Support NeoGAF

[Tams]

Whether it resulted in fewer casualties absolutely does affect if it was a war crime.

It's part of the measure of morality of it, which is by what an action is judged by as to whether it is a war crime or not.

 

[Nobody_Important]

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.

Exactly. It goes back to my example of killing 5 people or killing 1 person to spare the 4 others. Yes I killed the one person in order to save 4 others, but I still committed murder.


A crime for the greater good is still a crime. The only thing that is different is how it is viewed and judged.

 

[FunkMiller]

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.

Are we talking a legal definition of war crime, or a moral one?

Because at the time of the bombing there was no legal definition in place that could make an independent judgement of whether it was or not.

The US certainly at the time did not believe it was committing a war crime. This is extremely different from the actions of any other government subsequent to the proper establishment and ratification of the Geneva convention when it comes to civilian loss of life.

I disagree that morally it is not up for debate that it was a war crime. It was a horrific action that I’m sure we all wish did not have to happen, but again… context. The Japanese were raping and murdering their way across the east. Killing tens of thousands of people a day. The Koreans and Chinese were under constant threat of potential genocide. The Japanese people would have fought and died for their god emperor to the last man, woman and child.

If you decide something is a war crime because it was an unjustified and unneeded deliberate destruction of civilian life, I’m not sure you can say Hiroshima was one.

If you decide something is a war crime because it kills thousands of innocent people, then WW2 in it’s entirety was a war crime - instigated by the Japanese and Germans.

 

[FunkMiller]

Exactly. It goes back to my example of killing 5 people or killing 1 person to spare the 4 others. Yes I killed the one person in order to save 4 others, but I still committed murder.

A crime for the greater good is still a crime. The only thing that is different is how it is viewed and judged.

But that’s not an accurate correlation to Hiroshima.

This is though: You kill one person, to stop that person killing yourself and five others. Are you committing murder?

Intent must be part of any judgement over what is a war crime and what is not.

An action done for the greater good cannot necessarily be classed as a crime, no matter the scale. Truman’s decision was not made to terrorise, or commit genocide. It was made to stop those things.

 

[Fugitive Sex]

Excuse me and my answer will be controversial, but what they did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...

It is not only a great barbarity, it is a great crime and a shame what they did with the poor Japanese.

This criminal act is inexcusable.

There is something deeply disturbing about your constant blind adoration for the Japanese, and comments like this certainly prove it.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Are we talking a legal definition of war crime, or a moral one?

Because at the time of the bombing there was no legal definition in place that could make an independent judgement of whether it was or not.

If you feel the need to get THIS technical then you know that I am right about what I said. The fact that there was no formal definition at the time does not change the fact that it was wrong and that it perfectly fits the definition of what a War Crime is by todays standards. We look back all the time at previous battles and genocides and judge them accordingly. We call them what they are regardless of the laws or standards of the time. We do this literally for EVERYTHING in the past and all the time people seem to want to make an exception for the US using nuclear weapons against a civilian population because we were "The Good Guys" in WW2.


You can't just say "Oh well there was no real definition at the time so ehhhhhh idk...."


Murder was murder before there was a law against it. There were war crimes before there was a formal legal definition. The fact the US committed this particular atrocity in order to avoid a further calamity does not change what happened. Also the fact that the Japanese soldiers were committing atrocities of their own at the time does not give the US a free pass to commit their own. If you brutally stab a sex offender in the street that makes you a murderer regardless of the morality of the person you just killed.


Crimes are crimes. The morality of the person on the other side is irrelevant.

 

[FunkMiller]

If you feel the need to get THIS technical then you know that I am right about what I said. The fact that there was no formal definition at the time does not change the fact that it was wrong and that it perfectly fits the definition of what a War Crime is by todays standards. We look back all the time at previous battles and genocides and judge them accordingly. We call them what they are regardless of the laws or standards of the time. We do this literally for EVERYTHING in the past.


You can't just say "Oh well there was no real definition at the time so ehhhhhh idk...."


