Support NeoGAF

[lachesis]

Maybe we should remember that the bombing in Nagasaki killed 110.000 people, but only 20.000 were Japanese combatants.
In Nagasaki, 30.000 people died. Of these, only 150 Japanese combatants.
As you can see, it was a massacre of civilians. Some military were there, but they were the minority.

And let us not forget that the civilian population continues to suffer because of the nuclear radiation.
This was not just a normal bombing that killed civilians, it poisoned the whole area for centuries.

The purpose of bombing was to destroy the military facilities/hq and the port - the functionality - not to "KILL" the people.
If they were just going to murder people - they wouldn't have warned of it well before.
U.S. dropped 5 million leaflets on Hiroshima warning them to evacuate - about a week before the bombing.

Here are some of those leaflets

It's not U.S. fault that
1. They built military facility in a civilian city
2. They didn't evacuate civilians even with early warnings.

Which, returning to my original point that they should have surrendered when U.S. bombers start to bomb their cities.

And it's safe to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It did not poison the whole area for centuries.
Fukushima did though, but that's a different story.

 

[akimbo009]

The purpose of bombing was to destroy the military facilities/hq and the port - the functionality - not to "KILL" the people.
If they were just going to murder people - they wouldn't have warned of it well before.
U.S. dropped 5 million leaflets on Hiroshima warning them to evacuate - about a week before the bombing.

Here are some of those leaflets

It's not U.S. fault that
1. They built military facility in a civilian city
2. They didn't evacuate civilians even with early warnings.

Which, returning to my original point that they should have surrendered when U.S. bombers start to bomb their cities.

And it's safe to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It did not poison the whole area for centuries.
Fukushima did though, but that's a different story.

The US did this in Okinawa as well, including broadcast messaging from patrol boats. Japanese populations we're regularly told to retreat or surrender, but either they didn't or waited too late. There's a bunch of other weird suicide pacts and other things that went down...

A battle that saw 20k US/allied soldiers die, 110k Japanese & Okinawans (and other forced conscripts) die with another 180k civilians. An ongoing theme of death tallies as the Pacific theater couninued towards the main islands. (See also Peleliu, etc).

 

[winjer]

There is on going suffering across Asia, even today, from Japan's imperialism. Not sure your point here. I think you're staying the ongoing effects are way worse than other ongoing effects. Perhaps on a message board that primarily speaks English you'll have a lot of sympathy to that position, though I suspect those that speak Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc would feel way different.

It's really hard to put into perspective the shear scale of violence happening daily in this war - not just in the Pacific theater but as the war continued to be prosecuted in China and other areas - largely still successful comparatively. Even the large numbers from the bombs are really small numbers when measured against the fire bombing of Tokyo, or the regular death totals in China against military and civilian as Japan either counter attacked or retreated.

I'd encourage you to listen to the resource I shared. Nothing needs to be justificated or not - clearly the US isn't about to drop another bomb and lessons were learned by humanity from this war and these bombs. There is no "told you so" to this debate, I hope you realize.

In case you haven't noticed, but no one is arguing that Imperial Japan should not have been stopped.
We all know about the multitude of crimes the Japanese army and navy committed during WW2, and the importance of ending their criminal actions.

What we are arguing is the use of nuclear weapons. And in this point, they served no purpose to end the war.
Japan refuse to surrender because the USA demanded the end of the monarchy and the trial of the Emperor. When the USA accepted this term, then Japan surrendered.
I already explained this in more detail in previous posts, including references to MacArthur biography.

The purpose of bombing was to destroy the military facilities/hq and the port - the functionality - not to "KILL" the people.
If they were just going to murder people - they wouldn't have warned of it well before.
U.S. dropped 5 million leaflets on Hiroshima warning them to evacuate - about a week before the bombing.

Here are some of those leaflets

It's not U.S. fault that
1. They built military facility in a civilian city
2. They didn't evacuate civilians even with early warnings.

Which, returning to my original point that they should have surrendered when U.S. bombers start to bomb their cities.

And it's safe to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It did not poison the whole area for centuries.
Fukushima did though, but that's a different story.

Destroying these facilities were of little importance at this point of the war. It was the diplomats that ended this part of the war. Not the bombings.
The moment the USA accepted not to prosecute the Japanese emperor and not end the monarchy, Japan accepted to surrender.
Even MacArthur considered it was extremely stupid to demand such a thing from Japan.

The fact was that Truman was eager to show the world he had nukes, especially the USSR, and he cared little about human lives.
Truman and the air force knew full well that those cities had thousands of civilians, and decided to continue with the bombing.
Japan at the time considered that creating nuclear bombs were extremely difficult, so they thought that the USA only had 2 nuclear devices and it would take months to produce more.
So they considered that there was time, to negotiate a deal that didn't go after the Emperor.

