Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war-crimes?

[Ad Nauseaum]

This is an interesting debate I've seen, and I'm intrigued to see what the people here think.

 

Essentially, they were attacks upon large numbers of civilians. If it is a war crime when the Nazi's targeted civilians in Poland and Russia, and a war crime when the Japanese targeted civilians in China, why is it not one when the Americans target civilians in Japan?

[Aetherous]

It's unthinkable to me that the US did that at one point in history. Yes, it was definitely a war crime.

[thelerner]

War crime. I suppose so. No time machine though, and if you had one, would it be right to roll dice and change history?

 

An invasion of Japan would have killed millions. There's that. Okinawa isn't Japan and over 149,000 people died during that fight. Homeland Japan, would have made that look like a skirmish. Not to mention Russia was aching to get into the fight and avenge itself against Japan. If the war dragged on they would have and Japan might have been split into communist dictatorship and democratic free area..

 

Somewhere in the middle of WWII civilian bombings became tit for tat. Civility was thrown out the window. Japan threw huge resources into a death ray (literally). If it had worked, they'd have destroyed us. No question. It didn't, the nuclear bomb did. We won and created a democracy there. A very successful one.

 

Looking back at history you have literally 100 year wars. The damnable thing about the cold war was its proxy nature. Powerful sides feeding small conflicts making them last for years or decades. Horrible. The point is.. you may need total war at times to end a conflict. A sad horrible thing to say, but true. To doubt it is to wish away horrible tyrants or to lose to them.

 

I know there's huge antiAmerican sentiment on this site; that America is the Devil. Your opinion is your opinion and I'm sure we'll break Godwins law within 3 or 4 posts. But personally I'd rather live in the U.S then the aftermath of victorious Nazi Germany or Militant Japan.

[silent thunder]

All war is a crime.

There are no degrees for me.

[Ad Nauseaum]

War crime. I suppose so. No time machine though, and if you had one, would it be right to roll dice and change history?

 

An invasion of Japan would have killed millions. There's that. Okinawa isn't Japan and over 149,000 people died during that fight. Homeland Japan, would have made that look like a skirmish. Not to mention Russia was aching to get into the fight and avenge itself against Japan. If the war dragged on they would have and Japan might have been split into communist dictatorship and democratic free area..

 

Somewhere in the middle of WWII civilian bombings became tit for tat. Civility was thrown out the window. Japan threw huge resources into a death ray (literally). If it had worked, they'd have destroyed us. No question. It didn't, the nuclear bomb did. We won and created a democracy there. A very successful one.

 

Looking back at history you have literally 100 year wars. The damnable thing about the cold war was its proxy nature. Powerful sides feeding small conflicts making them last for years or decades. Horrible. The point is.. you may need total war at times to end a conflict. A sad horrible thing to say, but true. To doubt it is to wish away horrible tyrants or to lose to them.

 

I know there's huge antiAmerican sentiment on this site; that America is the Devil. Your opinion is your opinion and I'm sure we'll break Godwins law within 3 or 4 posts. But personally I'd rather live in the U.S then the aftermath of victorious Nazi Germany or Militant Japan.

Well, Godwin's law is inevitable I wouldn't consider myself Anti-American, although I do believe that some actions of the US government have been immoral, I have nothing at all against average Americans.

 

The invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, would have been horrific. That much is undoubted, it would have been the largest undertaking of the Western Allies by far, making D-Day look like a sideshow and only being matched by the gigantic Soviet operations in the Eastern Front. For that reason I can see how some would think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

 

However, the only problem is that, regardless of Operation Downfall, what was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was still horrific, and an attack upon civilians. That's a war crime.

At the Nuremberg trials, Goering was sentenced to death for "The mass destruction of European cities" in his Luftwaffe campaigns. It is quite a biting hypocrisy that the US government had been doing the same thing in Japan, yet were lauded as heroes for it.

 

Quite simply, the ends do not justify the means.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Ad Nauseaum

[Formless Tao]

Well, Godwin's law is inevitable I wouldn't consider myself Anti-American, although I do believe that some actions of the US government have been immoral, I have nothing at all against average Americans. The invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, would have been horrific. That much is undoubted, it would have been the largest undertaking of the Western Allies by far, making D-Day look like a sideshow and only being matched by the gigantic Soviet operations in the Eastern Front. For that reason I can see how some would think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. However, the only problem is that, regardless of Operation Downfall, what was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was still horrific, and an attack upon civilians. That's a war crime. At the Nuremberg trials, Goering was sentenced to death for "The mass destruction of European cities" in his Luftwaffe campaigns. It is quite a biting hypocrisy that the US government had been doing the same thing in Japan, yet were lauded as heroes for it. Quite simply, the ends do not justify the means.

Ad Nauseaum great topic.

 

I watched a documentary on the U.S bombing of Japan about a month ago and it was horrific, like all war is. Especially the aftermath and real footage of the Japanese who managed to luckily survive.