Murder was murder before there was a law against it. There were war crimes before there was a formal legal definition. The fact the US committed this particular atrocity in order to avoid a further calamity does not change what happened. Also the fact that the Japanese soldiers were committing atrocities of their own at the time does not give the US a free pass to commit their own. If you brutally stab a sex offender in the street that makes you a murderer regardless of the morality of the person you just killed.


Crimes are crimes. The morality of the person on the other side is irrelevant.

See my above post. You’re defining any act of violent aggression against other human beings that kills them as murder. That is, in my opinion, where you’re getting it wrong.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were, at least in part, measures of self defence and self protection. They were also designed to save many lives on the Asian continent.

I think Truman knew damn well he’d be committing an atrocity… but a justified one, within the horrifying context it was made.

It is impossible for us, sat here with the Geneva convention, and in the relative lap of safe and secure luxury, to determine the morality or otherwise of such a decision.

This is why I balk at automatically calling it a war crime. Context and intent are everything.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I think Truman knew damn well he’d be committing an atrocity… but a justified one, within the horrifying context it was made.

Bingo we have a winner!

he’d be committing an atrocity… but a justified one

I literally covered this a few posts ago when I said

A crime for the greater good is still a crime. The only thing that is different is how it is viewed and judged.

So turns out we agree! How crazy is that!?!

 

[FunkMiller]

Bingo we have a winner!

I literally covered this a few posts ago when I said

So turns out we agree! How crazy is that!?!

We agree that it was an awful event… not that it was a war crime

 

[thefool]

Obviously. But burgers have always been the best at indoctrinating, retelling history (see graph) and culturally colonizing the world to skew perceptions, so you'll get a ton of that crappy save lives narrative.
If they can get away with nuking countries, what can't they get away with?

 

[Nobody_Important]

We agree that it was an awful event… not that it was a war crime

Your pointless nitpicking to avoid admitting you are wrong is irrelevant to me.

The fact you openly called it an "atrocity" is enough to prove my point because at that point you would be arguing the difference between an "atrocity" and a "war crime" which would make you look ridiculous.


I'll take it.

 

[Sakura]

Are we talking a legal definition of war crime, or a moral one?

Because at the time of the bombing there was no legal definition in place that could make an independent judgement of whether it was or not.

The US certainly at the time did not believe it was committing a war crime. This is extremely different from the actions of any other government subsequent to the proper establishment and ratification of the Geneva convention when it comes to civilian loss of life.

I disagree that morally it is not up for debate that it was a war crime. It was a horrific action that I’m sure we all wish did not have to happen, but again… context. The Japanese were raping and murdering their way across the east. Killing tens of thousands of people a day. The Koreans and Chinese were under constant threat of potential genocide. The Japanese people would have fought and died for their god emperor to the last man, woman and child.

If you decide something is a war crime because it was an unjustified and unneeded deliberate destruction of civilian life, I’m not sure you can say Hiroshima was one.

If you decide something is a war crime because it kills thousands of innocent people, then WW2 in it’s entirety was a war crime - instigated by the Japanese and Germans.

If we are going to talk about legal definitions, then even at the time of WW2 we had the Hague Conventions which include such things as:

-The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
-In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

The US was one of the countries that ratified this. Now, you can attempt to argue that the nuclear attacks did not violate this, and I would disagree with you. But regardless, there is an argument to be made that it was illegal, even at the time.
Countries don't really care that much about following the rules of war when it doesn't suit them.

Furthermore, even arguments that it was OK because it ultimately resulted in less casualties, is just an argument made after the fact.
What if Japan knew that the US only had 2 bombs? What if Japan didn't surrender? Then would the bombings have really resulted in less casualties?
Just because things happened to work out, doesn't mean the acts themselves were acceptable or not war crimes. It is impossible to know something like that before hand, and I believe that that sort of thinking is rather dangerous. Once you apply that logic, then all sorts of things become fair game because it might result in less overall casualties.

 

[95mellow]

I think it's important to consider the long-term geopolitical impact of using the nuke. It set a precedent, and its consequences are still felt in international relations.

