The Atomic Bombings on Japan were war crimes and here is why!

The Japanese government intended, for the moment, to "ignore" the Proclamation. Despite Anami's insistence on some strong statenient of protest, Suzuki agreed with Togo; the government, he said, will, in a word, in a now famous and tragic word, mokusatsu the Proclamation--will kill it with silence. Moku means "to be silent" and satsu means "to kill"; taken together, the word is defined by the Kenkyusha Dictionary as "take no notice of; treat (anything) w'ith silent contempt; ignore [by keeping silence]." It also means: "remain in a wise and masterly inactivity," and that, no doubt, was the sense Suzuki had in mind--but unfortunately the other meanings sounded both more spectacular and more persuasive, and when the word appeared on the front page of Tokyo's newspapers the following morning, it was taken to mean that the government held the Proclamation in contempt--that the government, in fact, rejected it. So the word was understood in Washington, as well as in Britain and the rest of Europe--although it was in American diplomatic circles that mokusatsu exerted its maximum damage. The Asahi Shimbun, one of Tokyo's largest newspapers, that same Saturday morning characterized the Proclamation as "a thing of no great value." The Japanese people were apprised of the existence of the Proclamation and assured at the same time that their government found it unacceptable--which was hardly what the Cabinet had decided the afternoon before. But the people were not to know that--any more than they knew anything else that went on behind the closed doors of the ministries and the official residences or the moats of the Palace--and so they treated the Proclamation with the silentt contempt which their government had told them was all it deserved.

The following day, Saturday, July 28th, Premier Suzuki agreed to hold a press conference at four o'clock, at which he would discuss the Allied declaration. To the all-important, expected queson, Suzuki replied that the Potsdam Proclamation was nothing but a "rehash" of the Cairo Declaration and that the government considered it to be a "thing of no great value." Then, suddenly, he added, "We will simply mokusatsu it," after which he announced the government's determination to continue prosecuting the war until victory was won.

And the damage had already been done. Suzuki's statement was published in Japan on Monday, July 3oth, and picked up by newspapers throughout the world, which reported that Japan had not even bothered to "reject" the Proclamation. In describing this moment later, the American Secretary of War, Henry L. Stinison, said that the United States ... could only proceed to demonstrate that the ultimatum had meant exactly what it said when it stated that if the Japanese continued the war, "the full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland."

For such a purpose the atomic bomb was an eminently suitable weapon.

When the Japanese ambassador to the Kremlin cabled Togo that there was "no chance whatever" of persuading Russia to aid the Japanese, the Foreign Minister replied: "In spite of your views, you are to carry out your instructions. . . . Endeavor to obtain the good offices of the Soviet Union in ending the war short of unconditional surrender."

Kazutoshi Hando, The Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day (Tokyo: Kodansha International, Ltd., 1968), pp. 11-53.


Unconditional surrender was what America wanted. Japan wanted Terms. It wasn't going to happen. Japan wasnt going to be allowed to dictate the Conditions, outright.


And.........

Together with work by Barton Bernstein and Robert Newman, Gentile's review of the actual interrogation records of Japanese officials revealed their statements were literally the reverse of Nitze's assertion. Every Japanese official questioned but one (and he was contradictory) said he expected the war would have continued absent the shocks of the atomic bombs and Soviet entry. Further, Gentile notes the internal reports differed so widely on their interpretation of the data that they "settled nothing," in the words of George Ball. Gentile concludes that Nitze was actually steered by a hidden agenda of justification for a postwar Air Force with a huge conventional, not just nuclear, bombing capability.

History lessons for atomic revisionists.

no baby is ever worth being burnt alive, ever

reply to post by sonnny1




history lesson for you, defender of the burning alive of women, children and men- go look at what a burnt baby looks like

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
reply to post by sonnny1

 

history lesson for you, defender of the burning alive of women, children and men- go look at what a burnt baby looks like

Many Japanese settlers committed mass suicide as the Soviet army approached. Mothers were forced to kill their own children before killing or being killed themselves. The Japanese army often took part in the killings of its civilians. The commander of the 5th Japanese Army, General Simidzu, commented that "each nation lives and dies by its own laws."

Sad, isn't it?



War is Hell.

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
no baby is ever worth being burnt alive, ever

The Japanese government should have thought of that before they started then.... Japan could have very easily stopped the atomic attacks, but they refused to.

All their fault.

Still, think if the U.S never got involved in WW2 and the bombings by the Axis - who started the war, btw, was left unabated. In retrospect the U.S had to get involved. If you think about it if the U.S didnt get involved many of us would be posting from prison camps or at the very least the war would have lasted at least 5-10 years longer and for what?

At the time the A bombs were dropped the side effects were not known either. People were using radioactive elements in watches, paint and many other things unknowing what could happen to them years later. Based on that if it was a war crime then the whole war would be considered a war crime...but that was Hitler for ya. If he came along 30-40-50 years later he would be some other type of criminal. Perhaps serial killer etc. Hindsight is 2020.