 

[akimbo009]

I don't think you can say it did or didn't complete them to stop. That's why this debate won't end cause the leadership decision making in Japan is and remains opaque. There is no obvious historical evidence or documents that highlight Japan was ready or would surrender. I am simply trying to set some context.

You'll just be yelling at people saying it wasn't justified (that's reasonable) but in context it wasn't outwardly worse than things already was happening I'm theater (so to people at the time didn't see it as progressively worse, take it for what it is). But it's just not a straight line here - hence the 80 year old debate and analysis. But with that said, it doesn't make anyone morally right or wrong - it's just a fact of history which hopefully we won't do again.

MacArthur was a murderous thug, but also isn't fully reflective of the broader US military leadership - even at the time he was side-eyed and made decisions many completely disagreed with (and led to his firing in the Korean War).

 

[winjer]

I don't think you can say it did or didn't complete them to stop. That's why this debate won't end cause the leadership decision making in Japan is and remains opaque. There is no obvious historical evidence or documents that highlight Japan was ready or would surrender. I am simply trying to set some context.

You'll just be yelling at people saying it wasn't justified (that's reasonable) but in context it wasn't outwardly worse than things already was happening I'm theater (so to people at the time didn't see it as progressively worse, take it for what it is). But it's just not a straight line here - hence the 80 year old debate and analysis. But with that said, it doesn't make anyone morally right or wrong - it's just a fact of history which hopefully we won't do again.

MacArthur was a murderous thug, but also isn't fully reflective of the broader US military leadership - even at the time he was side-eyed and made decisions many completely disagreed with (and led to his firing in the Korean War).

The negotiations were stalled on the matter of the Japanese monarchy. The moment the USA accepted not to prosecute the emperor, Japan surrendered.
Japan didn't fear the nuclear bombs, they thought the USA couldn't make more for several months.

The only reason this debate continues is because the USA refuse to admit that they committed a war crime. To be more precise, that Truman committed a war crime, by ordering the use of the nukes.
But more and more people have come to realize the reality of the horror that was the decision to use nuclear bombs.
Seriously, not even Stalin used them. And he is one of the biggest mass murderers in human history. And he had plenty of wars to do it.

 

[strange headache]

If they were just going to murder people - they wouldn't have warned of it well before.
U.S. dropped 5 million leaflets on Hiroshima warning them to evacuate - about a week before the bombing.

Nice of them to drop leaflets before turning their cities into dust. Maybe Russia should just send out a couple of flyers too.

 

[akimbo009]

The negotiations were stalled on the matter of the Japanese monarchy. The moment the USA accepted not to prosecute the emperor, Japan surrendered.
Japan didn't fear the nuclear bombs, they thought the USA couldn't make more for several months.

The only reason this debate continues is because the USA refuse to admit that they committed a war crime. To be more precise, that Truman committed a war crime, by ordering the use of the nukes.
But more and more people have come to realize the reality of the horror that was the decision to use nuclear bombs.
Seriously, not even Stalin used them. And he is one of the biggest mass murderers in human history. And he had plenty of wars to do it.

This is factually not true. As in, the Emperor didn't prepare to surrender - in fact, it's not clear he could as a living God. When he did record his surrender on the radio was the first most had even heard his voice - military included.

Even after the dropping of the atomic bombs, there still remained a coup that needed to be put down within the military ranks.

I really think you're asking for an apology from the US. That's fine. But Japan still doesn't apologize for their own war and subsequent crimes. It seems a weird misplaced passion - and the allies aren't about to apologize for concluding a war they didn't start. I suppose within context there would probably be more apologies from everyone I suppose, but that's weird and neverending.

 

[akimbo009]

Nice of them to drop leaflets before turning their cities into dust. Maybe Russia should just send out a couple of flyers too.

And yes, Russia should either a/ avoid hitting civilians (they have the tech), or b/ tell people to leave (which goes back centuries - e.g. burning of Atlanta, etc). Notifying populations before attacking cities isn't new.

 

[Halo is Back]

Any move that kills thousands of civilians is considered a war crime to me, but let's not pretend poor Japan are helpless victims in WWII. Thier war crimes are only equal to the Nazis for what they did to China and the people of South East Asia. Once the Soviet Union declared war, is when Japan knew they were totally hopeless for a conditional surrender.

The truth is, once you study WW2 enough, you realize no side was clear from committing heinous war crimes despite the "good guy" status of the US in pop culture. Let's just put it this way, I would not want to be in the hot seat that Truman was in during this time.

