Hiroshima — war crime or not?

[Saradiel]

It cannot be termed as War Crimes. Incessantly bombing cities was a common practice during WW2. Germany carried out the blitz while the allies carried out the Dresden firebombings. Since these weren't termed war crimes after the war, why should the atomic bombing of Japan be considered as such?

But it falls under the definition of war crimes. bombing a few cities is different from nuking a whole population.

 

[jhungary]

what is the point of surrendering to the losing party by the winning party in a war? I think you fail to grasp the point here
.

1.) I was refer to US surrender after Pearl Harbor

2.) Japan were not about to surrender in 1945, Tokyo did not surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo and firebombing of Tokyo have twice the destruction and twice the casualty than the 2 bomb. the only other thing to do is for US to invade Tokyo

Same thing as Germany,Hitler refused to surrender even after Western Allied crossed the Rhine and Russian literally outside Berlin

Would you call the Russian destruction of berlin a war crime? Cause it's the same cause and effect

The war require the Russian to move in Berlin, Russian move in and destroy the whole city, rape the population and started lkilling civilian whom hiding German soldier

In Japan, the only difference is we used two bomb instead

 

[Armstrong]

@jhungary - Brother is that a picture of your Mrs. - Our Sister-in-Law, in your avatar ?

 

[shuntmaster]

The point is Allied forces had already won and the japanese were defeated. The story that war could have continue is a myth

Wrong mate.. The Japanese were on the way to defeat, but not defeated. US military estimated that it would take atleast 5 million soldiers and one more year for Japan to surrender or face complete annihilation. Japan sacrificed 110,000 soldiers and upto 150,000 soldiers defending a small island of Okinawa, which was on the outer periphery of Japanese home islands.Just imagine what would be be carnage that Japan would accept to defend their major home islands. Even after atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan took many days on deciding the surrender. There was big bombing raid on Tokyo after the Nagasaki atomic bombing for the Japanese warlords to expedite the decision.

 

[gambit]

Like I said many times before...A sympathetic thread for Imperial Japan will always occasionally surface and the person who started it will always believe he produced something new and shocking.

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary - Brother is that a picture of your Mrs. - Our Sister-in-Law, in your avatar ?

Lol, no...

Although I did dated her for a while but nothing happened, I can give you her Facebook account if you wanted

 

[gambit]

Lol, no...

Although I did dated her for a while but nothing happened, I can give you her Facebook account if you wanted

Did you tried any of those male 'enhancement' products?

 

[jhungary]

Did you tried any of those male 'enhancement' products?

Lol, not that nothing happen, quite rather we break up because there are literally no love (can't ignite the passion) but simply just sex...

Called it off before both of us turn to sexaholic ...

 

[third eye]

Like I said many times before...A sympathetic thread for Imperial Japan will always occasionally surface and the person who started it will always believe he produced something new and shocking.

Its not about something being new and / or shocking.

Sentiments apart , there appears to be some merit in the argument that using nukes was a war crime.

Had it been used on troops and civilinas were collateral damage one could have understood. Targetting civilians of a nation whose war time production was tottering with a weapon like a nuke I think is a crime.

 

[Saradiel]

1.) I was refer to US surrender after Pearl Harbor

Are you saying US had only two options after the bombing of the Pearl habour, either nuking japan or surrendering? US had already struck at military bases in japan.

2.) Japan were not about to surrender in 1945, Tokyo did not surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo and firebombing of Tokyo have twice the destruction and twice the casualty than the 2 bomb. the only other thing to do is for US to invade Tokyo
Same thing as Germany,Hitler refused to surrender even after Western Allied crossed the Rhine and Russian literally outside Berlin
Would you call the Russian destruction of berlin a war crime? Cause it's the same cause and effect
The war require the Russian to move in Berlin, Russian move in and destroy the whole city, rape the population and started lkilling civilian whom hiding German soldier
In Japan, the only difference is we used two bomb instead

But the commander of the allied forces Eisenhower disagrees with you. They say japan was already defeated. I guess they were more knowledgeable on it.
GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)
". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.
There is no question that Russians, Japanese and all the forces did war crimes. But the notion that nuking japan was not a war crime is wrong. Because US nuked japan as a power projection. The war WAS already WON when US nuked japan.

Wrong mate.. The Japanese were on the way to defeat, but not defeated. US military estimated that it would take atleast 5 million soldiers and one more year for Japan to surrender or face complete annihilation. Japan sacrificed 110,000 soldiers and upto 150,000 soldiers defending a small island of Okinawa, which was on the outer periphery of Japanese home islands.Just imagine what would be be carnage that Japan would accept to defend their major home islands. Even after atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan took many days on deciding the surrender. There was big bombing raid on Tokyo after the Nagasaki atomic bombing for the Japanese warlords to expedite the decision.

You have swallowed the propaganda, the truth is Japan offered to surrender of course with conditions. And the atomic bombs was US's idea. By the time US nuked Japan, they were ready to surrender.

The real truth is US was driven by vengence after the Pearl habour attack. They wanted to show Japan who the real boss is. It was simply power projection.

