have otherwise been the case.

This is the correct answer. The losses amassed in the Pacific theatre along with the ruthlessness of the Japanese meant that an attack on mainland Japan would've been a meat grinder.



Great interview which breaks down challenges faced by the allies during the campaign, all which ultimately lead to the nuclear option.

 

[FunkMiller]

I had hoped this thread would be a sensible discussion over the moral ethics of the use of WMD to end large scale and incredibly destructive warfare.

But I see that what it really is, is yet another veiled excuse to bash the west for its military action, in what I guess is a reaction to the war in Ukraine.

For the avoidance of doubt:

• Many, many more Japanese civilians would have died in a ground invasion.
• Many, many more allied soldiers would have died in a ground invasion.
• Many, many more Korean and Chinese people would have died had the war been extended.
• The long term after effects of nuclear radiation were not known at the time of the bombing.
• Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb.
• Japan were a monstrous, evil empire, bent on conquering as much land as possible, and killing as many innocent people as possible for their own ends - just like Russia is now.

I know a lot of you just love to criticise the west at every opportunity you can, but try doing it after you’ve actually done the research, and you understand the context. It was not a war crime. It was however, and extremely regrettable and awful event, brought about by the barbarity of the Japanese.

Edit: this thread is also demonstrative of the fucking awful educational standards we have these days. The fact so many of you appear clueless as to the historical context of when the bombs were dropped is horrifying.

 

[LimanimaPT]

What puzzles me is why didn't the US drop the first bomb over a deserted area as a warning. "The next one will be over Tokyo". Maybe that would do the trick without the need of killing hundreds of inocent children. This is why I considered indeed a war crime, it was just revenge for the Pearl arbor attack.
Edit: on the positive side, it did end the war...

 

[Nobody_Important]

I had hoped this thread would be a sensible discussion over the moral ethics of the use of WMD to end large scale and incredibly destructive warfare.

But I see that what it really is, is yet another veiled excuse to bash the west for its military action, in what I guess is a reaction to the war in Ukraine.

For the avoidance of doubt:

• Many, many more Japanese civilians would have died in a ground invasion.
• Many, many more allied soldiers would have died in a ground invasion.
• Many, many more Korean and Chinese people would have died had the war been extended.
• The long term after effects of nuclear radiation were not known at the time of the bombing.
• Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb.
• Japan were a monstrous, evil empire, bent on conquering as much land as possible, and killing as many innocent people as possible for their own ends - just like Russia is now.

I know a lot of you just love to criticise the west at every opportunity you can, but try doing it after you’ve actually done the research, and you understand the context. It was not a war crime. It was however, and extremely regrettable and awful event, brought about by the barbarity of the Japanese.

The question is not whether it was the better or option. It was clearly the better option in terms of human life. It prevented what would have been one of the bloodiest sections of WW2 for the US and Japan if it had indeed come to an invasion of the mainland. The death toll for all sides would have been catastrophic. No one is denying that. The question asked was whether or not the use of an atomic weapon on the civilian population of Hiroshima was a war crime. Which it undoubtedly was by any reasonable measure of the phrase. That is not up for debate even if it was done to avoid the greater amount of death that would have resulted had it not been done.


Something can be done for the greater good and still be what it is. A war crime done in the name of less long term suffering is still a war crime.



Something can save lives and still be wrong.

 

[Sakura]

We consider white phosphorous, gas attacks, etc even on 100% military targets to be a war crime.
Of course nuking cities is a war crime.
You can make an argument justifying the use of nuclear weapons, sure. But whether or not it ultimately resulted in fewer casualties than otherwise, is completely independent of whether or not it was a war crime.