Many of the proxy wars fought afterwards are, in some ways, ripples from the nukes dropped in Japan.

Russia and the US were always going to hit a cold war after WW2 as the only major players left, but America's nukes certainly added a sense of desperate self-preservation in Russia and Asia.

It justified massive military spending in the decades afterwards, which, in turn, funds the awful military-industrial complex that decays our democracy today.

In my opinion, the whole war crime argument depends on what you think Truman's motivations were. The ground assault justification is a half-truth, in my opinion. To me, Truman's thinking was half to bring Japan to its knees as revenge for Pearl Harbour and half to turn it into an American vassal state.

Japan is still America's most successful colonial project, and it's built on radioactive bones.

 

[FunkMiller]

Your pointless nitpicking to avoid admitting you are wrong is irrelevant to me.

The fact you openly called it an "atrocity" is enough to prove my point because at that point you would be arguing the difference between an "atrocity" and a "war crime".

Hmmmm. Bee in your bonnet about this one, eh?

Atrocity and war crime are clearly not the same thing.

But for the sake of clarity, let’s change it to Truman knew damn well he’d be committing an act of extreme destruction on the Japanese people.

In his view, and in the view of the historical context at the time, a justified and rational decision. This is not the definition of a war crime.

 

[Nobody_Important]

GUYS GUYS GUYS COME ON IT WAS

*checks notes*

A "JUSTIFIED ATROCITY" NOT A WAR CRIME!! COME ON BE REASONABLE!

 

[Tams]

Exactly. It goes back to my example of killing 5 people or killing 1 person to spare the 4 others. Yes I killed the one person in order to save 4 others, but I still committed murder.


A crime for the greater good is still a crime. The only thing that is different is how it is viewed and judged.

It's not necessarily murder, as murder is a legal definition.

The same with war crimes.

 

[FunkMiller]

If we are going to talk about legal definitions, then even at the time of WW2 we had the Hague Conventions which include such things as:

-The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
-In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

The US was a one of the countries that ratified this. Now, you can attempt to argue that the nuclear attacks did not violate this, and I would disagree with you. But regardless, there is an argument to be made that it was illegal, even at the time.
Countries don't really care that much about following the rules of war when it doesn't suit them.

Furthermore, even arguments that it was OK because it ultimately resulted in less casualties, is just an argument made after the fact.
What if Japan knew that the US only had 2 bombs? What if Japan didn't surrender? Then would the bombings have really resulted in less casualties?
Just because things happened to work out, doesn't mean the acts themselves were acceptable or not war crimes. It is impossible to know something like that before hand, and I believe that that sort of thinking is rather dangerous. Once you apply that logic, then all sorts of things become fair game because it might result in less overall casualties.

Er... The Hague Conventions had no provision for air attack, because they were created before planes were in use… if you really want to talk about legal definitions.

As for your second point… I’m not concerned with any arguments made ‘after the fact’

The only thing that matters when considering whether Hiroshima was a war crime or not is the context and intent of when they happened. And I’ve gone into that in above posts.

 

[FunkMiller]

GUYS GUYS GUYS COME ON IT WAS

*checks notes*

A "JUSTIFIED ATROCITY" NOT A WAR CRIME!! COME ON BE REASONABLE!

Yeah, you’re being weird now. You can see I changed the language I used.

I’ll leave you to it.

 

[Tams]

I think it's important to consider the long-term geopolitical impact of using the nuke. It set a precedent, and its consequences are still felt in international relations.

Many of the proxy wars fought afterwards are, in some ways, ripples from the nukes dropped in Japan.

Russia and the US were always going to hit a cold war after WW2 as the only major players left, but America's nukes certainly added a sense of desperate self-preservation in Russia and Asia.

It justified massive military spending in the decades afterwards, which, in turn, funds the awful military-industrial complex that decays our democracy today.

In my opinion, the whole war crime argument depends on what you think Truman's motivations were. The ground assault justification is a half-truth, in my opinion. To me, Truman's thinking was half to bring Japan to its knees as revenge for Pearl Harbour and half to turn it into an American vassal state.

