Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

Jul 2016
8,438
USA
The thought that the entire purpose of the mass killing of quarter one million people was only so that the US can flex their muscles at a country that was discussing peace terms honestly sounds like a dark humor joke.

What's even worse is that less than a century later the US suddenly took the role of the humanist saint that overthrows war criminal regimes and brings peace to the world.
What you wrote was a joke. Right? Discussing peace terms? Lol
 
Jun 2011
295
The Old Dominion
As far as I can tell, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military/ political decisions ,with as much to do about blocking the Soviet Union from gaining a larger foothold than about saving US lives. Moral niceties tend to be largely ignored by all sides during wars. THE guiding principle remains the same as in peace time; "The ends justify the means'. In war, the ends tend to be a bit less ambiguous.

War Crimes? Arguably. Who exactly would be prosecuting the US?

In terms of the way power works, I think realpolitik is pretty accurate. I also accept Mao's adage "power grows from the barrel of a gun:" This approach is called "the conflict theory of power"as opposed to "the consensus theory of power" .

Deliberately killing children is an obscenity to me , as is terrorism . Both happen in war, an even greater obscenity. Terrorism is common especially when a weaker side fights a stronger side; it's relatively cheap, can be very low tech, and it always works on at least one level; it creates terror.-----9/11 was perhaps the most successful terrorist attack in recorded history, on every level.

Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian
Are you saying that when one has a means which could probably bring a war to a screeching halt, albeit with casualties, even a lot of casualties, that one should not exercise that option because of those casualties and with full and sure knowledge that the continuation of the contest will result in even more casualties. That one should commit ones soldiers, sailors, and airmen to continued losses for months and months when there was a means to end it? To whom do you owe your loyalty . . . to an enemy nation, its armed forces, its leaders, and, yes, its citizens . . . or to your own countrymen and then your allies? Pragmatism? Exactly . . . preserve what you have at the expense of the enemy. Are you saying one needs to let a war drag on and on because you don't want to hurt anybody? Regardless of the losses you sustain of your own? When you know you could stop it?

That's no way to run a railroad IMHO and the antithesis of your Realpolitik.

Oh, and there has never been any evidence of efforts to scare the soviets, that just another pipe dream of the revisionists circa 1960. . . if you try to chase it, you'll find they are all quoting each other in a big circle and no one has anything of an original, period piece documentation; that theory is just another tall tale without a scintilla of evidence. But hey, it makes you happy? It's all yours, just know it's a lie. And if you knew anything about Soviet capabilities in the far east, you would know that there was no need to "block the Soviet Union from gaining a larger foothold" simply because they could not walk on water. They had not the sea lift capability to threaten the Japanese home islands.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Spartakus X
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
Are you saying that when one has a means which could probably bring a war to a screeching halt, albeit with casualties, even a lot of casualties, that one should not exercise that option because of those casualties and with full and sure knowledge that the continuation of the contest will result in even more casualties. That one should commit ones soldiers, sailors, and airmen to continued losses for months and months when there was a means to end it? To whom do you owe your loyalty . . . to an enemy nation, its armed forces, its leaders, and, yes, its citizens . . . or to your own countrymen and then your allies? Pragmatism? Exactly . . . preserve what you have at the expense of the enemy.

Oh, and there has never been any evidence of efforts to scare the soviets, that just another pipe dream of the revisionists circa 1960. . . if you try to chase it, you'll find they are all quoting each other in a big circle and no one has anything of an original, period piece documentation; that theory is just another tall tale without a scintilla of evidence. But hey, it makes you happy? It's all yours, just know it's a lie. And if you knew anything about Soviet capabilities in the far east, you would know that there was no need to "block the Soviet Union from gaining a larger foothold" simply because they could not walk on water. They had not the sea lift capability to threaten the Japanese home islands.
Thank you for your response. I freely admit I may be wrong about the Soviets,, it' s a long time since I read the explanation, which I gave in good faith.

The part of my post on realpolitik was about principles. ,or more correctly lack of principles used in political decision making.In the scenario you mention the decision made would be in the perceive best interest of the US. It would take into account the the political damage of in losing X thousands of US troops. Especially once the public found out it could have been avoided by dropping a bomb..

My position is that government policy is not made on the basis of moral values or sentiment. I reached this conclusion a long time ago. Almost everything I've seen and read about of political decisions over the last 40 odd years has reinforced my position.

Of course, this is only my opinion, based on my take on the world around me., based on a combination of formal study and observation..I make no truth claims, and admit I may be wrong.
 
Jul 2016
8,438
USA
I believe there is correspondence between Truman and his wife regarding the Soviet threat pressuring him to speed up the end of the war. Unlike FDR, Truman was no fan of Stalin and knew every square meter of ground the Soviets liberated were lost to communism.

So I believe the Soviets played a part in Truman's decision, as did many other factors.
 
Aug 2014
1,079
pakistan
Taliban, ISIS, the Boston Marathon bomber don:t attack their victims because of anything their victims have, they don't need any justification to kill innocent victims and will do so when they get a chance, as they clearly demonstrate.
They do have justification for their attacks, they are subscribed to certain ideology and want to send a message through their bombings....they dont do it for fun. ...In the same way America sent a big message through its terrorism during World War II. America had other means to destroy entire cities of the enemies, bombing of Tokyo was the single most destructive raid in human history. Nukes were used because America wanted to test its new toys on humans (and to see its effects on them) and wanted to show off its power to the rest of the world.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
15,477
Welsh Marches
The last point is merely an assertion not based on any definite argument; and it should be clear from a discussion extending to fifty pages that it is a highly questionable assertion! If you're going to make empty assertions, it is best to do so at the beginning of a thread, it looks rather silly after there has already been extensive argument advancing conflicting interpretations.
 

Similar History Discussions