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
reply to post by sonnny1

 

history lesson for you, defender of the burning alive of women, children and men- go look at what a burnt baby looks like

Yeah here is a real history lesson:

reply to post by daaskapital


Probably not. It's war. One side wins, one side loses. The winner usually does so by killing more people with better technology. It's no more so a "war crime" than when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. It was simply "war".

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
i thought all war was a crime..

Actually you are right...

The only reason people are unaware of that fact is because:

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

Until you come face to face with the REAL truth behind ALL wars, you will NEVER be able to grasp the REAL history that is being hidden behind the FAKE...

I'd like to add the following:

War and civil war is the failure of politics, and the failure of politics is the failure of dialogue. As Rosenstock-Huessy also described it, war is a disease of speech, a failure of language. This seeming utter inability to discern between politics and warfaring is another aspect of the mentality of “deficient rationality” — which is to say, mind become demented.

Which means, if a President, or leader takes you to war, they should be fired, dethroned, replaced, even prosecuted. They didn't do their job.

I reckon they should have called first then before lobbing all those bombs on Pearl Harbor.
We were simply minding our own business and they decided that wasnt good enough.
All we did was package up all the bombs they dropped into two nice and neat little bombs and returned to sender all at once.
Note to future attackers....
Let sleeping dogs lie, they might bite your arse if awoken.

Let me add the weirdo value add.

I am from the time line that amalgamated around 1990, where only one bomb was dropped. When I realized I had moved into a line with two, I knew I had moved into a nastier time line even if it was one that survived longer. :-) dun dun dun...

Ok then.... :-)

It was a test of new arms. It was nasty. It was a crime. It was also the only thing that would have backed the Japanese down that much, so that they would stop. A surrender for certain vs a surrender while evaluating new options.

Now they are suffering from more radiation accumulation from their own nuclear plants being constructed against all standards (too close to the water), and not having proper back up on hand due to arrogant dismissal. Worse, for their own arrogance and being used by others for testing of new tech that they were not well prepared for.

Japan keeps getting nuked by arrogance. Too bad, since they seem to be well set to be very useful for nuclear acceptance. It is a useful power source. Everything that could be wrong abour it is being demonstrated in Japan. A land destined to sink into the crust.

reply to post by Aeons


Ironic, isn't it........

Having so many Nuclear Power Plants on an Island that suffers devastating Earthquakes and the Occasional Tsunami, One would consider it a "Crime to Humanity" to have them operating?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by daaskapital
Words can't explain how retarded your comment is...

Right back atchya. :shk:

The Japanese attack against the USA did not give them the right to drop Atomic Bombs on them.

BULL. The Japanese attacked America. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender. The ENTIRE POPULATION was a war machine. America had every right to defend itself and to protect it's own people FIRST.

I never said that they were going to surrender.

America did have every right to defend itself. That being said, they shouldn't have broken international law.

A lot of the civilians were a part of the Japanese war machine. It doesn't mean that they were voluntarily. .

1 - Yes they were voluntarily part of the war effort. I lived there .. I've been to Hiroshima .. I've been to the museum. Even the Japanese of that time tell you that they were all part of the war effort and that they wanted to WIN. Their 'god' (the Emperor) told them what to do, so they did it.

2 - Even if there were any that may not have been volunteering .. it's IRRELEVANT. They were part of a machine set to destroy America and kill Americans. It's the duty of the American government to protect Americans FIRST. It's NOT the duty of the American government to 'take it easy' on a war machine that aggressively attacked us.

1) Some were, others weren't. I don't really care if you have been to Japan. Nor do i care for your arrogance. Yes, the Japanese did want to win, as did every other force in the war.

2) And the USA was a machine which wanted to destroy Japan and kill the Japanese. Nuking a country is not protecting your own. Yes, it saved the lives of allied soldiers, but at what cost? Killing civilians.

I agree that the USA had to protect itself. But that does not give them the right to BREAK INTERNATIONAL LAW and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians. i don't really care if the civilians were a part of the war machine, they were civilians, living THEIR own normal lives. The USA broke international law (on more than one occasion) by dropping the Atomic Bombs. Even if you don't class the civilians as...well, civilians, there is still no doubt that the USA had broken international law.

Grow up. It was all out war against the USA. They started it. We finished it.
They shouldn't have started the fire if they couldn't handle the heat.

Doesn't matter, the USA broke International law (just the same as the Japanese). Both sides deserve to get punished. But as the saying goes, the winners write the rules. There was no way that the USA would put itself on trial for war crimes, even though they deserved it.

Originally posted by Perhaps
reply to post by daaskapital

 

It has been acknowledged as being a war crime.

wagingpeace.org

On the issue of legality, the judgment clearly stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a clear violation of international law and regulations respecting aerial warfare. The court cited a number of international laws including the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and Land of 1899, Declaration prohibiting aerial bombardment of 1907, the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922-1923, and Protocol prohibiting the use in war of asphyxiating, deleterious or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare.

However, many contentious issues still remain regarding compensation, repercussions and the necessity of the action in the first place though...

edit on 23-12-2012 by Perhaps because: (no reason given)

The U.S did however help rebuild, and defend the Japanese since WW2 for 50 years, so regarding compensation I think we have done that. What other nation on earth would have or has done that?

