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

reply to post by Grimpachi


I think all agree now the German soldiers under Eisenhower's and Patton' s charge were mistreated post ww 'll. I think all agree what happened to them was a "war crime" when the technical sense of the term is applied. my point is that war itself leads to such nonsense. tales of shrunken heads in Nuremburg, conjured up by clever Brit Russian and American outlaws. it is all rather ridiculous.

reply to post by gingerlee


Less than 2 hours ago you demonstrated ignorance about what a war crime was and now you want to argue over the technicality of things. No thanks your behavior is trollish now.

reply to post by jasonl1983


They thought about doing just that, but decided that the Japanese would see it as weakness. The psychological effect wasn't nearly as great as seeing a city destroyed by a single bomb released from a single aircraft.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I never pretended to understand the term. my point was and is , engaging in war is criminal on the part of all parties. crime is inevitable as war is criminal.

reply to post by gingerlee


Well you shouldn’t expect for people to debate you when you demonstrate that you do not understand the subject.

I will not debate you when you are trying to redefine the term either. I gave you a reference to where you can learn the definition and parameters for it. It is your choice if you educate yourself on it or not but this conversation is over. Feel free to try later but you shouldn’t bother if you haven’t studied up first because I have no intention to play by made up definitions.

reply to post by gingerlee


I think you should familiarize yourself with this phrase as well...

Inter arma enim silent leges

reply to post by daaskapital


An article published in the International Review of the Red Cross notes that, with respect to the "anti-city" or "blitz" strategy, that "in examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property."

The Convention that didn't address the issue of civilians until 1949 when the fourth Geneva Convention was held.

Also, bombing cities full of civiilians was conducted by all sides during the Second World War. The British bombed Dresden (killing 25,000), the Germans bombed London (killing 50,000), the U.S. bombed Tokyo (killing 100,000 in a one night, which was worser than the A-bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki as single events), and Japanese bombed Shanghai (killing 60,000) as well.

reply to post by Xcathdra


thank you Xcathdral, I am familiar with the line. the law is mute during times of war or something to that effect. as a mother and one posting with the expressed bent it should be obvious I am a pacifist. I don't believe Eisenhower a particularly good or bad soldier. I only point him out as we are familiar with him and he became the president. I believed most familiar with the technicalities of martial law and war crimes recognize Eisenhower as a war criminal of th highest rank. he engaged in genocide. so did the Germans. the guys that dropped the big fat one on Nagasaki cannot claim they were not culpable in Light to of conditions. dropping a bomb on those innocent people was literally criminal. this is what war is about. congressman Lantos, when he had the Kuwaitis ambassador' s daughter lie in that hearing about babies being thrown out of incubators. Lantos was engaging in a serious criminal act. should he have gone to jail? in a perfect world, well of course. very evil man. war brings out the worst in all and an excuse to justify it.

Technically every country during the course of modern war has committed war crimes, due to loose definitions. In my opinion a better definition would be "An act of destruction done to a civilian population without a justifiable military purpose relative to the destruction done". The atomic bombs caused an extreme level of local destruction, but on the whole, saved more lives, and prevented more destruction, than they caused. Had the bombs not been dropped, the whole of Japan would have looked similar to Berlin as the Red Army advanced on the Reichstag.

A more blatant example, the firebombing of Dresden, had very little military purpose, Dresden was not a valuable target, and the wanton destruction, even far from any production structures, and to the point that it put the city into absolute ruin, beyond what was needed to stop production for the course of the war.

reply to post by Wittmann


I am sure Americans were not the inventors of this type of thing, but think of Sherman' s March. it's a way of turning civilian opinion on the war. wiping out Dresden sent a strong and unambiguous message, no one nobody nothing is safe you Nazi jerks. seems to me setting examples like this seldom does any good. the generals and politicos keep right on bombing, military targets and civilians alike

reply to post by gingerlee


The difference being that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a way of showing the Japanese government that there is no way they can win, as America has the bomb. On the other hand, Germany had their communication network badly damaged by this point, so the impact of Dresden was only felt after the war by the majority of people, even if Goebbels made a few addresses about it. The Atomic Bombings were a threat, Dresden was revenge.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

So...our claim to fame is that we terrorists...just not as good of terrorists as the Japanese were. Fantastic. Nothing like shooting for the moral high ground. ...and we wonder why the lion's share of the global population thinks we are stupid.

Tell me the where the moral high ground is calling those people who are dead "war criminals" or "terrorists".

They are all dead, those who flew the mission, those who built the bomb. and the guys whose call it was to drop those bomb.

But hey go on an vilify them as if it matters why does the world think "we are stupid" speak for yourself.

I don't really consider that guys that FLEW THE PLANE to be "war criminals" or "terrorists". THEY weren't aware the Japanese had been trying to surrender for a year. THEY didn't know that the Japanese had no industrial resources to speak of on the island.

As usual...the war criminals and terrorists prove to be elements within our intelligence agencies and some of our politicians.

Just because Bin Laden is dead doesn't mean he should no longer go down in history as a terrorist...right?

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by MisterMaster

 

Every CITIZEN became a soldier, with the Emperors Decree.

Nuff said.

IT DOESN'T MATTER!! Even if every citizen AND dog became a "soldier"...THEY COULND'T GET OFF THE ISLAND AND THEY HAD NO BOMBS OR BULLETS AND HAD NO RAW MATERIALS TO CONSTRUCT NEW SHIPS AND PLANES WITH.

