Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes?

Poll Aug. 06, 2012 - 04:00AM JST ( 186 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

186 Comments

15

JaymannAug. 06, 2012 - 09:04AM JST

does it matter? Victors organise war tribunals not the vanquished. Everyone knows that the dropping of the atomic bomb served a number of complex roles: Eliminating the need for a full scale costly invasion of the main land (which would have seen millions of Japanese slaughtered; revenge (pure and simple) for the 'sneak attack' on Hawaii, and of course a message to the USSR and other dictators that the US was 'now in control'.
3

serenitynowAug. 06, 2012 - 10:25AM JST

@jaymann- i agree with you but why does sneak attack need quotations around it?
-22

BertieWoosterAug. 06, 2012 - 10:30AM JST

STORY TIME

Japan was finished in 1945. No food. No weapons. No spirit to fight. Some American scientists wanted to try out some new toys. They did and two cities disappeared off the map. Then Madison Avenue concocted a story about how it helped Japan by ending the war for them. They put the story in American History Text Books, so now, that is what most Americans seem to believe.
8

2020hindsightsAug. 06, 2012 - 10:44AM JST

No spirit to fight.

That's not true. Japan military leaders were looking to fight to the last man. Even when the Emperor surrendered, there were military commanders and soldiers that tried to stop the recording from being and broadcast and wanted to kidnap the Emperor to save him from himself (he didn't really want to surrender - they said).

They would have had Japan fight to the last man.

But when nations started carpet bombing: The Blitz in London, Dresden, Tokyo - they went down the path of indiscriminate killing of civilians. It was ironic that America was originally against such strategies that the British were using against Germany. So the use of atomic bombs or firebombs doesn't make any difference.
7

combinibentoAug. 06, 2012 - 10:48AM JST

Under international law, a "war crime" includes "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." So was it a military necessary to destroy those two cities? Probably not, considering it is taken for granted nowadays Japan was going to lose anyway. But therein lies the debate.
0

SerranoAug. 06, 2012 - 11:26AM JST

Yes, it was definitely a war crime to stop the Japanese from prancing all over Asia.
0

GWAug. 06, 2012 - 12:00PM JST

BertirW,

Sorry dude you need to go back to the drawing board!
-2

BertieWoosterAug. 06, 2012 - 01:31PM JST

That's not true. Japan military leaders were looking to fight to the last man.

202hindsights

You obviously have not talked to people who were alive at the end of WWII in Japan. There are very few left now, but there were many more around when I first came to Japan.

People in Tokyo were going through garbage looking for food. There probably were a few insane military leaders who were looking to fight to the last man, but that's all.

Many Americans too were against the bombing:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing" EISENHOWER

"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." "...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." HERBERT HOOVER

Dropping those atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. GEORGE WALD

When you arrive in Hiroshima you can look around and for 25 and perhaps 30 square miles you can see hardly a building. It gives you an empty feeling in the stomach to see such man-made devastation. WILFRED BURCHETT

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." NORMAN COUSINS, CONSULTANT TO GENERAL MACARTHUR

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." REPORT BY PAUL NITZE FOR PRES. TRUMAN
-12

smithinjapanAug. 06, 2012 - 02:35PM JST

The atomic bombings remain among the biggest war crimes in history, and the US only used them because they had to answer to politicians for spending so much money on the Manhattan Project. There is more than adequate proof the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, but again the US wanted to test the weapons they spent so much on, and also give a display to Russia, whom they knew would become the next enemy.

Bomb apologists will state that the nukes saved 'thousands of American lives', which is utter crap. There is zero proof that a single soldier more would have lost his life, and instead we have proof of how the politics and money of those in power can literally decimate another nation. Shame on the US for this.
8

Ah_soAug. 06, 2012 - 04:36PM JST

People in Tokyo were going through garbage looking for food. There probably were a few insane military leaders who were looking to fight to the last man, but that's all.