Japan is still America's most successful colonial project, and it's built on radioactive bones.

brb, just going to inform my Japanese colleagues that they are, in fact, products of an American colonial project.

 

[Nobody_Important]

FunkMiller

I want to be extremely clear here I am not doing any of this with any kind of malice or hard feelings. Legitimately this is the most energetic I have been in weeks as a quick perusal of my post history will show you. As I commented earlier in another thread I have had a particularly bad week this week and honestly I have not been the same since a few weeks ago since I lost my grandmother and requested a ban so I could travel for the funeral. This discussion right here is the most energetic and roused I have been since she passed. I legitimately appreciate that even if we find ourselves on opposite sides of the issue.


Just being able to duck, dive, jab, and riposte in a genuinely good debate about a worthy topic is a joy to me. Thank you.

Yeah, you’re being weird now. You can see I changed the language I used.

I’ll leave you to it.

You changed the language because it was inconvenient to your original argument and helped my own. I have done the same myself before god knows how many times when the Politics section was up so don't worry I won't hold you over the fire for that. We all make mistakes in the heat of a good debate.

 

[Scotty W]

GUYS GUYS GUYS COME ON IT WAS

*checks notes*

A "JUSTIFIED ATROCITY" NOT A WAR CRIME!! COME ON BE REASONABLE!

A justified atrocity is not an atrocity.

 

[Nobody_Important]

A justified atrocity is not an atrocity.

 

[95mellow]

brb, just going to inform my Japanese colleagues that they are, in fact, products of an American colonial project.

Haha - please don't!

It's a take I've seen quite a bit in recent historical discourse around the long-term impact of the nuke and America generally. Japan is still geopolitically essential for the US (and doesn't really have a say in the matter) and their popular culture is so alluring to us Westerners as it's a mish-mash of their culture with elements of ours, notably as a result of America's occupation. I recall reading some historical journal about how the USA's use of baseball (still Japan's favourite sport) acted as a colonial agent for a module on Japanese history in university, but I probably can't find it now.

I probably haven't explained myself very well as I'm not very smart, but this is a decent book on the subject of how America's "hidden empire" operates if you're interested in the idea:

 

[winjer]

The reason why Japan didn't surrender was because the USA was demanding an unconditional surrender, the Emperor was to be tried for war crimes. And to end to the monarchy.
Those who know a bit of history, might remember that Japan surrendered to the USA navy in 1853-1854, leading to the fall of the Shogunate and the start of the Meiji era.

When the USA dropped the bombs, the Japanese also refused to surrender, because they thought the USA only had 2 atomic bombs, and it would take months to build more.
So the Japanese government thought they had time on their side.
That was until, the USSR declared war on the 9th of August. Japan knew that surrendering to the USA would be bad, but surrendering to the USSR would be catastrophic.

Eventually, the USA accepted not to prosecute the Emperor and to maintain the Japanese monarchy. So Japan accepted to surrender.

But in all of this, the use of nukes played no significant part. And peace could have been achieved without them, had the USA accepted earlier, not to prosecute the Emperor and not to end the monarchy.
The Americans keep trying to pass the idea that Japan only surrendered because of the nukes, to justify one of the worst crimes against humanity of WW2.

Also consider that this was not a military decision. This was a decision made by Truman.

 

[Scotty W]

A justified atrocity is a contradiction in terms. Anything that is justified is moral. Otherwise, justice is not justice.

 

[Tams]

The reason why Japan didn't surrender was because the USA was demanding an unconditional surrender, the Emperor was to be tried for war crimes. And to end to the monarchy.
Those who know a bit of history, might remember that Japan surrendered to the USA navy in 1853-1854, leading to the fall of the Shogunate and the start of the Meiji era.

When the USA dropped the bombs, the Japanese also refused to surrender, because they thought the USA only had 2 atomic bombs, and it would take months to build more.
So the Japanese government thought they had time on their side.
That was until, the USSR declared war on the 9th of August. Japan knew that surrendering to the USA would be bad, but surrendering to the USSR would be catastrophic.

