Should the nuclear bombing of japan in WW2 be considered a war crime?
I know that america likes to style herself as the "good guy" but how is the death of tens of thousands of civilians and hundreds of thousands including radiation poisoning anything but a war crime?
The use of nuclear weapons against Japan, was horrible. It, however, was but one of the many horrible, inhumane things that occurred during WWII.
Japan's civilians, did not need to suffer, but the fact is, Japan's population, was not really aware of how badly the war effort was going, and were going to fight to the last person.
Both of my dad's first cousins, were Marine gunners, stationed in Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese attacked. I got first person accounts, of how everyone, civilians included, was targeted by the Japanese pilots. Americans, at the time, were left thinking that there is only one way to stop the war: total victory.
For those who think that Japan was about to surrender, I would like you to consider Okinawa. The action, culminating in our takeover of the island, was only a preview of what was to come. We suffered nearly 75,000 casualties, and the Japanese military suffered about 90,000 casualties. In addition, 150,000 out of pre-war 300,000 civilians, were killed during the battle, most committed suicide, or attempted to kill themselves, while attacking US troops.
There was no reason, at the time, to believe that this would not be the same, for the rest of Japan.
You need to take the context into consideration, specifically the mentality, and absolute devotion to traditions, that no longer exist.
In 1937, the Japanese, over a period of 6 weeks, systematically raped, tortured, and massacred in the most awful ways, 300,000 civilians in Nanking. They were not fighting, they were unarmed civilians. This was about twice as many people who were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagazaki. They did not behave like human beings.
I am glad WWII is behind us, and people have (sort of) evolved.
I have been to the Hiroshima memorial museum and it’s horrible to see all the burned and torn dresses of young girls and school uniforms of young boys who got burned alive. 140,000 people died in Hiroshima.
Here is a quote from a senior US official on why they bombed us, even after japan was already talking about surrendering:
"The bomb simply had to be used -- so much money had been expended on it. Had it failed, how would we have explained the huge expenditure? Think of the public outcry there would have been . . . The relief to everyone concerned when the bomb was finished and dropped was enormous."
They started something and we had to end it by all means.
Hey what's this?! Oh, STILL not an argument for why it should not be considered a war crime. lol are feeling embarrassed yet or are you a little too oblivious for that kind of humility?
@Pikachu Unprovoked attacked by the Japanese - so if you really want to look at it the Japanese were responsible for killing their own women and children.
We were just in Japan, and did go to Hiroshima. Somethings about the history of WWII for you. The average Japanese citizen was impoverished and many were conscripted into service. The US firebombed many cities during which hundreds of thousands died, so the deaths from the Atom bomb were not that much greater. True, it carried more long term psychological and physical problems. At the peace museum the entire discussion dealt with the bomb, very little dealt with the horrors of war.
We will never be able to settle the issue of would firebombing of the city have been as successful in ending the war. But, we should all admit that what is wanted is no more war, only peace.
@MarmeeMarch I am so sorry that you totally missed the point of my comment. I never intended to remove any "blame" from any one, Japanese nor American. But, blaming the innocent victims of fire bombing or atom bombing serves no one.
I don't need to look it up on the internet, I learned history in school and was just in Japan.
Should the beheading of prisoners of war by Japan be considered a war crime too? What about the Japanese making their own women and children jump off cliffs to their death so they will not be captured by American forces? What about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria which is the reason behind Pearl Harbour as the U.S. stopped the supply of materials to Japan.The Japanese wanted to take materials and oil from the Dutch East Indies but knew the American Pacific fleet would prevent that,hence the attack on the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour first. You reap what you sow.
No. Clearly. The American alternative was to continue Island hopping and absorbing massive casualties themselves on each island, while The Japanese including civilians often chose suicide before surrender, with footage of mothers throwing infants from cliffs then jumping themselves. Yes. The populations of Hiroshima were sacrificed in a brutal and horrendous way. But that led to the surrender that saved the bulk of the population , plus countless thousands of Americans. President Truman would have been run out of town if he had taken the other non nuclear option and it came out he had those bombs and didnt use them.