This is impossible to tell. The Germans resisted all the way to Berlin, even when it was clear that the battle was lost and the battles for Okinawa and Iyojima had showed how hard it would be to take Japanese territory by force. German civilians did not throw themselves off cliffs or blow themselves up with grenades, but the Japanese did.

I think it is unlikely the Japanese would have surrendered unconditionally without an invasion and an invasion would have been very bloody.

You have come up with a few quotations, but not from those involved - Eisenhauer was a general in Europe, facing a very different enemy. Wilfred Burchett a journalist, supporter of Stalinist purges and denier of Cambodian genocide. George Wald a scientist, albeit a nuclear one, with no more a clearer understanding of what constitutes a war crime than the man in the street.

There is a very strong case to argue that Nagasaki was completely unecessary. Surely a threat that every city would be destroyed in the same way would have been sufficient.

Even so, if the Japanese were so close to surrender, why did they not do so in the three days after Hiroshima before Nagasaki?
2

Shinjuku No YajuAug. 06, 2012 - 05:11PM JST

It was horrible, but it wasn't a war crime.
5

Johannes WeberAug. 06, 2012 - 06:40PM JST

What makes a war crime a war crime? There are two distinct theories about whether the use of nuclear weapons did accelerate Japanese defeat. The majority of the civilized world says "no, it didn't". There would have been plenty of ways to demonstrate the nuclear bomb without slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.

First, the scientist didn't decide anything about the bomb. The majority of scientific participants in the Manhattan Project opposed dropping these bombs. It was a military decision. And it was a decision against the USSR. Japan was merely a demonstration site for the bomb.

Second, the US military prevented the necessary flow of medical information to aid the victims of the bombs. People, who tried to do research and help the bomb victims were arrested and forced into silence. While it can be debated whether the act of dropping the bombs was a war crime or not, the ensuing abuse of the victims certainly was.
7

Zen studentAug. 06, 2012 - 07:07PM JST

I don't know whether it is a war crime or not but one thing's for sure: it was a crime on humanity. The Japanese did cause much suffering to other countries in Asia but still, August 6th will certainly go down as a day in infamy.
-4

ExportExpertAug. 06, 2012 - 07:23PM JST

Seems the same people talking more rubbish - The atomic bombings remain among the biggest war crimes in history, -

Not a war crime at all, japan had refused surrender twice and all indicators from okinawa etc were they would fight even harder on the mainland FACT. The other side is fiction made up by those trying to support their own position on the subject.

War is ugy and not fair, remember that next time you want to start one.
0

Aizo YureiAug. 06, 2012 - 08:18PM JST

Why would a country who had a policy of "scorched earth" or "total war" be so upset over the same thing happening to them?

Oh....because it happened to them. Yawn.....
1

eyeAug. 06, 2012 - 09:29PM JST

Two wrongs don't make a right.
10

SerranoAug. 06, 2012 - 09:38PM JST

smith: "Bomb apologists will state that the nukes saved thousands of American lives, which is utter crap. There is zero proof that a single soldier more would have lost his life"

Over 12,500 American soldiers killed or missing in the battle of Okinawa, but not a single soldier would have lost his life or went missing in the battle of Honshu, right, smith?
2

LouReedAug. 06, 2012 - 10:17PM JST

Dropping the bomb put a quick end to the war which spared Japan from being divided up between the Russians and Americans. It also forever changed an aggressive empire's attitude to a docile peace loving Nation. In the long run while tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost it was the best outcome Japan could have hoped for.
6

danalawton1@yahoo.comAug. 06, 2012 - 10:49PM JST

I laugh at those that think an actual invasion of Japan's main islands would not have caused massive deaths and destruction. Japan was not going to surrender to a conventional attack and as was seen in Okinawa.... the government did not care one iota about civilians. They had the civilians so brainwashed that most were commiting suicide in order to avoid capture. On the small island of Okinawa.... 94,000 civilians died. So if you think that a conventional attack on Japan's main islands would have been a "cake walk", where everyone just dropped their weapons and gave up... You Need to Have Your Head Examined. I'm not saying the Atomic Bombs were good... but the other scenario... a conventional attack... would have been very, very ugly.
-7

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 12:12AM JST

Japan was not going to surrender to a conventional attack

What an outstanding attempt fit the square peg into the round hole! We constantly hear about how the Japanese were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child, but then faced with death, they caved! You have to be a braindead zombie on autopilot not to see the contradiction.