 

[John Marston]

I just ninja sneak in here to tell you kids to be civil and not kill each other

 

[strange headache]

By the way, those leaflets were dropped 16 hours after the attack on Hiroshima.
The was no warning about the atomic bombs. They were deliberately kept a secret and were to be used as a surprise.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1946-History-Psychological-Warfare-Manhattan-Project.pdf

 

[Slicker than your average]

Can we discuss the Nanjing Massacre?

History.com:

"In late 1937, over a period of six weeks, Imperial Japanese Army forces brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of people–including both soldiers and civilians–in the Chinese city of Nanking (or Nanjing). The horrific events are known as the Nanking Massacre or the Rape of Nanking, as between 20,000 and 80,000 women were sexually assaulted. Nanking, then the capital of Nationalist China, was left in ruins, and it would take decades for the city and its citizens to recover from the savage attacks."

"In light of such atrocities, the United States began passing economic sanctions against Japan, including trade embargoes on aircraft exports, oil and scrap metal, among other key goods, and gave economic support to Guomindang forces. In September 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pactwith Germany and Italy, the two fascist regimes then at war with the Allies.

Tokyo and Washington negotiated for months leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack, without success. While the United States hoped embargoes on oil and other key goods would lead Japan to halt its expansionism, the sanctions and other penalties actually convinced Japan to stand its ground, and stirred up the anger of its people against continued Western interference in Asian affairs."

"In May 1940, the United States had made Pearl Harbor the main base for its Pacific Fleet. As Americans didn’t expect the Japanese to attack first in Hawaii, some 4,000 miles away from the Japanese mainland, the base at Pearl Harbor was left relatively undefended, making it an easy target.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto spent months planning an attack that aimed to destroy the Pacific Fleet and destroy morale in the U.S. Navy, so that it would not be able to fight back as Japanese forces began to advance on targets across the South Pacific.

Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor would drive the United States out of isolation and into World War II, a conflict that would end with Japan’s surrender after the devastating atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasakiin August 1945."



World War 2. It was fucked up ... all war is. But I'm not calling someone who allied itself with Nazi Germany a victim of a war crime so I voted undecided no.

Very clown take. the allies committed many war crimes too it's really that simple.

Dresdon was and so was nuking. Even if the nuking was necessary to save millions of allied and Japanese lives. Dropping a Nuke on a city is a war crime.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If anyone is going to argue about war crime or not, then just about every battle in history is a war crime. Unless someone can prove a war or battle had zero civilians killed where all the dead people killed were 100% soldiers, then every conflict is a war crime by at least one side. Maybe both.

Peral Harbor got mashed to bits. I wouldnt be surprised if there were civilians (like family visiting or random government workers) who got killed by Japanese pilots. War crime too.

The key difference is the US dropped two atomic bombs killing tons of civilians. Too bad. That's war back then (which was a total free for all of carpet bombing cities, attacking civilian passenger boats, concentration camps etc...). Also, as other people mentioned Japan seemed to have military facilities mixed in with civilian areas. So hey, if you dont want civilians killed, dont put a factory surrounded by neighbourhoods. This is the 1940s, not precise modern day drone attacks.

What Japan seemed to be preparing for was US military to do the attrition route of landing on Japanese soil where both sides go back and forth like a see saw for a year until someone wins.

US said fuck it and blew up two cities. Lesson learned. Dont attack Peral Harbor and mess with a country that has atomic bombs.

 

[Guilty_AI]

 

[20cent]

Peral Harbor got mashed to bits. I wouldnt be surprised if there were civilians (like family visiting or random government workers) who got killed by Japanese pilots. War crime too.

Family visiting, during a world conflict...in 1941....righhhhht

8 civilians vs 500,000 ? Yeah that's fair

US said fuck it and blew up two cities. Lesson learned. Dont attack Peral Harbor and mess with a country that has atomic bombs.

That's an opinion like any other (let's pretend), but with that avatar, it's hilarious.

 

[Halo is Back]

That's an opinion like any other (let's pretend), but with that avatar, it's hilarious.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Japan started the war and attacked America. Before that, they invaded Manchuria and committed atrocities at the Chinese people's expense. Then they expanded south into the pacific into the Philippines, invaded Vietnam, Guam, Singapore, and so on.

 

[akimbo009]

Family visiting, during a world conflict...in 1941....righhhhht

8 civilians vs 500,000 ? Yeah that's fair



That's an opinion like any other (let's pretend), but with that avatar, it's hilarious.

500k?