However this has lead to the nation building problem we have now. It created a lot of wealth, and people do not want it to stop.

Grim

reply to post by daaskapital


The Japanese had demonstrated a total and complete disregard for International Law. Whether it be the systematic execution of POW's or the forced Rape of Chinese, Korean and other Asian Woman who were forced to serve as sex slaves for Japanese Troops...Japan paid no head to these laws.

The possible death toll of American Troops as well as the Multiple Millions of Japanese Deaths that would have been the result of a U.S. Invasion of mainland Japan was reason enough for the OK being given to drop the Nuclear Bombs.

In the end...those two bombs saved Millions of lives.

Split Infinity

War crimes?

So you speak for the Japanese people? How do they feel about these war crimes?

Do they care? Why do you? What is your objective?

BTW - if you are from Australia - they were about to kick butt there too...but the Merican's held them back and made'em stop. The Nippons didn't care for any Geneva convention rules - they just knew how to win at all cost.

So 2 nukes messed up their Empire... so be it. Glad it did and a lot more lives were saved with it.

Merry Christmas from those who've benefited from the Japanese Imperial Rein falling...

-CN

[edit]: My background - Okinawan and some round eye. So F the Nips.

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
War crimes?

So you speak for the Japanese people? How do they feel about these war crimes?

Do they care? Why do you? What is your objective?

Yes.

No. Japan did rule them as illegal.

I imagine they would. Because i can. My objective here is to let people know the truth.

BTW - if you are from Australia - they were about to kick butt there too...but the Merican's held them back and made'em stop. The Nippons didn't care for any Geneva convention rules - they just knew how to win at all cost.

Yes, i am from Australia. No they weren't. Japan made it all the way to New Guinea (our doorstep) and we successfully held them off and pushed them all the way back to the end (when the USA finally decided to pitch in). Contrary to popular belief, Australia also island hopped with the USA.

So 2 nukes messed up their Empire... so be it. Glad it did and a lot more lives were saved with it.

Merry Christmas from those who've benefited from the Japanese Imperial Rein falling...

-CN

Yep...whatever.

Thanks for the reply...

Originally posted by daaskapital

Nuking a country is not protecting your own.

But mobilizing your entire Nation into an army makes what of these civilians?

Soldiers.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Yes, it saved the lives of allied soldiers, but at what cost?

The cost of even MORE Allied soldiers and Japanese Soldiers dying, IE; Invasion.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Killing civilians.

No.

Killing Soldiers.

Killing soldiers who would lay their lives down for the Emperor if he commanded them to. You cannot say anything differently to this fact. EVERYONE in Japan, other then the physically handicapped or mentally handicapped in Japan was mobilized under the National Mobilization Law.


Every Japanese official questioned but one (and he was contradictory) said he expected the war would have continued absent the shocks of the atomic bombs and Soviet entry.

History lessons for atomic revisionists.


Hiroshima

Hiroshima became known for its dual role-center of education and military base. In the 1920's heavy industries began developing in Hiroshima, and by the end of the 1930's, these were also being transformed into factories for military production. By the time of the A-bombing, the Hiroshima Bay area, combined with the naval facilities in Kure, had taken on a strong military character.

Following the Sino-Japanese War, with its military-related depots, Hiroshima gradually took on the atmosphere of a military supply base. In 1942, the Marine Headquarters (commonly known as the Akatsuki Corps) was established in the city. To supplement ongoing labor shortages, depots and military factories mobilized women and students as labor. It is said that by May 1944, about one quarter of the factory workers in the prefecture were mobilized students.

++Hiroshima Before the Bombing++


You talk of International Law but that law didn't apply to the Japanese.

The commander of the 5th Japanese Army, General Simidzu, commented that "each nation lives and dies by its own laws."

reply to post by daaskapital


I am bias - being from Oki background - I'm don't hold any Jap sympathies.

If you think that your Country of Australia could hold back the Jap Empire alone, then good for you.

Bet you thought the American's just got in the way of the Australian Might taking over the islands taken by the Nips...then so be it - I'm sure they just attacked as the Australian Mighty navy were about to overtake the Japanese navy. The Mericans should have just let you'all be....

Still fail to prove that any A-Bombs against the Japanese homeland was indeed war crimes... Just a bunch of "I feel this way because this statement..."

How about war crimes against Iraq or Libya? Was there any real threats there after they complied with the conditions set before them? Not until those conditions stated that the current leaders leave office....

Originally posted by daaskapital
That being said, they shouldn't have broken international law.

They didnt.... but keep repeating your fairy tale

But that does not give them the right to BREAK INTERNATIONAL LAW and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

They didnt break "Internationak Law", and murdered no one.

there is still no doubt that the USA had broken international law.

You seem to think that you repeating a lie somehow makes it true! But japanese apologists/USA haters dont seem to reason well.

Notice how the Japanese never whined about the USA committing a war crime, it is only someone being a apologist for the japanese.