But here you suddenly make it about conventional and unconventional attacks as if that suddenly explains it away! Nope! Its a fail! Firebombs are not conventional either, and more people had already died in firebomb attacks that were more horrible than the nukes. Nice try though.

Japan had been considering surrender for months, but they had a condition; preservation of the emperor. But America insisted on unconditional surrender. Thus the war dragged on.

As for invading Honshu, it was not the only option (see above). But Okinawa was truly a last ditch effort. That is why we hear so much about them preparing to fight with pointy sticks, another part of the narrative that does not quite match up with the other part about them having so many weapons left (while never getting around to the shortage of fuel, pilots and most everything but pointy sticks).

And there is no "what if" scenario that is ever going to justify knowingly and intentionally killing civilians, especially given the fact that they were all prisoners in their own country under a military dictatorship. There is no excuse for killing people for what other people did. None at all. Its a crime any way you slice and dice it. Anything else is an exercise in delusion.
7

Geoff GillespieAug. 07, 2012 - 01:41AM JST

Japan was finished in 1945. No food. No weapons. No spirit to fight.

You think? Then why didn't Japan surrender? The very real prospect of hand to hand fighting right the way up the Japanese mainland would have resulted in many more tens of thousands of civilian deaths than were caused by the A bombs, which, by the way, Truman had twice before refused to sanction the use of prior to him actually finally agreeing to do so.
0

danalawton1@yahoo.comAug. 07, 2012 - 01:58AM JST

@Denon... if what you say is true then the Japanese should have accepted the "Unconditional Surrender" earlier. By waiting and trying to get concessions, when they were in no position to Bargain, they lost their Northern Islands to the Russians and they put their people in harms way. Japan should have known what the score was but they refused to get a grip on the reality of the situation. You say they were ready to surrender.... but we didn't know that and I'm sure there was a lot of miss trust on both sides. And what about this.... suppose the Japanese had perfected their Atomic bomb first... did we know where they were with their program? Everybody was working on the Bomb.
-7

Thunderbird2Aug. 07, 2012 - 03:46AM JST

Here's a question for all you pro A bomb ladles and germs... why didn't America use the Bomb in the Korean War? Why not the Vietnam War? Must be a reason... or was it that it really was revenge for Pearl Harbour?
2

Takuma7Aug. 07, 2012 - 05:46AM JST

Came very close to using an them in the Vietnam War: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm
-6

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 09:01AM JST

danalawton1@yahoo.com, none of what you said justifies the massacre of civilians and nothing you say ever will. You can spout "yeah, but"s all day long and its simply not going to change.

suppose the Japanese had perfected their Atomic bomb first.

They had no means of delivery. We had complete control of the air by that time.

And whether the government and military should have surrendered sooner has no bearing on the civilians living in cities. Nobody asked those civilians if they wanted to surrender. So many being under 2 years old could not even indicate their desire for a piece of candy yet.
-8

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 09:03AM JST

Truman had twice before refused to sanction the use of prior to him actually finally agreeing to do so.