Eventually, the USA accepted not to prosecute the Emperor and to maintain the Japanese monarchy. So Japan accepted to surrender.

But in all of this, the use of nukes played no significant part. And peace could have been achieved without them, had the USA accepted earlier, not to prosecute the Emperor and not to end the monarchy.
The Americans keep trying to pass the idea that Japan only surrendered because of the nukes, to justify one of the worst crimes against humanity of WW2.

This completely failsnto take into account that there significant parts of the Japanese armed forces' command who were against any surrender.

 

[Scotty W]

Those who know a bit of history, might remember that Japan surrendered to the USA navy in 1853-1854, leading to the fall of the Shogunate and the start of the Meiji era.

That was not a surrender. Commodore Perry sailed in, sent a message to the emperor. Japan opened up 12 years after that.

 

[Tams]

Haha - please don't!

It's a take I've seen quite a bit in recent historical discourse around the long-term impact of the nuke and America generally. Japan is still geopolitically essential for the US (and doesn't really have a say in the matter) and their popular culture is so alluring to us Westerners as it's a mish-mash of their culture with elements of ours, notably as a result of America's occupation. I recall reading some historical journal about how the USA's use of baseball (still Japan's favourite sport) acted as a colonial agent for a module on Japanese history in university, but I probably can't find it now.

I probably haven't explained myself very well as I'm not very smart, but this is a decent book on the subject of how America's "hidden empire" operates if you're interested in the idea:

I'm not denying that the US has created a 'neo/pseudo empire', but that seems like someone trying to mould evidence to support their claim.

Take baseball. It was popular in Japan before the war.

And while Japan was at first governed and then influenced by the US, they are now decades into being as independent of them as you can in the global world we now live in.

 

[Nobody_Important]

A justified atrocity is a contradiction in terms. Anything that is justified is moral. Otherwise, justice is not justice.

That....is....not how that works.


Something being "justified" doesn't mean jack shit and does not mitigate the consequences or change the definition of what happened. If a father stabs his daughters rapist to death outside the courthouse that would still be murder regardless of how "justified" it would be.


The "righteousness" of an act does not change the definition of the act itself.

 

[winjer]

This completely failsnto take into account that there significant parts of the Japanese armed forces' command who were against any surrender.

It's not the military that decides whether to surrender or not. In the end, the call was on the Emperor.
And yes, there was an attempt by a small group of militaries to commit a coup against the Emperor, but they were the minority, the coup failed, and Japan surrendered.
BTW, here is the list of people that were at the signing of the surrender, on the Japanese side. You can see that most are from the Navy and Army.

Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu
General Yoshijirō Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff[4]
Major General Yatsuji Nagai[4]
Katsuo Okazaki (Foreign Ministry)
Rear Admiral Tadatoshi Tomioka
Toshikazu Kase (Foreign Ministry)
Lt. General Suichi Miyakazi[4]
Rear Admiral Ichiro Yokoyama
Saburo Ota (Foreign Ministry)
Captain Katsuo Shiba (Navy)
Colonel Kaziyi Sugita

That was not a surrender. Commodore Perry sailed in, sent a message to the emperor. Japan opened up 12 years after that.

If you know a bit about Japanese story and it's isolation, you would know they were very aggressive with their isolationist policy. To the point of shooting against any foreign ships that came near their coast.
By the time Commodore Perry entered the Japanese port, Japan was so behind in tech, their artillery was useless against the black ships. And since Japan had no fleet, they could not bring any fight to the USA fleet.
Perry sent an ultimatum and the Japanese had no other choice other than to accept. There was no major war, just because Japan was powerless. The treaty started by imposing the opening of 2 ports in 1854. In 1858, the number of ports increase much more.
And this lead to one of the biggest change in Japanese society, of all time. It changed governments, it changed society strata, it changed it's military, it's economy, etc.

 

[95mellow]

I'm not denying that the US has created a 'neo/pseudo empire', but that seems like someone trying to mould evidence to support their claim.

Take baseball. It was popular in Japan before the war.