 

[lachesis]

Destroying these facilities were of little importance at this point of the war. It was the diplomats that ended this part of the war. Not the bombings.
The moment the USA accepted not to prosecute the Japanese emperor and not end the monarchy, Japan accepted to surrender.
Even MacArthur considered it was extremely stupid to demand such a thing from Japan.

The fact was that Truman was eager to show the world he had nukes, especially the USSR, and he cared little about human lives.
Truman and the air force knew full well that those cities had thousands of civilians, and decided to continue with the bombing.
Japan at the time considered that creating nuclear bombs were extremely difficult, so they thought that the USA only had 2 nuclear devices and it would take months to produce more.
So they considered that there was time, to negotiate a deal that didn't go after the Emperor.

I think you got your timing mixed up.
That Potsdam declaration was in July, which said they (U.S., U.K., China, and Soviet Union) will not "enslave the race or destory the nation". Japan "ignored" and still fought on.
Hence like the Potsdam declaration mentioned "prompt and utter destruction", followed.

After two bombings, Soviet Union declared war against Japan, breaking the neutrality pact between them & Japan... and then HIrohito concludes that Japan cannot continue so he surrendered.

By then, U.S. already lost over 110k young men, and over 200k injured in pacific theater. I don't blame Truman's urgency to end the war.

What I do blame U.S. though - is they gave up on persecuting the Japanese War criminals way too early, unlike Nazis.
Those war criminals are actually memorialized in Japan's Yasukuni Jinja. Over 1000 of them, and 14 of them were Class A war criminals.

That's why the neighboring countries always have fuss with it.

I was reading this book "Unbroken" few years back - it's also made as a movie by Jolie as director. Pretty meh film as it skipped a lot of stuff..., but book was quite something.
The warden "Bird" - Watanabe - who abused/killed so many U.S. POWs was on #23 of 40 most wanted war criminals by MacArther.
But he hid out in the country side, until U.S. decided not to pursue further war criminals in just a few years (Korean War happened) - then he became an insurance sales man and lived until very old days.

Anyway, unlike Pearl Harbor, they were warned. It's not U.S. or Allies fault - it's Japan's war mongering government's fault which didn't look out for their civilians until too late.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Japan started the war and attacked America. Before that, they invaded Manchuria and committed atrocities at the Chinese people's expense. Then they expanded south into the pacific into the Philippines, invaded Vietnam, Guam, Singapore, and so on.

soooo, that makes it ok to bomb civilians and condemn generations of families with genetic mutations?

I think all of you oughta know that using atrocities to justify even more atrocities is a very very dark path you should really think thrice about before going down towards.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Family visiting, during a world conflict...in 1941....righhhhht

8 civilians vs 500,000 ? Yeah that's fair



That's an opinion like any other (let's pretend), but with that avatar, it's hilarious.

Doesn't matter the number of people. If people are going to drill the US for war crimes, then every side that has killed civilians is in the same boat. At least the US did it and it stopped the war soon after. Just imagine how bad that Pacific war would be if the US had to fight on Japanese soil the traditional way like everyone fighting in Europe and Russia.

Too bad. War is war. And back then it was anything goes. You got everything from atomic bombs, to concentration camps to carpet bombing cities. That was the way wars were fought back then killing millions of people.

Want to be stubborn in a war trying to take over the Pacific against the US, then get ready to be bombed. Don't take over the Pacific being Germany's buddy and you dont get bombed. Simple to understand, but Japanese leaders needed a hands-on example what happens when they act like assholes. Kaboom. Then they finally concede like babies. Japan could had saved everyone the trouble if they didn't take part in the war to begin with. Lesson learned.

I support Ukraine defending themselves and beating Russia. Almost everyone does. Unfortunately they dont have the resources to take them on, but are trying to last as long as possible.

 

[InverseAgonist]

Simple to understand, but Japanese leaders needed a hands-on example what happens when they act like assholes. Kaboom. Then they finally concede like babies. Japan could had saved everyone the trouble if they didn't take part in the war to begin with. Lesson learned.

I don't know you, so it would be so highly inappropriate to judge, but this is so reductionist and ignorant of what the field thinks on this topic currently.

I recommend you read the work of the brilliant historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa who's book Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan has, in my view changed perceptions like Adam Tooze did on the Nazi economy. The book isn't without faults, but it provides a detailed and documented case of how the Japanese War council acted in the face of the bombings and Russian declaration.

Just to give as example, the War Council didn't even bother meeting after Hiroshima. Remember, as I said in my earlier post, a 15kt blast is not more destructive on balance than the strategic B29 campaign LeMay was waging that was destroying 60-90% of over 60 cities in Japan over a half year period. But, within hours of the Russian declaration, the War Council met and surrender was discussed.