 

Saying that though what the Japanese did in China (Nanjing) was absolutely shocking. The photos I saw in a book called 'The Rape of Nanjing' was disgraceful to say the least, torture, rape and killing. Some of the worst committed on women, children and pregnant women with their unborn children.

 

I've been to Pol Pots killing fields and S21 torture school in Cambodia and that was very errie, sad, depressing and shocking.

 

Also been to the Cu Chi tunnels in Vietnam where the Vietnamese first fought the French and then the Viet Cong fought the U.S, with great effectiveness using their gruesome boobie traps.

 

Also been to East Timor and witnessed real photos taken by Indonesian Army/militia on what they did to the East Timorese people. Again shocking.

 

As Silent thunder said 'all war is a crime.'

 

We can look at war on an individual personal level or on a grand country scale.

 

One mans enemy, is another mans hero

One mans hero, is another mans enemy.

 

At the end of the day war is war. It doesn't matter who commits it, it is always a crime against humanity.

 

My small opinion. Peace

Edited September 29, 2013 by Formless Tao

[hod]

All War involves killing which can be seen as a crime but I have a feeling that is not what this thread is about. So to answer the question in my opinion (important part to remember), it comes down to the definition you are using for 'War Crimes,' If you are using the definition that has been used when bringing people to trial after a war (such as in Germany after WWII), then... no, they were not War Crimes. War Crimes by that definition are only committed by the losers of the war. Never has the country who won a war tried themselves for what they did during the war to win the war. It is totally a double standard since both sides do horrible things that could fall under the category of 'War Crimes,' but the loser is the only party who is ever tried for them.

 

I'm not defending what was done and the killing of all the people who died in those bombings because it was horrible and no American is proud of it.

Edited September 29, 2013 by hod

[Unlearner]

All war is a crime.

There are no degrees for me.

 

I don't really know if there's any other way to think about it, really. If you want to apply morality and ethics to human existence, you enter into such a gray area that you can technically justify anything for something else, depending on your perspective. "Crime" is most certainly a uniquely human concept, so there is plenty of subjectivity to it in the first place. Still, killing is killing, regardless of reasons. You can argue, and you can win a court case, but you'll still have to live with having killed someone. If it was to defend yourself, so be it. If it was to defend someone else, so be it. If it was for mere convenience, so be it. However you justify it, killing is killing. Is it right or wrong? Who knows, my role is not the judge. As far as I'm aware, there is no just war, so that would make any act of war a crime.

[Formless Tao]

I don't really know if there's any other way to think about it, really. If you want to apply morality and ethics to human existence, you enter into such a gray area that you can technically justify anything for something else, depending on your perspective. "Crime" is most certainly a uniquely human concept, so there is plenty of subjectivity to it in the first place. Still, killing is killing, regardless of reasons. You can argue, and you can win a court case, but you'll still have to live with having killed someone. If it was to defend yourself, so be it. If it was to defend someone else, so be it. If it was for mere convenience, so be it. However you justify it, killing is killing. Is it right or wrong? Who knows, my role is not the judge. As far as I'm aware, there is no just war, so that would make any act of war a crime.

 

Unlearner, very well said. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Flolfolil]

any act of war a crime.

damn, i came in to this thread just to say this but you beat me to it

[Marblehead]

Well, I will first agree that all war is a crime.

 

However, The bombings being spoken of here were not the targetting of civilians. It was the targetting of the manufacturing aspect of Japan's war machine. Sure, civilians were going to die. That was understood while the plans were in the making. The reason Tokyo wasn't bombed was because it did not have that many industries involved in the war machine.

 

And the question must be asked: How many lives were saved as a result of those bombings? All of China would be speaking Japanese right now if the bombings had not happened.

[silent thunder]

This touches on one of my favorite TTC verses.

I haven't shared this before, but this is my take on verse 31.

 

 

31

Weapons: tools of pain,

used for violence and fear.

Decent folk abhor.

Yet in direst need

and if compelled will use them,

with utmost restraint.

Peace, highest value.

When the peace has been shattered

who can be content?

Glory in fighting?

Those who delight in killing

do not know true self.

Your foes not demons.

Simple beings like yourself.

Sage desires no harm.

No victory dance.

Victory by force, no joy.

How rejoice in this?

Sage battles gravely

with sorrow and compassion

like tending a grave.

 

I'm at a point in my life where I've spent considerable effort on the justified punishment of the wrongdoings against me.

Quieting myself in recent years, I have discovered a sincerely sorrowful return on that investment. Each act of 'justified retribution' has been at its core, another dark act in a string of dark acts.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am no doormat. But I no longer relish in the conflict against wrongdoing. In direst need I will protect the innocent/weak but I cannot take no joy in it. And my desire to seek out and punish after the fact is all but gone.

 

My near complete focus is to heal.

