Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

Jul 2013
9,840
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!
 

Similar History Discussions