The more interesting point, made by the prodigious Freeman Dyson, is that these are really two separate questions that people unfortunately confuse. Did the atomic bombings end the war from the Japanese paradigm? Hasegawa makes a persuasive point no. But, the other just as important question is how did the situation look from the perspective of Stimson and Truman? And given what they knew, that there was a faction in the foreign office pushing for negotiations and an invasion would be enormously costly, how could they not try to use this new weapon to shock the Japanese to the table? It was an ethical and moral imperative. How would history have looked on not using it and killing 1M more Americans. Hell, in todays political climate a President would be impeached.

And as a personal aside, saying things like "needed a hands on example what happens when they act like assholes" isn't a good look. It's really chilling and makes me sad for how in depth most people actually think things through. I learned this from the Ukraine thread the hard way, but I'm happy you're not working at State.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I don't know you, so it would be so highly inappropriate to judge, but this is so reductionist and ignorant of what the field thinks on this topic currently.

I recommend you read the work of the brilliant historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa who's book Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan has, in my view changed perceptions like Adam Tooze did on the Nazi economy. The book isn't without faults, but it provides a detailed and documented case of how the Japanese War council acted in the face of the bombings and Russian declaration.

Just to give as example, the War Council didn't even bother meeting after Hiroshima. Remember, as I said in my earlier post, a 15kt blast is not more destructive on balance than the strategic B29 campaign LeMay was waging that was destroying 60-90% of over 60 cities in Japan over a half year period. But, within hours of the Russian declaration, the War Council met and surrender was discussed.

The more interesting point, made by the prodigious Freeman Dyson, is that these are really two separate questions that people unfortunately confuse. Did the atomic bombings end the war from the Japanese paradigm? Hasegawa makes a persuasive point no. But, the other just as important question is how did the situation look from the perspective of Stimson and Truman? And given what they knew, that there was a faction in the foreign office pushing for negotiations and an invasion would be enormously costly, how could they not try to use this new weapon to shock the Japanese to the table? It was an ethical and moral imperative. How would history have looked on not using it and killing 1M more Americans. Hell, in todays political climate a President would be impeached.

And as a personal aside, saying things like "needed a hands on example what happens when they act like assholes" isn't a good look. It's really chilling and makes me sad for how in depth most people actually think things through. I learned this from the Ukraine thread the hard way, but I'm happy you're not working at State.

You can take an academic approach to war all you want, but it's simple to me.

Japan was part of the Axis powers and their goal wasnt being part of European wars. They were focused on the Pacific. The only country that could stop them (resources and location) was the US. The US and Japan were already battling for years before Soviets declared war. If the US did nothing, Japan would had steamrolled the entire Pacific.

Japan did damage in the Pacific and needed a swift kick to the ass to stop. In which were two bombs by the US. If you or anyone wants to claim it were the Soviets declaring war on Japan as the reason for surrender, while US bombs were a non factor go ahead.

I fully support any situation where evil aggressors get punished harshly. It's not the US trying to take over. It's Japan. And they needed to be an example of.

And good news. Since then, Japan has never done anything dumb again.

 

[IFireflyl]

To people claiming Hiroshima was a war crime, what law/treaty was violated? If you're trying to use things like the Geneva Convention which didn't exist at the time then that's ridiculous. At the time of the bombings I am not aware of anything done with the treaties in place at the time that constituted a war crime.

 

[treemk]

To people claiming Hiroshima was a war crime, what law/treaty was violated? If you're trying to use things like the Geneva Convention which didn't exist at the time then that's ridiculous. At the time of the bombings I am not aware of anything done with the treaties in place at the time that constituted a war crime.

The entire concept of war crimes did not exist before the end of WWII, and attacking civilian resources was an accepted strategy on all sides. That said, the atomic bombs were not just random attacks on cities. The US Marines and Navy fought in hell to push the Japanese back to their country in the pacific, and an invasion of Japan would take that hell to the next level. Meanwhile the Japanese had committed war crimes that rival what the Nazi's were doing in their concentration camps. These people were basically religions zealots that could not be reasoned with. Their Navy was at the bottom of the Pacific, they got pushed back through every island they had taken and it still took not one but two atomic bombs for them to surrender. Batshit fucking crazy.

 

[mxbison]

History is written by the winners.

The war crime definition is pretty meaningless in all out war like WW2. But things like fire bombing the absolute shit out of civilians like in Dresden where people were literally melted alive was about as bad as it gets. Or Russians raping like 1 million women in WW2, also rarely talked about.

