Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
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.
Not even remotely true.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,736
San Antonio, Tx
We do know what they would have done. Not surrender. Because we know why they did surrender. Because they flat out said why. Because nukes. The reality is, as of August 9-10, 1945, it took five months of firebombing raids, mining of their harbors, destruction of their fishing fleet, famine at home, threat of US invasion of the Home Islands, Soviet declaration of war, and two atomic bombs laying waste to the better part of two cities before the men who ruled Japan were willing to quit on terms that weren't their own. That is the God's honest truth.

The debate never goes away because most involved in the debate know next to nothing about the war as a whole and the history of the surrender itself. They think the Japanese wanted to surrender, they hear claims that the Japanese were already trying to negotiate through the USSR and Swiss and don't bother to ask "Who was doing this and under what authority and what conditions were they asking for?" Most involved don't have a clue who the Big Six are. They talk about "Japan" wanting to do this and "Japan" wanting to do that, as if Japan is a single entity. Or as if the voice of the people mattered. Or as if the Emperor was the sole decision making. They have no clue at all about the internal politics of the govt of imperial Japan, who was involved at what times, how they felt about the war and continuing, what their motivations were, and who exactly were pro-war and who were pro-surrender, and what pro-surrender meant in their regards, and if that "surrender" they wanted. And yet they still have opinions and still feel theirs are valid.
Hear Hear!
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,736
San Antonio, Tx
Hiroshima and Nagasaki held little strategic use; if they had then why hadn't they been bombed earlier. The utter destruction of the towns military and civilian populations was another message that the US meant business when it came to doing whatever it took to bring the war to a conclusion.

Otherwise surely they would have nuked some of the islands tjat marines had had to clear out.
Not really. The bomb wasn’t ready when those island campaigns were fought. Plus, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was deliberately and intentionally withheld because these two cities among those that were targeted for atomic bombs.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,736
San Antonio, Tx
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.
Do please try to calm down. The stories that Japan was “discussing peace terms” with any of the actual combatants is nonsense and you should already know that. So, yes, it is a “dark humor joke” because it’s simply not true. Did the Japanese contact the Americans? No. Did they contact the British, the Australians, New Zealanders or the Dutch? No. Or the Soviets? No, again; they were too busy grabbing all the territory in Xhina that they could.

What they were doing was crawfishing around looking for some uninvolved third party to somehow broker a peace under terms that were different from the Potsdam Declaration. How a “third party” was going to pull something like this off just shows how ridiculous this effort was. If you’re going to surrender, wouldn’t ithave been more efficient and effective to surrender to the actual combatants? Of course, but apparently the big cheeses in Japan still believed that they had something to gain by going through the back door, except there was no back door.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2019
80
U.S.A.
The reason for the two bombs were that 1. The US did not want Japan divided after the war as was becoming clear that this would happen to Germany. The Japanese were no slouches, they were vicious in combat and had a ridiculasly powerful and modern navy on the outset of war but they did NOT know when to quit. With a simular resolve as the Brits had against Hitler, they were training civilians to prepare for an invasion. Had either bomb of failed to ignite, they were to be followed by incinerator bombs anyways. Again, the US did not want divide up Japan and they knew the soviets, who had denied the US to base aircraft in the USSR against the Japanese, and who had previously refused to declare war on Japan, were soon to declare war on them. The US did not want the Soviets any say or control over Japan at all.
2. As I mentioned earlier, the Japanese were no softies, they were effective warriors even at the late stages of the war. If the allies were to launch an invasion of Japan itself, the war would have lasted much much longer at a much larger cost to human lives both allied and Japanese. They estimated MILLIONS. The length of the war was causing the people of the US to become weary of war, the costs were skyrocketing and for the same reason we had Jim Crow after the US civil war, lost in Vietnam and so on, people lost their will to continue. War bond sales were declining, mothers, fathers, wives, and other family members did not want their loved ones returning from Europe redirected to the Pacific theatre. The US gov knew this and wanted it to stop. Even after the two bombs killed so many people, they only stopped after the Soviets did declare war and that was only because they knew they had no factories, no Navy, no trained soldiers left, no resources and no way to win. They themselves did not want to surrender to the soviets .
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,457
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Even after the two bombs killed so many people, they only stopped after the Soviets did declare war and that was only because they knew they had no factories, no Navy, no trained soldiers left, no resources and no way to win. They themselves did not want to surrender to the soviets .
Not quite. They were still negotiating with the Soviets to act as a peace broker between themselves and the allies. Stalin led them on, and when the Soviets invaded, their last hope for an honourable, negotiated peace was gone. So they surrendered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mando and Rodger
Apr 2019
80
U.S.A.
Not quite. They were still negotiating with the Soviets to act as a peace broker between themselves and the allies. Stalin led them on, and when the Soviets invaded, their last hope for an honourable, negotiated peace was gone. So they surrendered.
Oh, i did not know they invaded Japan, I thought they invaded Mancuria.