So if a hitman refuses a murder twice, he is good to go by the third request? I dont think so!
1

sfjp330Aug. 07, 2012 - 09:14AM JST

BertieWooster Aug. 06, 2012 - 01:31PM JST When you arrive in Hiroshima you can look around and for 25 and perhaps 30 square miles you can see hardly a building. It gives you an empty feeling in the stomach to see such man-made devastation. WILFRED BURCHETT

I been to Hiroshima many times. The actual impact of A-bomb in Hiroshima was 10-13km radius. Which is 5 to 7 miles). There were many people living in Gion area and they survive and buildings were not damaged. Gion is around 4-5 miles from downtown area. Can you send me a link indicating 25-30miles? Maybe this guy Wilfred has been drinking too much and got lost in distance?
-12

BertieWoosterAug. 07, 2012 - 09:39AM JST

sfjp330-san,

Can you send me a link indicating 25-30miles? Maybe this guy Wilfred has been drinking too much and got lost in distance?

Why do you assume he was drinking?

Because his opinion differs from yours?

He describes the scene that he witnessed in 1945. That's what he said he saw. HARDLY a building is how he described it. Most residential property at that time would have been built of wood, so I think it's likely that the blast would have knocked out a huge area.

This amount of devastation seems to fit with other accounts I've read and stories from some of the survivors. It doesn't give you ANY IDEA though of the total horror that people went through. The lucky ones died quickly. The others took longer to die of radiation sickness with no medical facilities. The Hiroshima Peace Site website gives a figure of 140,000 deaths by December 1945, out of a population of 350,000. Try to imagine how you would have felt. Half the people you know, relatives and friends blown away or dying slowly. No town. No help. No shelter. No food. Everything contaminated.

I don't know why there is even a question about whether or not this was a war crime.

There is no question.

Anyway, here's the page with the quote on it as you request:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/wilfred_burchett.html
7

jamplassAug. 07, 2012 - 10:00AM JST

Are we forgetting that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic military bases used by the Japanese to continue the war? The Japanese military establishment was obviously not very concerned with the safety of of their people, which become even more apparent after Okinawa and the forced suicides of civilians that took place. The bombings were tragic and horrible, but those who claim "Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway" were not actually present at the time, and are being somewhat selective in the history books they've read (or haven't).
-3

HelveticaAug. 07, 2012 - 10:01AM JST

I have watched a movie where the Japanese are in Korea and Russia... The Japanese was actually already weak before the bombings... Some "experts" said that the bombing was not necessary but was necessary to get tension with USSR... I'm not sure...
4

ka_chanAug. 07, 2012 - 10:22AM JST

If we take the higher numbers of 166K and 80K from from the bombing, that together with the Russian entry into the war against Japan, prevented the estimated death of over 500k to a million by ending the war before the invasion of Japan, is it a war crime or a salvation? With Japan training civilians to fight, if the war continued, millions more would have died. So if the bombing saved more than it took, how would you define it?
7

CletusAug. 07, 2012 - 10:42AM JST

I honestly do not believe that the dropping of the A bombs where war crimes.

All these people that say the bombs killed so many people and destroyed such a large area need to remember that in 1945 precision bombing did not exist, in order to hit a specific target you basically had to carpet bomb an area. So to destroy the HQ of the Japanese 2nd Army which was based at Hiroshima castle then a large part of the city would have needed to be destroyed by conventional bombs anyway. Given the distribution of military targets around Hiroshima the damage would have at least been the same in terms of destruction and who knows what the death toll would have been.

To people who claim that the US bombed a civilian target, what nonesense. Hiroshima was the HQ of the Japanese 2nd Army, this HQ was responsible for the war operations in the SW Pacific (around PNG, DWI, Malaysia, etc) areas that at that time were still involved in fighting. It was responsible for the defence of Kyushu which would have been the location of an invasion. These headquarters where right in the center of the city so if the Japanese where so concerned about their civilians why place an important military target in a city? Hiroshima was also a garrison city (home to over 48,000 troops), it was a major logistics and supply center for the IJA. And it was a major manufacturing center for munitions. Nagasaki, like Hiroshima was a major military city. It housed the Mitsubishi iron and armaments factories, shipyards, and docks. Unlike Hiroshima though Nagasaki was bombed prior to the A Bomb, infact on the 1st of Aug the US bombed Nagasaki and this caused the evacuation of kids and elderly from the city prior to the A bomb being dropped.