The atomic bombings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were regrettably and truly horrible events. However, Japan was not going to surrender easily. If the atomic bomb had not been used as a strategic weapon, an invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, was planned, which would have been the largest military operation in history. Americans would have fought the Japanese on their home soil, and the Japanese knew right where the invasion forces would be landing. U.S. casualties would very likely have been massive, in the hundreds of thousands. American intelligence thought that the Japanese had about 2,600 aircraft to use against the U.S. Navy ships. However, after the surrender, almost 13,000 planes were found. Most of them were hidden, including 25 to 35 jet aircraft. The Japanese strategy would have been to send wave after wave of kamikazes, 300 to 400 at a time, to inflict heavy casualties on the troop ships before a single American soldier or Marine ever set foot on the beach. General George Marshall (at that time the equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) wanted to wait and use several atomic bombs as battlefield tactical weapons prior to the invasion, which would have resulted in tens if not hundreds of thousands of American troops being exposed to radiation, giving them radiation sickness. The invasion would have been a logistical nightmare, and could have collapsed under its own weight. So, President Harry Truman decided on the use of the atomic bombs because of the enormous cost in life from an invasion.
I would refer everyone to the following book:
Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (Revised Edition), by D. M. Giangreco, published 2017
Interesting analysis and thanks for providing the information. This wasn’t the only misguided action proposed by Marshall during the war. That’s why Ike not George became President. @Byron8by7
So many war crimes were committed in WW2 why only pick on the one which actually ended the war and saved many allied lives in the process. It is such a "what if" question it becomes impossible to answer it, i do not agree with nuclear weapons but then i do not agree with war either. One thing i do believe however is if the Japanese mentality had not been death before surrender then a conventional D-day style attack on Japan would have been a likely option rather than using the atomic bombs.
lol so combative. So little substance. You're obviously a little hot under the collar tonight. Come back when you can control yourself. I'm interested in your arguments, not your temper. Good night🙂
@Pikachu good point - if he starts a fight beats you - then goes after your family then goes after your friends - then you warn MOM and SIS to get out because the house will be burnt.
Its different in that it was a declared war, that they started. The taking of Iwo Jima was bloody and deadly.
It was studied and decided that the bombing would be decisive and incurr less casualties than taking the Japanese mainland in literal hand to hand, street to street combat.
Comparisons to the world trade center are totally irrelevant because they have no bearing on whether or not this should be considered a war crime.
So the rhetoric was that they would fight street by street. Who knows how that actually would have gone. What DID happen was that tens of thousands of innocent people were blown up an irradiated. People ready to fight, people afraid to fight, pregnant women, children in their schools, old folks in bed. Burnt to irradiated glass.
How can that be considered anything but a war crime? why should it NOT be considered a war crime on the basis that the americans didn't want to send their troops in?
Let's assume that was a genuine conclusion and not an excuse to show off to the russians. So based on a hypothetical scenario where it might have been worse, it is then acceptable and not a crime to burn innocent men, women and children. Make you case.
Of course, you could always rewrite history to say that the peace-loving Japanese suffered a surprise nuclear attack
I have no idea what you hoped to accomplish with this puerile statement. I am not trying to re-write history and whether or not the attack was a surprise has NO bearing on whether it should be considered a war crime. "fair warning" does not excuse the mass murder of civilians.
@beckyromero which brings us back to the original question... was this a warcrime ? yes it was... you cant use utilitarism to justify a crime. what if the manhattan project never happend.. you think we still would be fighting ? you dont know what otherwise would have happend or if it would be better or worse.
what happen happend and people involved should bow their heads in shame for it was crime like many other in wars
There's a vid clip, wish I could find it, from The West Wing.
Where an Air Force general points out, "All war's a 'crime.'"
You apparently prefer to turn the other cheek. You are not alone in that thinking.
In a war, nations that do that tend to end up being wiped off the map.
We didn't start WWII. Japan did (in China), Germany and Italy (in Europe and Africa).
Japan doesn't get much attention for ITS war crimes.
Raping adult women and little girls and then shoving sticks up their vaginas until their victims bled to death.
Bayonetting patients, nurses and doctors in hospitals.
Medical experimentations on live persons.
Cutting off the penises of European males in Southeast Asia and sewing them to their victims' lips before hanging their naked bodies along roads to 'intimidate' others.
Torpedoing merchant ships, even before a formal declaration of war (SS Cynthia Olson).
Forcing nurses to walk into the surf along beaches before machine-gunning them down.
Massacring whole villages, such as the 1500 men, women and children of Los Baños in the Philippines.
How come no one on SW poses THOSE questions?
