Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

Jul 2016
8,710
USA
I don't know tbh. Why else would people declare war if it wasn't a requirement?
Its not an international requirement, its a usually a national requirement. It unifies a national govt, gets people on board, gives specific legal roles and responsibilities and powers to certain factions within a govt (like the military), sometimes it even suspends certain freedoms, sometimes it means things like mass conscription can happen.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was underhanded, dishonorable (especially coming from a country who praises military honor), but it wasn't illegal.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,673
Its not an international requirement, its a usually a national requirement. It unifies a national govt, gets people on board, gives specific legal roles and responsibilities and powers to certain factions within a govt (like the military), sometimes it even suspends certain freedoms, sometimes it means things like mass conscription can happen.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was underhanded, dishonorable (especially coming from a country who praises military honor), but it wasn't illegal.
Japan had signed up to the Hague conventions which required a declaration of war.

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Opening of Hostilities (Hague III); October 18, 1907
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,770
At present SD, USA
Sep 2014
837
Texas
Could the bombing of Pearl Harbor e considered a war crime?
War crimes did not become a thing until after WW2. In the past total war was the way you won a war. AFter WW2 rules were put into place to make it harder for the people following the rules to win.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,673
War crimes did not become a thing until after WW2.
Nope war crimes existed well before then. Breaker Morant was executed for war crimes.

"The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first “international” war crimes trials and also of command responsibility.[1][2] Hagenbach was put on trial for atrocities committed during the occupation of Breisach, found guilty, and beheaded.[3] Since he was convicted for crimes, "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although Hagenbach defended himself by arguing that he was only following orders from the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, to whom the Holy Roman Empire had given Breisach. "
War crimes trial - Wikipedia

Leipzig War Crimes Trials - Wikipedia

In the past total war was the way you won a war.
.
Total war is rarely practiced, and generally the losing side. The egrmans embraced total war more than teh Entene in ww1. They did not win. Napoleon embraced totyal war more than the coalitions,. he did not win.

where is the connection between total war and winning? Total war increases the cost of victory, as troops will fight on regardless. Total war is generally a losing strategy, it reduces the chance of victory.


AFter WW2 rules were put into place to make it harder for the people following the rules to win.
I don't think so,
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
837
Texas
Nope war crimes existed well before then. Breaker Morant was executed for war crimes.

"The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first “international” war crimes trials and also of command responsibility.[1][2] Hagenbach was put on trial for atrocities committed during the occupation of Breisach, found guilty, and beheaded.[3] Since he was convicted for crimes, "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although Hagenbach defended himself by arguing that he was only following orders from the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, to whom the Holy Roman Empire had given Breisach. "
War crimes trial - Wikipedia

Leipzig War Crimes Trials - Wikipedia


Total war is rarely practiced, and generally the losing side. The egrmans embraced total war more than teh Entene in ww1. They did not win. Napoleon embraced totyal war more than the coalitions,. he did not win.

where is the connection between total war and winning? Total war increases the cost of victory, as troops will fight on regardless. Total war is generally a losing strategy, it reduces the chance of victory.




I've heard the name Breaker Morant. I'll look into it.
 

Similar History Discussions