What are they going to do...swim out our aircraft carriers and try to capsize it like it's a canoe??

Nuff said.

Originally posted by Wittmann
reply to post by gingerlee

 

The difference being that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were a way of showing the Japanese government that there is no way they can win, as America has the bomb. On the other hand, Germany had their communication network badly damaged by this point, so the impact of Dresden was only felt after the war by the majority of people, even if Goebbels made a few addresses about it. The Atomic Bombings were a threat, Dresden was revenge.

No. You are wrong.

Japan had been desperately trying to surrender for almost a year already, they had no navy, no air force, no fuel, no iron, no steel, and no aluminium, and their million man army in Manchuria had no food, bullets, or resupply lines with the Russian tank divisions closing in on them.

The lies you were told in high school history class are just that...lies.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by gingerlee

 

Well you shouldn’t expect for people to debate you when you demonstrate that you do not understand the subject.

I will not debate you when you are trying to redefine the term either. I gave you a reference to where you can learn the definition and parameters for it. It is your choice if you educate yourself on it or not but this conversation is over. Feel free to try later but you shouldn’t bother if you haven’t studied up first because I have no intention to play by made up definitions.

Whatever. You knew what she meant. Her point is that the US is often quite barbaric as well and we don't always wear the white cowboy hat.

reply to post by milominderbinder


He's right. You do not understand the subject. If you were a U.S. Marine on a ship in 1945 near the cost of mainland Japan...you would understand very well what was at stake. And don't tell me that if you were one of these Marines that you would not be cheering on those Nuclear Weapons.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Japan had been desperately trying to surrender for almost a year already,

What a lot of garbage, a country doesnt "try" to surrender, they either surrender, or don't surrender.
Japan was NOT "trying" to surrender, as if they really wanted to surrender they would have.

Why are you revising history?

Originally posted by CristobalColonic

Originally posted by milominderbinder
And therein lies the hypocrisy. When WE do it...it's a "white crime" (pun intended???)...when somebody ELSE does it...it's "pure evil" or whatever.

The Japanese were well warned of the impending "prompt and utter destruction" to follow should they not surrender as Nazi Germany did. They ignored this plea.

False. They had desperately been trying to surrender for almost a year earlier. Also...the Germans didn't "surrender" so much as Hitler committed suicide. They fought right up until the bitter end outside the gates of Berlin.

The only other option was for a land invasion of a fundamentally fascist nation that was perfectly willing to sacrifice every man, woman and child to confront the invader.

Really? Why not just take McArthur's advice and just sit there and WAIT. They couldn't get off the island and they had no natural resources to do anything besides sit there and eat rice. I find it hard to believe that the brilliant military strategists in the Pentagon wouldn't have been familiar with siege warfare and that in all of human history there have only been a handful of castles that "fell" to the invading army by means OTHER than treachery or simply starving them out. It's Warfare 101....don't attack the castle unless you've got a guard to open up the gates for you.

Such a military action was estimated to have cost Allied lives approaching six figures--something the world had little stomach for having just experience the most costly war the world has known.

No...that's just the lie that you find in High School history books. Actual historians haven't believed this nonsense since the pertinent documents became declassified in the late '80's which prove this to be patently false.

To balance the argument, however, please watch this film, so then I may defy you not to weep for the Japanese,despite their 'evil' actions in WWII... LINK

I don't weep for the Japanese. I weep for homo sapiens sapiens because we are DUMB ENOUGH to CONTINUE allowing our politicians and religious leaders convince ALL OF US that it's somehow excusable or justifiable to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent humans because they had a different warlord ruling them.

Actually just this month I saw the FIRST documentary series that portrays modern US History in an academically responsible manner that I have EVER come across in my life that was of the same quality as was my coursework when I obtained my Master's Degree in History of the University of Wisconsin.

It's on Showtime this month...but I'd wager one could also find it on NetFlix or something as well. Here is your link.

www.sho.com...

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

He's right. You do not understand the subject. If you were a U.S. Marine on a ship in 1945 near the cost of mainland Japan...you would understand very well what was at stake. And don't tell me that if you were one of these Marines that you would not be cheering on those Nuclear Weapons.

Split Infinity

Of course I would have been cheering the nukes. If I was on the ship in 1945, my government would have lied to me and told me that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender and still represented a threat.

Just like they lied to you when they sold you the idea that we were "saving American lives" from a mystified enemy who was BEGGING to surrender. Hell...the Japanese even met with the VATICAN and had the CHURCH beg for their surrender too. They were confused and thought perhaps there was some sort of cultural faux pas that they were committing and that was the reason we kept attacking.

Read a book.

reply to post by milominderbinder


This is something that the people here who have been placed in this type of position will understand only too well. It doesn't matter what started a War or why you and your Men are there or even if it is right or wrong.

The ONLY thing that matters is that YOU AND YOUR MEN OR BUDDIES ARE THERE! Everything else is BULL S#!$! You are there and all that matters is for you and your Men to GET OUT...ALIVE!

NOTHING....and I mean NOTHING else has any meaning....all other considerations are secondary. Whatever it takes to get you and your buds home is FAIR GAME. There is no other concepts or ideas or second guesses at this point.

Once you are there...NOTHING is off limits to achieve your goal of getting home alive. For those who look back and say...this was wrong or that should not have happened...it is obvious to those who made it out that these second guessers do not understand nor will they ever understand...until they have been in the same spot doing what you have done.

Split Infinity