So to those who claim the US attacked civilian targets l say that is nonesense do some research, even the Hiroshima peace museum has this information. And remember we are talking 1945 here there where no smart bombs no precision bombing, to destroy legitimate military targets large areas had to be destroyed that was the way it was done back then.

I also find it strange that people keep saying about the number of kids killed, you need to remember the IJA was using kids as young as 14 yo in military roles back then. They used them in communications roles, they used them to build fire breaks, and numerous other roles. This is also well documented by the Hiroshima peace museum, and what needs to be remembered is the moment these kids started being used in these roles they went from being civilians to being combatants under the Hague convention. A convention which Japan was a party to, so in essence for people to scream and complain about the civilian casualties they need to look a bit closer at the facts. Many of those killed at Hiroshima where involved in the war effort so doesnt this make it a legitimate target?

And as for those saying the bombs where not required because Japan was close to surrender, rubbish. Japan was trying to surrender under Japans terms. Japan had no intention of accepting the Allies terms, it was training civilians (including children) on how to fight using sharpened sticks and suicide attacks if there was an invasion. Does this sound like a country ready to surrender? And yet people claim that an invasion would have not been as costly.... Yeah right look at all the invasions prior they all show exactly the pattern of what would have happened in the event of the landings.

In any case, this debate will go on for ever as people only look at the surface and see one bomb killed so many people it must be a crime. And so many civilians were killed, it must be a crime. Well think of it this way 1 bomb or thousands Hiroshima would have been destroyed eventually as it was a military target. Yes civilians died, thats what happens in war if you want to avoid that its simple dont start a war.
1

Zen studentAug. 07, 2012 - 10:49AM JST

The citizens of Kokura were blessed by the elements on that fateful day. Due to cloudy weather, the target was shifted from Kokura to Nagasaki. (I heard a similar story once about Kobe being another potential target....?)
3

LouReedAug. 07, 2012 - 10:55AM JST

Cletus - Well stated!
7

Thomas AndersonAug. 07, 2012 - 11:18AM JST

War itself is a crime. Good God the humanity is stupid sometimes.
8

Thomas AndersonAug. 07, 2012 - 11:22AM JST

I'm really tired of reading the justifications from either sides, because in the end they are both justifications. It's not so black and white, and obviously a lot of innocent people have died in the both sides of the war. In the end I'd say they are both guilty of war crimes. And that's why you should never start any war in the first place!
5

ka_chanAug. 07, 2012 - 11:47AM JST

Actually, it was more stupid to start a war you knew you could not win.
-2

serenitynowAug. 07, 2012 - 12:04PM JST

if it meant getting my son out of a japanese pow camp 20 minutes sooner i wouldve ridden the bomb like major kong
4

2020hindsightsAug. 07, 2012 - 12:58PM JST

And whether the government and military should have surrendered sooner has no bearing on the civilians living in cities.

So why single Hiroshima out? What about London, Dresden, Tokyo? At least Hiroshima was a military target.
-2

papasmurfinjapanAug. 07, 2012 - 02:16PM JST

If Japan dropped atomic bombs on two American cities, would Americans consider it a war crime?

It's easy to justify your crimes when you won the war.
-5

jessebaybayAug. 07, 2012 - 02:39PM JST

My granddad didn't support it then and if he was alive (died last year at age 94) wouldn't support it now. Plus, he was one of the ones that fought the Japanese. Weather it was a war crime can be debated..... what can't be debated is that it WAS morally wrong.
-5

jessebaybayAug. 07, 2012 - 02:42PM JST

ps. yes I know that the Japanese did a LOT of things that were also morally wrong.. But you can't preach with two sets of rules and it does not justify what was done.
3

CletusAug. 07, 2012 - 02:47PM JST

jessebaybay

ps. yes I know that the Japanese did a LOT of things that were also morally wrong.. But you can't preach with two sets of rules and it does not justify what was done.