And while Japan was at first governed and then influenced by the US, they are now decades into being as independent of them as you can in the global world we now live in.

I see your point, and I didn't know about the baseball thing - that's interesting.

I guess what sticks out to me is Okinawa. It still hosts 31 U.S. military installations, 70% of all military bases in Japan. Air Station Futenma somehow still operates, despite placing Japanese schools, apartments and citizens in the firing line. I'm not sure I'd class that as "independent", but America is a big bully when it comes to stuff like that with all countries.

I've never been to Japan, though, so I'm speaking from a place of ignorance. I guess this is going off-topic now.

 

[Guilty_AI]

The only nations that commit warcrimes are the ones who don't have enough influence to get away with it.

 

[Nobody_Important]

The only nations that commit warcrimes are the ones who don't have enough influence to get away with it.

 

[Doczu]

A Arkangelus0 dude you sound like a 15 year old that wanted to join resetera but for some weird reason you got here.

Nuking Japan during WW2 was not a war crime. It was a neccesary step to break the Japanese spirit and end the war without having to restort to further carpet and fire bombing of cities, further island hopping to take and hold each and every japanese post, while combating suicide cripples, children with grenades, wolen with sharp sticks and farmersmwith scythes. Oh and the rest of the Imperial Army of course.

Death toll would be higher than those two nukes, Japan would lose most of their remaining infrastructure, industry - all would be decimated by city wide carpet bombings.
With the higher death toll among the younger population it would take significally longer to rebuild the population.

Thats not counting the loss at the hands of the americans, but those numbers don't mean shit to you cause "US bad, America eeeevil". It would be great if you do some digging, read some WW2 literature, maybe even go through some sources listed in these books instead of ranting like a little kid.who read (or heard) some idiot talking how nuking Japan was the worst crime ever and that's all a crime made by the U.S.A.

 

[Banjo64]

Would it be a war crime to shell a hospital, nursery, school, old people’s home, library, hotel, residential area indiscriminately? Yes. So was it a war crime to drop a nuke on them all? Yes.

War is war though. Civilian deaths, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing - it always comes with war. There is no clean war. You can always argue that by dropping the nukes few died so that many could live. It was a means to end the war, and it worked. It was barbaric though.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Nuking Japan during WW2 was not a war crime. It was a neccesary step to break the Japanese spirit and end the war without having to restort to further carpet and fire bombing of cities, further island hopping to take and hold each and every japanese post, while combating suicide cripples, children with grenades, wolen with sharp sticks and farmersmwith scythes. Oh and the rest of the Imperial Army of course.

Nah, bruh, it was was a war crime, no need to spin it out of deluded sense of patriotism. You want to make a point you bomb a military base or an empty field - these plans were actually considered, but it was decided to cripple the morale + ‘lol, we don’t really know what will happen’.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

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?

I take your point. I'm honestly out of my depth here. The key to any debate is agreeing on definitions. So we would just need to define "war crime" first and then I think the answer and agreement comes swiftly.

With my limited knowledge, my thinking is that it could be a war crime if you are disproportionately attacking civilians rather than fighting forces. However, as someone posted elsewhere in this thread, you could argue that all Japanese "civilians" were combatants since they were prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

 

[Flash Junkins]

It's a hard one to judge.

On one side america knew Japan would fight until every man and boy was dead. The America losses would have been generational at worst, crippling at best.

On the other side Japan had entire family names wiped out. Poof one day and an entire bloodline is lost to history.

I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice.

 

[Arkangelus0]

I take your point. I'm honestly out of my depth here. The key to any debate is agreeing on definitions. So we would just need to define "war crime" first and then I think the answer comes swiftly.

With my limited knowledge, my thinking is that it could be a war crime if you are disproportionately attacking civilians rather than fighting forces. However, as someone posted elsewhere in this thread, you could argue that all Japanese "civilians" were combatants since they were prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

There is alredy a definition, the geneva convention

 

[Grildon Tundy]

There is alredy a definition, the geneva convention

Great, sounds like that could end the thread if we all understood and agreed on the Geneva Convention definition.. So, under the Geneva Convention, was it a war crime?

