Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war-crimes?

[thelerner]

Sadly war weary and low moral doesn't equal surrender. Japan was in no way a democracy listening to peasants in news polls. I've also read reports of high level generals prepared to kidnap the emperor if he'd declared peace. There were also reports of WWII Japanese Soldiers reluctant to surrender, in THE 1960's! They were fanatical because traditionally the loser was killed, often his bloodline was too.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. All we can do is guess. The truth is there were powerful Hawks in control who'd kill there own before surrender. They were actively assassinating government people who use the S word even after A bombs were dropped.

I thought this blog condensing the work of 14 Japanese Historians was very insightful, short & accurate (I believe), it should be read regardless of sides. http://www.warbirdforum.com/end.htm

 

excerpt: "

SWC HAWKS

Army Minister General Anami (the leader of the hawks)
Army Chief of Staff General Umezu
Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda

It is a curious fact that the Navy was so important, even though it only had a few destroyers left.

Since these six people were unable to agree to end the war, there were two other sources of authority which could possibly break the deadlock, although, since Japan was already at war, the hawks had no desire to break the deadlock.

 

THE ARMY

The Army was in physical control of the country and Tokyo. The Army had a tradition of murdering political opponents. Many middle level officers in the Army believed that the Army should murder all the doves and take control of the country. This would mean, in effect, kidnapping Hirohito. Many officers viewed this as preferable to surrender. Everyone believed that a surrender order would be followed by an immediate coup attempt and assasination spree."

 

The above was from Japanese historians. Its a very good read.

 

In truth during war there's more misinformation then solid intelligence. Plain and simple, there's a nasty mix of hatred, blood lust and racism. Most of all priority number one is to end the damn thing as quickly as possible. That usually doesn't make for pretty endings.

Edited October 1, 2013 by thelerner

[Ad Nauseaum]

Well, I'm not denying that there were fanatics. I'm merely asserting that the evidence I've seen suggests a less sensationalist reality. From what I can tell, some Japanese commanders and soldiers would rather die than surrender, and plenty of others were just 'normal' soldiers.

[Marblehead]

But we are at peace with Japan today. That's good.

[xor]

It's not just hindsight. Many smart military men thought and knew they were unnecessary... there is a short but decent piece on wikipedia:

 

 

 

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[106][107] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[98]

There's always war crimes in war on all sides.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Guest

[Ad Nauseaum]

^That's a good point actually. By 1945 the Japanese had no chance of winning or turning the tide, and the administration of Japan was well aware of this fact. It seems entirely possible the Japanese could surrender from blockade, conventional bombing and the Soviet intervention in Manchuria alone.

[ralis]

This documentary is well worth watching which explores the reasons for charging the Nazi's with war crimes.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6kWjsCInyA

[Owledge]

U.S. foreign policy is usually a crime, and has been for a long time.

The nuking of Japan was done towards the end of the war, when Japan was about to capitulate and some high-ranking people saw this as the last chance to strike fear into the world and show off their power. They really wanted to nuke someone, so they hurried to do it.

And now the USA is policing the world and harassing countries that adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with accusation-based illlegal sanctions while the USA violates the treaty full-scale.

 

Oh, and the US president knew that Pearl Harbor was about to happen. So even the whole reason for them to be in the war was a crime.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Owledge

[Marblehead]

I'm glad you got that off your chest Owledge. Just please be careful as America is still "my" country.

[Owledge]

I'm glad you got that off your chest Owledge. Just please be careful as America is still "my" country.

Well, if having truth spoken about your country's government is causing you negative emotions towards the messenger, then you have a long way to go towards liberty.

Even the Founding Fathers emphasized how a country's own government is the greatest potential enemy.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Owledge

[Marblehead]

Well, if having truth spoken about your country's government is causing you negative emotions towards the messenger, then you have a long way to go towards liberty.

Even the Founding Fathers emphasized how a country's own government is the greatest potential enemy.

So you think I am emotional? How wrong can you get? I was simply stating a fact. I know of the problems of "my" government. But I have never suggested that "my" fascist government is a good representation of the American people.

 

Yes, Thomas Jefferson warned us that what has come to be would happen if we allowed government to have too much power over the people. And he was a supporter of the right of the "common people" to bear arms with the understanding that they might have to be used to remove its government.

 

And I will say again, be careful talking about "my" government because it is not representative of the American people.

[Owledge]

And I will say again, be careful talking about "my" government because it is not representative of the American people.

Who said it was? I was exactly pointing out that you apparently saw that non-existent insinuation. I didn't point fingers at people or get personal. So why should I be careful about stating facts?

You sound like on one hand you totally identify with your country, but on the other hand you don't want to be associated with it.

I'd never say anything against someone revealing the truth about my country. I encourage that stuff to be laid bare and visible.

What is there that needs warning about?

[Marblehead]

But if someone tries to make my country look bad then it concerns me. I am a proud American. I am not proud of my government. Presently my government is not representative of the majority of Americans.

 

Let's pick on Germany. Would you like to go back about 80 years and view the form of government the Germans had?

[Owledge]

But if someone tries to make my country look bad then it concerns me. I am a proud American. I am not proud of my government. Presently my government is not representative of the majority of Americans.

Pride can stand in the way of some solutions. If you look at the country minus the government, then you have many people on a scale from worst scum to most virtuous, and all together live in a country that was very much shaped by imperial conquest (like so many others), and this trend hasn't been averted or slowed at all, while other countries managed to make it through history without starting wars, and pretty much all they have to bear today is the aggression of those who do.

 

To me being a German is a label indicating that I was born in a certain administrative region / dominion territory. I have no pride for countries, because that would constitute a huge generalization. There are certain specific things and people in a country one can be proud of, and there are things that should be marks of shame. Nationalism is just a tool to rally the population behind the government's agenda.

Patriotism might be a more refined idea, unfortunately its true meaning is being distorted and mostly forgotten by the people now.

 

The thing is, if you separate the country from the government, and say you are proud of the country, but the country defines itself through its actions which are on a massive scale determined by its government, then the whole idea of a country/nation loses its usefulness as a representative vessel.

 

A country is just a virtual construct. That idea can stand in the way of direct human-to-human interactions.

I would not judge you by the country you live in. I can only judge you by what I know about you personally, what you reveal on your own volition.

 

 

Let's pick on Germany. Would you like to go back about 80 years and view the form of government the Germans had?

 

It's kinda worn-out to me personally, but I take no issue if people want to talk about it.

[Marblehead]

Okay. This I can accept without arguement.

 

We must never judge a society's people based on its government.

 

It really irritates me when people associate all Arabs with the Moslem extremists as is happening far too much today.

 

And I would never associate you with Hitler or the leaders of the Nazi party. All Germans were not Nazis.

 

And all Japanese were not war mongers.

 

And all Chinese are not Taoists or Confucians.