 

[iamblades]

In case you haven't noticed, but no one is arguing that Imperial Japan should not have been stopped.
We all know about the multitude of crimes the Japanese army and navy committed during WW2, and the importance of ending their criminal actions.

What we are arguing is the use of nuclear weapons. And in this point, they served no purpose to end the war.
Japan refuse to surrender because the USA demanded the end of the monarchy and the trial of the Emperor. When the USA accepted this term, then Japan surrendered.
I already explained this in more detail in previous posts, including references to MacArthur biography.



Destroying these facilities were of little importance at this point of the war. It was the diplomats that ended this part of the war. Not the bombings.
The moment the USA accepted not to prosecute the Japanese emperor and not end the monarchy, Japan accepted to surrender.
Even MacArthur considered it was extremely stupid to demand such a thing from Japan.

The fact was that Truman was eager to show the world he had nukes, especially the USSR, and he cared little about human lives.
Truman and the air force knew full well that those cities had thousands of civilians, and decided to continue with the bombing.
Japan at the time considered that creating nuclear bombs were extremely difficult, so they thought that the USA only had 2 nuclear devices and it would take months to produce more.
So they considered that there was time, to negotiate a deal that didn't go after the Emperor.

I think you are confusing what occurred after the surrender to the diplomacy leading up to it. You are ignoring that until the Emperor's surrender, Japan was steadfastly refusing tor even consider the terms that the allies set out in the Potsdam declaration, and the US was aware of this from breaking their diplomatic codes.

The US never officially demanded the end of the monarchy and the trial of the Emperor(the demand was unconditional surrender, that's it), and never officially said that the Emperor was not to be removed. The phrasing was that the form of (a 'peacefully inclined') government was to be chosen by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people. Did plenty of Americans want the Emperor arrested? Sure, but that was never actually a demand. That the Japanese assumed that the Emperor would be tried for war crimes was just typical of their misunderstanding of American diplomatic intent, as in the pre-war negotiations they did not know that the Americans did not include Manchuria in their demands for Japan to leave China.

Also your opinions on Truman are absurdly harsh, as if Truman alone made the decision and chose the targets for the bomb. Also Stalin ironically probably knew more about the bomb than Truman did at Potsdam, so he didn't really need a demonstration.

That's not really the point though, I don't really think intent is all that important or that it is fair to try to divine the intent behind decisions people made in the past. What is important is the outcome of those decisions, and as terrible and evil as they may have been, I can't see a better way for WWII to have ended for the Japanese people. So that's where it all breaks down for me. It's all well and good to second guess the motives of the people making these decisions, or react in abject horror at the inhumanity of the decision, but I've never seen anyone give a plausible alternative choice that could have been made that would have led to Japan being better off after the war.

 

[IFireflyl]

The entire concept of war crimes did not exist before the end of WWII, and attacking civilian resources was an accepted strategy on all sides. That said, the atomic bombs were not just random attacks on cities. The US Marines and Navy fought in hell to push the Japanese back to their country in the pacific, and an invasion of Japan would take that hell to the next level. Meanwhile the Japanese had committed war crimes that rival what the Nazi's were doing in their concentration camps. These people were basically religions zealots that could not be reasoned with. Their Navy was at the bottom of the Pacific, they got pushed back through every island they had taken and it still took not one but two atomic bombs for them to surrender. Batshit fucking crazy.

This is basically my point. Revisionists want to say what people were retroactively guilty of, but if we go down that road then there is so much guilt from every nation/future/race that it's pointless to even discuss. At that time in history the U.S. pulled out the big guns and did what they felt they had to do to save hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of lives. This was a terrible moment in history, but without it thinks would have been a lot worse and hundreds of millions of people who are alive today would have never existed.

 

[Halo is Back]

soooo, that makes it ok to bomb civilians and condemn generations of families with genetic mutations?

I think all of you oughta know that using atrocities to justify even more atrocities is a very very dark path you should really think thrice about before going down towards.

Where did I say this, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

 

[MisterFalcon]

History is written by the winners.

WW2 history was written in a large part by the losers. German generals who created the myth of infinite hordes of barely armed Soviets. Fuchida creating the myth of Midway as just pure luck that did in the vastly superior Japanese navy.

It's been centuries since the winners were able to write history by controlling the small portion of people who could write.

 

[Nobody_Important]

To people claiming Hiroshima was a war crime, what law/treaty was violated? If you're trying to use things like the Geneva Convention which didn't exist at the time then that's ridiculous. At the time of the bombings I am not aware of anything done with the treaties in place at the time that constituted a war crime.

Would you say that the Nazi's or the Japanese committed no war crimes during WW2 as well?