Too many people have become apologists for Japan, portraying them as the victim far too long without acknowledging Japan's crimes against humanity.
verses the cowardly attack at Pearl ? And the fact that they could have surrendered before the first bomb / or after . But had to be hit again ...sorry its war ...a war they started .
it’d take like the most minimal comprehension of what war entails
Ah good. I'm glad it's so basic. In that case, you'll have no trouble answering the question.
Sorry, i don't do deflections. You're incompetent to answer the question or simply too lazy. Either way, you haven't made your case and i won't waste time on you.
Aww buddy thought he could talk shit and not get called on it. Sorry to burst your bubble. Don't worry, the thread isn't going anywhere. If you decide to grow a pair then get back to me. I won't be holding my breath though😏 Off you go....
Well Japan had a tactic of mixing their military and civilian populations into the same area in hopes that the US wouldn't bomb military targets. Should it be consider a war crime? No. War has no laws. Should it be a crime against humanity? Yes, cause war is a crime against humanity.
@Pikachu Modern war has rules I mean. I guess a better way to put it is that if two people hate each other enough rules go out the window. But war is still a crime against humans as it kills us. But no it is not okay to bomb women and children. But like i said. Rules go out the window. :/
In August 1945, warning leaflets were dropped on several Japanese cities. ... on several Japanese cities (including, supposedly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). ... or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs.
@Pikachu Dont close it just yet - OK close it --- Japan poked the sleeping giant. And being a big guy he went after them with a vengeance. But Mr. Giant has a big heart too he warned the attackers -- who does that ?
@MarmeeMarch bro, don’t let this clown get under you’re skin. Hes probably sitting in his basement covered in Cheeto dust and powdered jizz scouring the internet for conspiracies he can white-knight and talk shit about on the internet so he can feel that sense of power he’s never felt in the real world
@DrawntoaDistance Oh I know - I didn't say anything but a couple of early replies he got so excited that he was mispelling things right and left -- I just let it go because I did not want to make him feel bad. He must have been typing at 100 miles per hour.
war is all about crimes... you do what you have to do to win a war. its nonsense to call soldiers honorable everyone involved in all wars ever fought is a criminal...
but thats ok... thats exactly what war is, just dont sugar coat it
@Pikachu so politicans can feel good about themself how civilized they are... ordering someone to nuke a town isnt any more civilized then beating someones family into a bloody pulp with a stone mace...
We have bombed civilians in every war since. Drone strikes across borders of non warring states. Yes, Virginia, the US does commit war crimes regularly.
Japan was on the point of surrendering when the bomb was dropped, the main purpose of bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to demonstrate to Russia that the US had a viable atomic weapon.
@Tuscan Actually, even after the first, the leadership felt they could persevere. They counted on massive American casualties in a land invasion. The thought we would not have another bomb for months. They also knew we teetered on bankruptcy from the war.
I am inclined to accept that your information is closer to the truth than my own. My source was a secondary school history teacher who was a committed member of CND. (I was a member of CND myself at the time and was naiive enough to believe that school teachers were unbiasedin their dissemination of information).
Are you happy that the obvious was stated ? - lol you wasted my time arguing about something that we all know, a known fact - America did not commit WAR CRIMES --- crimes were committed but not specifically WAR CRIMES>
Too bad the japanese have committed such heinous war crimes that will be in history books for a long time. I can not begin to list what the devils did to non military personal but look on the internet and you will find loads. Just google - japanese war crimes , sit back for a couple of days and read what those devils did. Teach your children what the devils did because it will not be taught in schools.
I hate war period. But if I remember, they really didn't know what the bomb was really capable of when they dropped it. Like typical American thinking.
But if I remember, they really didn't know what the bomb was really capable of when they dropped it
Can you provide a source on that? I can't imagine that being true. It's not as if they hadn't tested nukes out.
SW-User
@Pikachu I know they tested it but they didn't expect the amount of devastation it was going to cause. The second one was dropped in the wrong location.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing to save the same number of American lives than lose Japanese lives when Japan started the war and continued it long after anyone sensible would have surrendered. @Milkshake
@swirlie It is not merely a "claim." In the notes of the book, an article in The Baltimore Sun newspaper of May 20, 1995 is cited as the source for the following text, which appears in the book right after the passage I quoted:
" Half a century later, one doctor present, Dr. Toshioro Tono, said: "There was no debate among the doctors about whether to do the operations -- that was what made it so strange." "
Provocative question. I suppose a good place to start would be what war crimes rules were in effect then? Although Japan broke many war crimes laws then in effect that doesn’t excuse any other country from doing so if any country or countries other than Germany did.