76 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, the first atomic bomb used in war was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan (Representatives, ideology)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities, as well as firebombing of Tokyo and Japanese cities...
Did the U.S. and the UK commit a war crime through their deliberate targeting of civilian centers in Germany and in Japan?
According to the international laws of war, such as they were at the time: No.
Quote:
If excluded, then why is nuking a city not a war crime?
There were no treaties about the protection of civilians on the books at the time. Took the IVth Geneva Convention (1949) to come up with a framework for the protection of civilians and Protocol I (1977) to ban indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Would nuclear weapon have been considered a crime against humanity - the legal finessing used to get at the really heinous criminals on the Axis side? Unlikely. The victors would have wanted the technology for their own use, and that wouldn't really have gone over well with a dramatic declaration that such weapons are criminal to even possess. (Of course, much the same argument could be made for chemical weapons, and people kept making those.)
According to the international laws of war, such as they were at the time: No.
There were no treaties about the protection of civilians on the books at the time. Took the IVth Geneva Convention (1949) to come up with a framework for the protection of civilians and Protocol I (1977) to ban indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Would nuclear weapon have been considered a crime against humanity - the legal finessing used to get at the really heinous criminals on the Axis side? Unlikely. The victors would have wanted the technology for their own use, and that wouldn't really have gone over well with a dramatic declaration that such weapons are criminal to even possess. (Of course, much the same argument could be made for chemical weapons, and people kept making those.)
Winners make the rules regardless of "international laws" anyway.
After all, it was international laws that were used as butt-paper to start the various wars with broken treaties, invasions and so forth.
Had the allies lost the war they would absolutely have charged various allied leaders with war crimes for various fire bombings as well as a whole bunch of other incidents.
Japan seemed to have no qualms meting out beheadings for pretty much anything.
On the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities, as well as firebombing of Tokyo and Japanese cities...
Did the U.S. and the UK commit a war crime through their deliberate targeting of civilian centers in Germany and in Japan?
If yes, then does the use of Little Boy and Fat Man - primitive and obsolete compared to 2021 U.S. nuclear technology, but very destructive nonetheless - on civilian centers likewise constitute a war crime?
If not, why not?
If Germany or Japan got the bomb first and nuked a U.S. city, but the Allies STILL won the war:
- Would a Nazi German nuking of a U.S. city been included into or excluded from the charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes?
- Would an Imperial Japanese nuking of a U.S. city been included into or excluded from the charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and waging aggressive war against the United States of America?
If included, then had Japan defeated the U.S. despite being nuked, would the Japanese have been justified in charging the U.S. with war crimes for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
If excluded, then why is nuking a city not a war crime?
Lol...blast questions at me requiring a lengthy response? Sorry, I don't owe you a paper on the topic.
Suffice to say, had we lost it would be Hitler and the Japanese deciding what "war crimes" we committed so any sort of application of the standards we used to what they might decide are likely to differ.
Strategic Bombing Survey. There. Show me you can read.
The cause of Japan's surrender is obviously not going to be one thing.
Japan had a willingness to take a massive beating with the hopes of keeping some of their gains and negotiating.
The Russian obliteration of the Japanese in a month or so in Manchuria etc. was Japan's last *chip* at the poker table so to speak.
As such, I would find it nearly impossible to claim that the nukes had no impact on Japan's willingness to fight. At the same time saying they "ended the war" is certainly giving them way too much credit.
Here is a very provocative clip on youtube featuring former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara on what constitutes war crimes. Chief of Staff of the Air Force Curtis LeMay who served in WW2 indicated that if the Allies had lost the war The US would have been tried for war crimes. I know alot of Baby Boomers have baggage with McNamara over Vietnam that I don't share. He made an Academy Award winning documentary "The Fog of War" prior to his death. It's mesmerizing if your interested in these subjects. He grapples with.....what are the rules of engagement for war....what constitutes war crimes.
On the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities, as well as firebombing of Tokyo and Japanese cities...
Did the U.S. and the UK commit a war crime through their deliberate targeting of civilian centers in Germany and in Japan?
If yes, then does the use of Little Boy and Fat Man - primitive and obsolete compared to 2021 U.S. nuclear technology, but very destructive nonetheless - on civilian centers likewise constitute a war crime?
If not, why not?
If Germany or Japan got the bomb first and nuked a U.S. city, but the Allies STILL won the war:
- Would a Nazi German nuking of a U.S. city been included into or excluded from the charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes?
- Would an Imperial Japanese nuking of a U.S. city been included into or excluded from the charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and waging aggressive war against the United States of America?
If included, then had Japan defeated the U.S. despite being nuked, would the Japanese have been justified in charging the U.S. with war crimes for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
If excluded, then why is nuking a city not a war crime?
This guy is still droning on and on about "war crimes?"
Yikes. "War crimes" are determined by the people who win the war. Period. There are no rules in war, and no one is going to apologize for winning too emphatically.
Get over it.
Liberal historians are obviously going to write white papers until they are blue in the face, but none of them know what happened in the meetings in Japan at the highest levels in August of 1945. Many of these historians are biased anti-americans and they will have a motivation to "dispel long standing myths" that americans generally have. It was Apple Pie for years to claim that the bombs ended the war, and these people would love to change that narrative.
Bottom line: If you think exploding the two biggest, most technologically advanced bombs in history didn't have a MASSIVE effect on the japs surrendering, I have some beachfront property to sell you in Nebraska.
Had the allies lost the war they would absolutely have charged various allied leaders with war crimes for various fire bombings as well as a whole bunch of other incidents.
No one was tried for war crimes over the indiscriminate bombings - complete with firebombs - of civilian neighborhoods in London, Coventry, Warsaw or Antwerp, not the use of V-1 and V-2s that were by their nature inaccurate and aimed at civilian targets. But plenty of people did get hung for breaking the conventions on POW treatment, for instance.
No one was tried for war crimes over the indiscriminate bombings - complete with firebombs - of civilian neighborhoods in London, Coventry, Warsaw or Antwerp, not the use of V-1 and V-2s that were by their nature inaccurate and aimed at civilian targets. But plenty of people did get hung for breaking the conventions on POW treatment, for instance.
I agree that the US\Britain did not, heck we even scooped up some scientists that probably should have faced war crime charges but were useful.
I think that had we let China decide whom to charge with warcrimes as well as the Russians that the list would look different.
So what would Germany and Japan's list of war criminals look like?
No one was tried for war crimes over the indiscriminate bombings - complete with firebombs - of civilian neighborhoods in London, Coventry, Warsaw or Antwerp, not the use of V-1 and V-2s that were by their nature inaccurate and aimed at civilian targets. But plenty of people did get hung for breaking the conventions on POW treatment, for instance.
I agree that the US\Britain did not, heck we even scooped up some scientists that probably should have faced war crime charges but were useful.
I think that had we let China decide whom to charge with warcrimes as well as the Russians that the list would look different.
So what would Germany and Japan's list of war criminals look like?
Check out the video I posted....potential German and Japan list of war criminals
Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris - United Kingdom....focused bombing on civilian targets i.e. Dresden
Gen Curtis LeMay - Firing Bombing (incendiary bombs) Japan cities i.e. 100K dead in one night during Tokyo bombing
President Harry Truman - Authorizing atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
