Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,647
San Antonio, Tx
Wow! Maribat.:)
If you pretend to want to explain to our Anglo-American nationalist friends that intentionally atomizing and carbonizing thousands of Japanese civilians is a horrible crime, you have many illusions....
It seems that their moral concepts depend on who does what to whom.
For them it is either a crime or an "unfortunate necessity"...
If you want them to understand that, tell them about the V2s, the blitz or 9/11. In these cases they are victims worthy of compassions, they have "decent" nationalities and those who committed these acts are acceptable culprits, otherwise it is useless.... It's "different" because blah, blah, blah!
I don't have the time or the desire, but I'll come back later to deal with our two comics.
See you soon!
If the Japanese were willing to fight to the last man for tiny islands, sometimes using civilians as shields (see Okinawa), then imagine how hard they would have fought if the US would have tried to invade the Japanese home islands with ground troups. The Japanese were very stubborn, and needed to be intimidated. The only way you can subdue a foe with the kind of determination the Japanese had is through overwhelming force. This is also the most merciful way I think: imagine the alternative.

Besides, it is a war the Japanese started (and during which they comitted many atrocities, against the Chinese and Koreans especially). Are you telling me that you would have made a different decision, had you been the US president? Do you think anybody would have? Also, what would the Japanese have done, had they had the Atomic Bomb?
If the Japanese were willing to fight to the last man for tiny islands, sometimes using civilians as shields (see Okinawa), then imagine how hard they would have fought if the US would have tried to invade the Japanese home islands with ground troups. The Japanese were very stubborn, and needed to be intimidated. The only way you can subdue a foe with the kind of determination the Japanese had is through overwhelming force. This is also the most merciful way I think: imagine the alternative.

Besides, it is a war the Japanese started (and during which they comitted many atrocities, against the Chinese and Koreans especially). Are you telling me that you would have made a different decision, had you been the US president? Do you think anybody would have? Also, what would the Japanese have done, had they had the Atomic Bomb?
I wonder what the Japanese who were working on the development of nuclear weapons were thinking. Were they angry or upset because they lacked sufficient U-235 to make a bomb (the Germans sent them some)? Or were they just working on cheap nuclear power to light their cities? Hm, doubtful.
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,545
Amelia, Virginia, USA
It was an unofficial attempt to secure Soviet mediation. These sort of "peace feelers" happened in several places, notably Bern. The problem with seeking "mediation" is summed up by a question asked when the Japanese representative at the Holy See asked (unoffically) for mediation:

"Would it not be possible for the Japanese Government to offer terms that would be closer to those of the Anglo-Americans so that the Holy See could begin mediation on more concrete bases? "
Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers — Central Intelligence Agency

It wasn't possible. Mostly because the Japanese government itself wasn't seeking mediation, or negotiation. Some of the peace faction were hoping offers of mediation would come from a third party, since they lacked the power to force the issue. The Japanese government never communicated anything except defiance until Nagasaki.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
No, that they wished to negotiate for peace.
Who is they? Hirohito and Togo. Minus the other five members of the Big Six who had no knowledge any talks were even trying to be started. All five's votes of which were necessary for anything to happen. Three of which who wanted to keep fighting after not one but two atomic bombs were dropped on full cities/major military installations.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,048
Italy, Lago Maggiore
This thread suffers of a loss of historical contextualization. As I've already noted, that bombing happened at the end of a global war which saw dozens of millions of casualties [military and overall civilian]. An atom bomb [or a firebomb] is a bomb. In that moment there were no international conventions about limitations of the power of the bombs to use in war.

Someone could say: an atom bomb issues radiations, so it can be compared to a chemical weapon [and there were international conventions about chemical weaponry].

Also this is not correct, legally: US didn't ratify any agreement about the limitation of the usage of chemical weapons [US ratified a protocol about this only in 1975, after signing it in 1925 ...] and, on the other hand, Japan did use them during WW II ... If US ratified that protocol about chemical weapons, an analogy with nuclear weapons could have been possible [even if stretched], but US didn't ratify it.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,647
San Antonio, Tx
Ll
Oh, do visit more frequently, your wonderfully pretentious contributions are a laugh a line, or un rire une ligne as la Rochefoucauld would say.
The "real" war crime was the failure of the Japanese army cabal to surrender before it was too late.
I think “the real crime” was the Japanese starting the war in the Pacific to begin with.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,647
San Antonio, Tx
I guess it’s open season on those awful Americans who had the temerity to respond to those “nice” Japanese who attacked the US Navy without warning on a peaceful Sunday morning.

Sow the wind; reap the whirlwind.

Some posters in here seem to think there is a huge difference between fire bombing cities and attacking them with nuclear weapons. There is a huge difference: it only takes one bomber what it previously took hundreds bombers to achieve pretty much the same result. For some inexplicable reasons, the one is worse than the other, which only makes sense in retrospect when the after effects of radiation was known.

It’s unclear to me what the point of this thread is. Is it to “punish” the American nation for having the gall to nuke the Japanese? Maybe they shouldn’t have sunk the US Pacific Fleet or invaded China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Burma, bombed Australia, and finally invaded the Dutch East Indies to steal their oil.

Those posters in here who are rubbing their hands and salivating at the opportunity to blame the US for a war the US neither wanted nor was prepared to counter, well, we finished it anyway and swept the Japanese aside under a rain of destruction that would never have happened if they had not initiated it in the first place.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redskevin

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,758
I'm miffed because you're making stuff up that didn't happen to suit your dislike of the use of atomic weapons.
Well, the problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they are precisely hypothetical.

And the justification for the nukes in 1945 is precisely a hypothetical scenario. Which means the justification of the nukes as life-savers always end up in a circular argument. Which in itself ensures the debate will not be possible to settle.

And then it's also an observable fact that tally of how many lives were hypothetically saved by the deployment of the nukes has been steadily rising since 1945.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,745
USA
Well, the problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they are precisely hypothetical.

And the justification for the nukes in 1945 is precisely a hypothetical scenario. Which means the justification of the nukes as life-savers always end up in a circular argument. Which in itself ensures the debate will not be possible to settle.

And then it's also an observable fact that tally of how many lives were hypothetically saved by the deployment of the nukes has been steadily rising since 1945.
The justification for nukes in 1945 isn't hypothetical. The events actually happened. You're not arguing about what could have happened, but what DID HAPPEN or was in the planning stages to happen.

Beyond that, you're making things up as if everything is hypothetical, just you can include fiction in your explanation. Why not stick to the facts?

But before you do that, read Richard Frank's Downfall. You wont, you'll continue commenting on this subject despite having no actual knowledge of it, using only a personal opinion framed on your belief that atomic bombs are bad. But you should read it, everyone involved in this discussion or interested at all in how the war ended should read that book.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,240
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Who is they? Hirohito and Togo. Minus the other five members of the Big Six who had no knowledge any talks were even trying to be started. All five's votes of which were necessary for anything to happen. Three of which who wanted to keep fighting after not one but two atomic bombs were dropped on full cities/major military installations.
You sure the Big Six weren't aware of talks with the Russians? I don't see why they wouldn't be, given that they had agreed to cibtact the Soviet Union a week earlier at a meeting (on June 22).
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,647
San Antonio, Tx
Really. With our recent experience with “alternative facts” in America, we have really had it with lies layered upon lies.