Let me ask you this then, if the bombs where not dropped how many Japanese would have died during the invasions of Japan. The Russian invasion from the north and the US invasion from the south. The world got a taste of the type of carnage that would have ensued during the Okinawa invasion. Now imagine that on a massive scale. The death toll would have been tremendous and if it came out that the US had a weapon that could have shortened the war then imagine the outrage then....

Damned if they did, damned if they didnt.
-11

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 03:22PM JST

So to destroy the HQ of the Japanese 2nd Army which was based at Hiroshima castle then a large part of the city would have needed to be destroyed by conventional bombs anyway.

You have an amazing capacity to make up random and wild excuses. Its very much like a child making up excuses for CYA, knowing that a spanking is coming.

Just 3 and half years earlier, the Japanese managed to hit ships and parked planes very accurately at Pearl Harbor, and most of the civilian casualties were caused by American AA fire from the base. But now you are telling me that the only way to get to military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to flatten large swaths of the city anyway? And that therefore it made the whole city a military target?

Hague convention, 1907, article 27:

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

Failure to obey that is a war crime. And its not even the only section or treaty showing this to be a war crime. Its absolutely clear that this was a war crime. It takes extreme twisted of reality and all that is holy to say or believe otherwise. And the real downside is that if you do so, then you justify attacks on your own cities should you get into a war. Not smart. Not smart at all.
-7

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 03:32PM JST

if the bombs where not dropped how many Japanese would have died during the invasions of Japan.

It completely does not matter. Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. Killing people today based on your best guess of what will happen tomorrow is a fool's errand. Besides, the American government knew well the importance of the emperor and knew that the Japanese were balking at unconditional surrender because of concern for the emperor. And after the war, they gave the Japanese conditions about the emperor in the peace treaty anyway. The belief that the atom bombs ended the war is something of a myth. The firebombings were actually more terrible. The entry of the Soviets into the war cannot be discounted. It took time to discover the truth about the atom bombs and by that time, surrender was already decided. The A bombs did not end the war.

Not that it matters. It would not matter if the A bombs turned the victims into diamonds that made the survivors rich beyond measure. Its a war crime to flatten a city full of civilians. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone, not even the Jews at Jericho. Please stop scrounging for excuses for this massacre.
-4

FrungyAug. 07, 2012 - 03:39PM JST

Yes, but not for the reasons most people think. At the time the bombs were dropped the U.S. government had been informed that there was a small, but significant, chance the bombs would set of a chain reaction that could destroy THE ENTIRE PLANET! ... but they did it anyway.

The Risk - Destroy the entire planet. The Reward - Cut the SE Asia conflict a little shorter.

Simply not worth the risk. The U.S. government was horribly irresponsible and should be censured. Their conduct hasn't changed a whit in the last 6 decades either.
-1

CletusAug. 07, 2012 - 04:42PM JST

Denon

"So to destroy the HQ of the Japanese 2nd Army which was based at Hiroshima castle then a large part of the city would have needed to be destroyed by conventional bombs anyway." You have an amazing capacity to make up random and wild excuses. Its very much like a child making up excuses for CYA, knowing that a spanking is coming. Just 3 and half years earlier, the Japanese managed to hit ships and parked planes very accurately at Pearl Harbor, and most of the civilian casualties were caused by American AA fire from the base. But now you are telling me that the only way to get to military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to flatten large swaths of the city anyway? And that therefore it made the whole city a military target?