 

[GymWolf]

Of course it was a war crime.

Normal bombs would have been better, at least you don't condamn the earth and soil for the next 50 years or so.

Nuclear must be THE last option.

 

[winjer]

I think you are confusing what occurred after the surrender to the diplomacy leading up to it. You are ignoring that until the Emperor's surrender, Japan was steadfastly refusing tor even consider the terms that the allies set out in the Potsdam declaration, and the US was aware of this from breaking their diplomatic codes.

The US never officially demanded the end of the monarchy and the trial of the Emperor(the demand was unconditional surrender, that's it), and never officially said that the Emperor was not to be removed. The phrasing was that the form of (a 'peacefully inclined') government was to be chosen by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people. Did plenty of Americans want the Emperor arrested? Sure, but that was never actually a demand. That the Japanese assumed that the Emperor would be tried for war crimes was just typical of their misunderstanding of American diplomatic intent, as in the pre-war negotiations they did not know that the Americans did not include Manchuria in their demands for Japan to leave China.

Also your opinions on Truman are absurdly harsh, as if Truman alone made the decision and chose the targets for the bomb. Also Stalin ironically probably knew more about the bomb than Truman did at Potsdam, so he didn't really need a demonstration.

That's not really the point though, I don't really think intent is all that important or that it is fair to try to divine the intent behind decisions people made in the past. What is important is the outcome of those decisions, and as terrible and evil as they may have been, I can't see a better way for WWII to have ended for the Japanese people. So that's where it all breaks down for me. It's all well and good to second guess the motives of the people making these decisions, or react in abject horror at the inhumanity of the decision, but I've never seen anyone give a plausible alternative choice that could have been made that would have led to Japan being better off after the war.

Japan was refusing to surrender because of the USA demand to prosecute the Emperor.
When the USA removed that clause, Japan surrendered.
The nukes has little to do with the surrender, because Japan was convinced the USA only had 2 bombs.

And yes, my opinions about Truman are harsh, because he committed a war crime. One that Japanese civilians are still suffering for.

Here is a bit of context from someone on the ground. This is not some guy on the internet, it was the man leading the whole USA war in the pacific.

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

 

[mxbison]

WW2 history was written in a large part by the losers. German generals who created the myth of infinite hordes of barely armed Soviets. Fuchida creating the myth of Midway as just pure luck that did in the vastly superior Japanese navy.

It's been centuries since the winners were able to write history by controlling the small portion of people who could write.

Most people don't read history books or Wikipedia. They get their "knowledge" from tv shows and movies.

How many WW2 movies have you seen where german civilians get slaughtered by the heroic main characters?

Until last year there were still russian memorials and victory day parades in the cities they ravaged and nobody would dare say a word against it.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Japan was refusing to surrender because of the USA demand to prosecute the Emperor.
When the USA removed that clause, Japan surrendered.

Nothing was removed from unconditional surrender, if the US had wanted to remove the emperor they could have. But by playing an instrumental role in the surrender the emperor was allowed to stay on.

 

[winjer]

Nothing was removed from unconditional surrender, if the US had wanted to remove the emperor they could have. But by playing an instrumental role in the surrender the emperor was allowed to stay on.

Yes, they could remove the Emperor. But only after more months of fighting. More bombings. More killings.
Allowing the emperor to remain ended the war.

 

[Rickyiez]

War is a crime by itself

 

[Wildebeest]

Towards the end of the war, allied bombing missions were driven by revenge, and they went too far. The air forces were services which saw the extremely heavy casualties in fighting.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Yes, they could remove the Emperor. But only after more months of fighting. More bombings. More killings.
Allowing the emperor to remain ended the war.

The surrender signed by the Japanese clearly states that the status of the emperor is up to the Allied Supreme Commander to decide.

Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's possible that a decision to remove the emperor would have resulted in an uprising. But that would also mean the emperor was determined to hang on to power and would not have surrendered after two nukes, going into alternate history territory where anything is possible.

 

[IFireflyl]

Would you say that the Nazi's or the Japanese committed no war crimes during WW2 as well?

Of course not. But they were guilty of war crimes without retroactively condemning them with new laws/conventions made up after the fact.

The very first major act of war that Germany committed was the bombing of Wielun, Poland. That was a a civilian town with no military targets. They were bombed for nine hours straight.

 

[IFireflyl]

Of course it was a war crime.

Normal bombs would have been better, at least you don't condamn the earth and soil for the next 50 years or so.

Nuclear must be THE last option.

They didn't know this at the time. Nobody knew this at the time. When this was done it was just a big bomb. Also, it was the last option anyway.