 

[winjer]

I take your point. I'm honestly out of my depth here. The key to any debate is agreeing on definitions. So we would just need to define "war crime" first and then I think the answer and agreement comes swiftly.

With my limited knowledge, my thinking is that it could be a war crime if you are disproportionately attacking civilians rather than fighting forces. However, as someone posted elsewhere in this thread, you could argue that all Japanese "civilians" were combatants since they were prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

If the 2 bombs were dropped in military targets, for example military bases or major military ports, it would justify it's use somewhat.
But it was used on 2 civilian cities. So it really counts as a war crime.

 

[anthony2690]

This just reminded me off Japan & unit 731.

Truly disgusting stuff.

Same with this attack on civilians.

 

[winjer]

Here is a bit of context about MacArthur and the dropping of the bombs.

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

 

[FunkMiller]

There is alredy a definition, the geneva convention

Which didn’t exist at the time.

You can argue that the bombing was a war crime in the modern context, if you so desire, but it must be acknowledged that the US did not launch the attack knowing they were going against international law.

This is an important distinction when comparing US action in WW2 to more contemporary military actions.

For instance, Russia knows damn well it is breaking the Geneva Convention with the atrocities it is committing.

Argue whether the use of atomic weapons in WW2 was right or not, but no one should be under the illusion it was made lightly, or without full weighing of the consequences both of doing it, and not doing it.

It’s very easy to scream WAR CRIME! eighty years later, when it’s hard to appreciate the context, the alternatives, and the damage of an even more elongated conflict.

 

[Arkangelus0]

Great, sounds like that could end the thread if we all understood and agreed on the Geneva Convention definition.. So, under the Geneva Convention, was it a war crime?

Here is a Quick summary from the red cross https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQFnoECD0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1C9nRNkJa1LE6GWvD8H73Y

Just to add, the first Geneva Convention dated from 1864, so this can end this stupid "debate"

 

[Arkangelus0]

Which didn’t exist at the time.

You can argue that the bombing was a war crime in the modern context, if you so desire, but it must be acknowledged that the US did not launch the attack knowing they were going against international law.

This is an important distinction when comparing US action in WW2 to more contemporary military actions.

For instance, Russia knows damn well it is breaking the Geneva Convention with the atrocities it is committing.

Argue whether the use of atomic weapons in WW2 was right or not, but no one should be under the illusion it was made lightly, or without full weighing of the consequences both of doing it, and not doing it.

It’s very easy to scream WAR CRIME! eighty years later, when it’s hard to appreciate the context, the alternatives, and the damage of an even more elongated conflict.

The Geneva Convention started in 1864, and the usa break the Geneva Convention exactly 80 years later...

 

[TrueLegend]

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"?

To keep world and regional progress hostage to nuclear threat at will. Killing people for things that you have done fearing they will do so in order to protect yourself, in this sense being cannibal of small nations. Thats like a murderer going on a sprint of murdering others on the basis of thought crime. You may have a history in this field, try to have history in others too. It will ground your perception. Currently you might be having deterministic perspective which has a very high probability of clouding your judgement.

 

[FunkMiller]

The Geneva Convention started in 1864, and the usa break the Geneva Convention exactly 80 years later...

Not the part that deals with warfare, and what we’re discussing here. That was only ratified in 1949. Before that, Geneva only covered prisoners of war and injured soldiers - combatants.

The US broke nothing.

 

[winjer]

And let us remember that the Hague Convention of 1899 already defined that the attack or bombardment of undefended towns or habitations was forbidden. The USA signed this convention.

 

[Arkangelus0]

Not the part that deals with warfare, and what we’re discussing here. That was only ratified in 1949. Before that, Geneva only covered prisoners of war and injured soldiers - combatants.

The US broke nothing.

And let us remember that the Hague Convention of 1899 already defined that the attack or bombardment of undefended towns or habitations was forbidden. The USA signed this convention.

Winjer say it first, the USA break the Geneva Convention, thats why this is a war crime