MMM where do l start with this one. Lets see l will ignore the personal attack for now and examine your flawed argument. You claim because the Japanese where able to attack and hit ships at Pearl Harbor with accuracy then the US should have been able to do the same at Hiroshima. This is where your argument falls over: 1. The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack conducted by low level carrier aircraft and dive bombers carrying small bomb loads (800kg each). The Japanese only lost 29 aircraft due to the fact that this was a surprise attack hence limited defence as opposed to a nation that had been at war for over a decade. 2. Out of the 40 torpedos and 90301 kg of bombs dropped on Pearl Harbor the US lost 337 planes destroyed and damaged and 19 ships destroyed and damaged. 3. The Japanese HQ was located within the walls (bunkers built into the walls) of Hiroshima castle. How hard would that be to destroy? 4. The same style of attack was not an option to the US as they had no base close enough for dive bombers to operate and bringing carriers near Japan was dangerous due to kamakaze attacks as the US found out when they launched carrier attacks on other places in Japan. The only aircraft capable where long range bombers, hardly precision bombers now where they? 5. If you read my comment properly you would see that not only was the Japanese HQ a target their was also 40,000+ troops stationed around the city, armaments works, rail and logistics points, and military supply warehouses. And they didnt just put them all in one neat area away from civilians now did they? 6. The US tried conventional bombing at Nagasaki days before the A Bomb was dropped, they targeted the Mitsubishi arms factory and managed to barely damage it but hit a hospital instead. So as you can see even conventional bombing didnt work.

Hague convention, 1907, article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. Failure to obey that is a war crime. And its not even the only section or treaty showing this to be a war crime. Its absolutely clear that this was a war crime. It takes extreme twisted of reality and all that is holy to say or believe otherwise. And the real downside is that if you do so, then you justify attacks on your own cities should you get into a war. Not smart. Not smart at all.

Indeed the Hague convention does say that. However one part you missed out when you quoted the convention, and that is that these buildings must ALL be individually marked and notified to the opposing forces. Guess you missed that bit. You also missed the bit of the Hague convention that says "you cannot attack undefended cities / villages" well given these cities where defended and contained military targets? Well!!
-4

CletusAug. 07, 2012 - 04:49PM JST

Denon

Its a war crime to flatten a city full of civilians. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone, not even the Jews at Jericho. Please stop scrounging for excuses for this massacre.

LOL a city full of civilians. Lets see, of the 300,000 in excess of 40,000 where soldiers, thousands more worked in the armaments industries, thousands more (including children) worked in civil defense. And as you are so familiar with the Hague convention you will know full well that civil defense is classified as belligerent the same as soldiers. Now you also forget the fact that the Japanese had also evacuated a large portion of the population and kept mainly those in key jobs in the city. So please a city full of civilians hey! Now who is making up random excuses, even the Hiroshima peace museum documents the number of "civilians" that where working for the military in these cities.

I just wonder if you are so critical to the hundreds and thousands of war crimes committed in the name of the emperor? Im doubting it???
1

Thunderbird2Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:54PM JST

To those who say that the Japanese were training civilians to fight... so did the UK, Germany, Russia... maybe even the Americans.

In the UK it was the Home Guard... civilians initially armed with outdated weapons and pikes and later armed with US made rifles and their own pattern of webbing equipment. In Germany it was the Volksturm. In America it was Civil Defense.

Had the Germans invaded the UK the population would have been mobilised and given arms to defend against the invaders. To be honest, any country would do the same when faced with invasion.
-10

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 05:47PM JST

I am not forgetting anything Cletus. All your twisted excuses for blowing up hospitals, churches and orphanages in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite the law of war I clearly laid out, also handily excuse the bombing of civilian infrastructure at Darwin and the attacks on civilians at Broome. All fair dinkum, eh mate?