 

[winjer]

The surrender signed by the Japanese clearly states that the status of the emperor is up to the Allied Supreme Commander to decide.

Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's possible that a decision to remove the emperor would have resulted in an uprising. But that would also mean the emperor was determined to hang on to power and would not have surrendered after two nukes, going into alternate history territory where anything is possible.

It just means the Emperor has to answer to the USA's representative. It only establishes hierarchy.
The position of the Emperor is safeguarded, by defining the hierarchy and the duty's the Emperor has.
This is exactly what the Japanese wanted and what they got from the USA, as a concession for surrender.

 

[GymWolf]

They didn't know this at the time. Nobody knew this at the time. When this was done it was just a big bomb. Also, it was the last option anyway.

You can use regular bombs instead of going nuclear, you still do damage but there is a chance for some civilians to save their lives if they are lucky and not condemn the land for years to come.

Ignorance is not an excuse, and makes this even worse, they basically used japan as lab rats.

 

[IFireflyl]

You can use regular bombs instead of going nuclear, you still do damage but there is a chance for some civilians to save their lives if they are lucky and not condemn the land for years to come.

Ignorance is not an excuse, and makes this even worse, they basically used japan as lab rats.

If they were looking for an excuse to drop the bombs then I would agree. But Japan was warned repeatedly, and Japan was the aggressor, not the U.S. You can try to spin this however you'd like, but this doesn't equate to a war crime. Japan's military was barbaric back then, and they (Japan's military and leadership) were the ones that forced the U.S.'s hand.

 

[winjer]

If they were looking for an excuse to drop the bombs then I would agree. But Japan was warned repeatedly, and Japan was the aggressor, not the U.S. You can try to spin this however you'd like, but this doesn't equate to a war crime. Japan's military was barbaric back then, and they (Japan's military and leadership) were the ones that forced the U.S.'s hand.

One crime never justifies another.
Just because the Axis were committing war crimes left and right, does not mean the Allies should do the same.
Otherwise, the Allies might as well just have joined the Axis, in an orgy of war crimes.

 

[IFireflyl]

One crime never justifies another.
Just because the Axis were committing war crimes left and right, does not mean the Allies should do the same.
Otherwise, the Allies might as well just have joined the Axis, in an orgy of war crimes.

I agree that one crime doesn't justify another, and I never said otherwise. Again: what crime was committed? You keep saying there was a war crime that the U.S. committed. Show me the law/treaty that was violated by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Your opinion doesn't make something a crime.

 

[GymWolf]

If they were looking for an excuse to drop the bombs then I would agree. But Japan was warned repeatedly, and Japan was the aggressor, not the U.S. You can try to spin this however you'd like, but this doesn't equate to a war crime. Japan's military was barbaric back then, and they (Japan's military and leadership) were the ones that forced the U.S.'s hand.

Nobody is saying that japan was innocent, that would be a spin.

Saying that it is a war crime using the most barbaric weapon in human history without even knowing well the long lasting effects of this weapon, it is not.

You don't respond to normal bombs with nuclear bombs, and i'm sure that american was never in short supply of normal bombs during war.

 

[winjer]

I agree that one crime doesn't justify another, and I never said otherwise. Again: what crime was committed? You keep saying there was a war crime that the U.S. committed. Show me the law/treaty that was violated by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Your opinion doesn't make something a crime.

It has been discussed a few pages back, by a few people, so I won't repeat all again.
But it was the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, that was signed by the USA. And it already had provisions for attacks on civilians.

But then again, is it really necessary a international conventional on war laws, to understand that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is a crime?
If there were no prior conventions on war, to the Geneva convention of 1949, would we let all those Nazis go free?

 

[gundalf]

Yes of course it was a war crime. I don't understand why so many of you need to deflect, war is war and no one can hold the USA accountable anyway.

 

[Toots]

I think the act was spurned by necessity for the USA to show the world who was the new boss (same as the old european boss) who would do whatever they want on the world stage.
Japan surrendering or not was a pretext.
That makes it, more than a war crime, a crime against humanity.

 

[Methos#1975]

For me the question comes down to the state of mind at the time. It's easy to look at it in hindsight with 75 plus years of study into the issue and condemn it, but at the time there was a very real public feeling that we would have to invade Japan and lose millions of troops doing so and tens of millions of Japanese civilians would also die as well. I had family members that both fought in WW2 as well as just lived through that period and they were all vocal on how the bombs were a absolute necessity to avoid what to them was a very palpable feeling of dread and horror at the alternative at the time. I think it's easy to judge actions when you have no real understanding on the general mood at the time.