[eye_of_the_storm]

The All Lies are untouchable

[Jetsun]

We had to discuss this on one of my courses at Uni, basically the Japanese were so heavily indoctrinated that they would never surrender unless under extreme circumstances as they had been so heavily brain washed that many would rather fall on their swords or become kamikaze than give in. So the US were faced with a long protracted war in Asia which would most probably result in a lot more death than dropping a nuke, so the nuke was a better option. They dropped leaflets warning the city was going to be obliterated so people had a chance to leave, the real issue was whether the second bomb was necessary as that was more to send a message than anything else, which wasn't really required.

[xor]

Japanese were ready to surrender, just not unconditionally.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Guest

[Marblehead]

Japanese were ready to surrender, just not unconditionally.

A little too little and a little too late.

[xor]

I agree with the Eisenhower quote here

 

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/opinion-eisenhower-bomb.htm

Edited September 30, 2013 by Guest

[Marblehead]

That's okay. But please understand that you and I will not always agree either.

[Jetsun]

 

Japanese were ready to surrender, just not unconditionally.

Depends who you read, some say that they were prepared to fight to the last man even in the face of absolute defeat. There were occasions during the war where the US troops would go to try liberate a small island and come under extreme resistance and suffer large casualties only to find out that there were just a small handful of Japanese soldiers defending it, such was their determination not to give in and fight to the end. There is a film about this but I have forgotten what its called. So the continuation of the war would have probably cost thousands of lives on both sides. I think at the time there wouldn't even have been that much of a debate whether they should have used the bomb, maybe they could have used it on a rural area as a demonstration, but I guess they were extreme times and if offered a knockout blow to end the war they would take it.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Jetsun

[xor]

Yeah you have to wonder why would they defend an insignificant island like Iwo JIma to the last man and why was it attacked with equal determination? It was in bombing range to their home cities... just something to think about.

[Jetsun]

Yeah you have to wonder why would they defend an insi

gnificant island like Iwo JIma to the last man and why was it attacked with equal determination? It was in bombing range to their home cities... just something to think about.

 

No need for the sarcasm

[ralis]

Yeah you have to wonder why would they defend an insignificant island like Iwo JIma to the last man and why was it attacked with equal determination? It was in bombing range to their home cities... just something to think about.

 

Iwo Jima was a major radar installation for the Japanese military. Also there were three major airfields that the U.S. needed to capture.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

 

This explains the behavior of the Japanese military personnel during the war. This is one source of many. http://www.mainlinebudo.com/?p=180 Also the unfailing devotion to the Japanese Emperor who was seen as a god.

[Ad Nauseaum]

Depends who you read, some say that they were prepared to fight to the last man even in the face of absolute defeat. There were occasions during the war where the US troops would go to try liberate a small island and come under extreme resistance and suffer large casualties only to find out that there were just a small handful of Japanese soldiers defending it, such was their determination not to give in and fight to the end. There is a film about this but I have forgotten what its called. So the continuation of the war would have probably cost thousands of lives on both sides. I think at the time there wouldn't even have been that much of a debate whether they should have used the bomb, maybe they could have used it on a rural area as a demonstration, but I guess they were extreme times and if offered a knockout blow to end the war they would take it.

Well, I've read plenty of sources which go against either of those assertions. For example, the fact that the Japanese tried to mediate armistice through the USSR is well attested, the Japanese were just unwilling to surrender unconditionally.

 

As for Japanese soldiers and surrendering, it is quite clear that plenty of Japanese soldiers were happy to surrender, particularly in China and Burma. Just look at the massive amount of prisoners the USSR took when they captured Manchuria. It is true that, especially early on, some Japanese soldiers were fanatical, but it is not an accurate description of reality to claim they were all brainwashed zealots. The image of Japanese soldiers swearing honour to the emperor is more one of Western propaganda than an actual reflection of events.

[ralis]

It is true that, especially early on, some Japanese soldiers were fanatical, but it is not an accurate description of reality to claim they were all brainwashed zealots. The image of Japanese soldiers swearing honour to the emperor is more one of Western propaganda than an actual reflection of events.

 

Please provide some references to back up your points.

[Ad Nauseaum]

Please provide some references to back up your points.

Gladly

 

The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff adopted the " Anglo-American outline plan for psychological warfare against Japan", in 1944. Within the paper it is clearly shown that the Japanese population, and significant portions of it's military (mainly conscripted forces) were war-weary and relatively low on morale. You can read it in a paper by Akira Iriye that is on google books, the reference is CCS 539/4, May 21, 1944, JCSD.

 

Furthermore, John K Emmerson, a secretary of staff in the embassy at Chongqing, sent various reports to Hull recording the willingness of Japanese soldiers to surrender in China and Burma. You can read it in the same paper as before, it's references are 740.0011 PW/7-2744 and 8-1844.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Ad Nauseaum