And nuking a country for such a trivial thing, is a war crime that too after the enemy was defeated.

Like I said many times before...A sympathetic thread for Imperial Japan will always occasionally surface and the person who started it will always believe he produced something new and shocking.

It will be shocking as long as people blindly belive in others' propaganda. The reality is such a war crime the biggest mankind has ever seen is justified by Americans. That is wrong. This is not supporting imperial japan, but at least the world needs to understand what US did was wrong and not needed. and hence a war crime.

Its not about something being new and / or shocking.

Sentiments apart , there appears to be some merit in the argument that using nukes was a war crime.

Had it been used on troops and civilinas were collateral damage one could have understood. Targetting civilians of a nation whose war time production was tottering with a weapon like a nuke I think is a crime.

Also Japan was ready to surrender before US nuked japan

 

[gambit]

It will be shocking as long as people blindly belive in others' propaganda. The reality is such a war crime the biggest mankind has ever seen is justified by Americans. That is wrong. This is not supporting imperial japan, but at least the world needs to understand what US did was wrong and not needed. and hence a war crime.

Yes, you are. Indirectly. By refusing to bring on why the war happened in the first place, you isolated the A-bombs from the chain of events that led up to the decision to use them. That is called intellectual dishonesty.

Also Japan was ready to surrender before US nuked japan

Bullshit...

OPERATION KETSU-GO

The strategy for Ketsu-Go was outlined in an 8 April 1945 Army Directive.(4) It stated that the Imperial Army would endeavor to crush the Americans while the invasion force was still at sea. They planned to deliver a decisive blow against the American naval force by initially destroying as many carriers as possible, utilizing the special attack forces of the Air Force and Navy. When the amphibious force approached within range of the homeland airbases, the entire air combat strength would be employed in continual night and day assaults against these ships. In conducting the air operations, the emphasis would be on the disruption of the American landing plans. The principal targets were to be the troop and equipment transports. Those American forces which succeeded in landing would be swiftly attacked by the Imperial Army in order to seek the decisive victory. The principal objective of the land operation was the destruction of the American landing force on the beach.

When the decision to use the A-bombs were made, no one knew of Operation Ketsu-go.

Here is another...

Zero Fighter: Syoko Watanabe: 9780275953553: Amazon.com: Books

The Zero were being manufactured in underground factories ran by children and old people. Not only were fighters, but also tanks and rifles.

Japan’s Achilles’ Heel | EGEE 120: Oil: International Evolution

Industrial oil was made from soy beans, peanuts, coconuts, and castor beans. Potatoes, sugar, rice, and sake were even converted to alcohol to be used as fuel.

The occupation of a resistant Japan would have been bloody for all sides. Soldiers and civilians would be killing each other indiscriminately. Not only that, the Quantung Army, the one that did all that atrocities upon the Chinese on mainland China, including the horrific human experiments done by Unit 731, was on the march home. The veterans of this army would have been part of that resistance in Japan. More bloodshed for all sides.

You really think you brought on anything new here?

 

[shuntmaster]

You have swallowed the propaganda, the truth is Japan offered to surrender of course with conditions. And the atomic bombs was US's idea. By the time US nuked Japan, they were ready to surrender.

The real truth is US was driven by vengence after the Pearl habour attack. They wanted to show Japan who the real boss is. It was simply power projection.

And nuking a country for such a trivial thing, is a war crime that too after the enemy was defeated.

I don't see any proof of the Japanese offer for surrender, prior to the atomic bombings..

Japans defeat was quite apparent after their defeat in battle of Leyte gulf and loss of Philippines, in fall 1944. There was no offer of surrender then, neither was it after losing Iwo Jima nor Okinawa in summer of 1945..

 

[Saradiel]

I don't see any proof of the Japanese offer for surrender, prior to the atomic bombings..

Japans defeat was quite apparent after their defeat in battle of Leyte gulf and loss of Philippines, in fall 1944. There was no offer of surrender then, neither was it after losing Iwo Jima nor Okinawa in summer of 1945..

Commander of allied forces in Japan says otherwise, so does Eisenhower.

 

[shuntmaster]

Commander of allied forces in Japan says otherwise, so does Eisenhower.

Gen. Eisenhower was in European front. He had nothing to do on Pacific front.
Adm. Nimitz and Gen. McArthur were the supreme commanders in the Pacific, for Navy and Army respectively.
McArthur only said that Japanese would not accept the Potsdam declaration asking for unconditional surrender. He never said that Japan was ready to surrender before the atomic bombings.

 

[scorpionx]

Also Japan was ready to surrender before US nuked japan

Revisionist Historians do often come up with this argument. But after receiving thousands of "Magic" and "Ultra" intercepts, it was clear that Japan will never accept an unconditional surrender.

The second argument revisionists makes is that the Japanese were seeking a compromised peace treaty through their envoy in Russia. But according to deciphered Japanese communications, they were trying to keep the Soviets out of the war and they wanted to allow the Military regime to rule after the end of the war which the Allied would never agree with.