I am not excusing any of the intentional attacks on civilians. They are beyond inexcusable.
1
CletusAug. 07, 2012 - 05:56PM JST

Denon

I am not forgetting anything Cletus. All your twisted excuses for blowing up hospitals, churches and orphanages in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

Ok Denon, please explain to me then how in 1945 using the technology of the day you propose that the US attack these military targets that are located in these cities and do so successfully without civilian casualties. And you show me an example of where this was done on a large scale against a prepared enemy and l will consider your point of view.

despite the law of war I clearly laid out,

You interestingly forgot to include the full quote however when you "pointed out" the law of war. You know the bit where the Japanese where supposed to by that same rule you are quoting mark all non military targets. See your quote doesnt have the same punch then does it.... Not to mention the rule above the one you post specifically states that undefended cities must not be attacked, well these cities where defended hence liable for attack.....

also handily excuse the bombing of civilian infrastructure at Darwin and the attacks on civilians at Broome. All fair dinkum, eh mate?

The bombing of Darwin was legitimate, never claimed it wasnt. As was the bombing of Broome as both held military value much like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.....

I am not excusing any of the intentional attacks on civilians. They are beyond inexcusable.

LOL you cant grasp it can you, this occurred in 1945 decades before cruise missiles and laser guided bombs. Back then you wanted a target destroyed you ended up destroying large areas around the target as well. Its easy to apply 2012 technology to a 1945 problem but hard to realise it just isnt the way things were back then..
- ModeratorAug. 07, 2012 - 06:02PM JST
  
  Readers, please keep the discussion civil and do not bicker.
-11

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 06:25PM JST

and do so successfully without civilian casualties.

I never said or implied it was possible to totally avoid civilian casualties. But not even attempting to do so is a war crime. Dropping a nuclear bomb targeting a city center is an intentional massacre of civilians. Maybe you cant see it because its right under your nose?

Not to mention the rule above the one you post specifically states that undefended cities must not be attacked, well these cities where defended hence liable for attack.....

Cherry picking. You have to take the articles and the convention in its entirety. Having defenses does negate the bit about not intentionally destroying churches and hospitals.

The bombing of Darwin was legitimate, never claimed it wasnt. As was the bombing of Broome as both held military value much like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.....

So the Japanese would have been just as justified in flattening Darwin and Broome from the city centers? And as for Broome I was referring more toward the strafing of civilians with zeros. Yes, Japanese attacks on war vessels and soldiers was legit. But attacking civilian infrastructure was a war crime.

LOL you cant grasp it can you, this occurred in 1945 decades before cruise missiles and laser guided bombs.

The difficulties of the situation do not preclude not even trying. That is not the way the laws of war work.

And as a former WWII flight sim junkie, I am quite aware of the tech available at the time. Dive bombing was a bit risky, but not much with air superiority, and we had it. Dive bombing was very accurate. Level bombing was harder, but we had pretty good bomb sights and well trained crews. Avoiding hitting hospitals, schools, churches etc could have been accomplished well enough. Nuking it all was callous indifference and inexcusable.

Not to even agree that anything in these cities just had to be attacked. They didnt. Nagasaki was not even the primary target for Pete's sake! None of your descriptions of the cities and their military importance had any bearing on the decisions to bomb them. You are just fishing hard for excuses to back up your preconceived decision on the matter. In fact, I tend to think you don't even believe what you are saying yourself, but just arguing for the sake of it.
-4

It"S MEAug. 07, 2012 - 07:37PM JST

No I don't and that is from someone whose country participated in some bad stuff during WWII.

Why, during WWII civilians were and carpet bombing were legitimate. The fire-bombing of Tokyo and Kobe resulted in a bigger death-toll than the 2 bombs as they did in europe. They were only included in the geneva convention as war crimes after the war. Check your History.

As another poster said war culture changed with the ages and countries.

As for the people that talk about nanjing, etc get real this is NOT what the ceremony is about. You want to hold your own ceremony feel free to do so at your own expense, etc.
-6

TakahiroDomingoAug. 07, 2012 - 08:03PM JST

It's more than war crime, it's the murder of many innocents, that happened to be born in Japan and living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Innocents were murdered to stop the war, and that's not war crime? Today, when you kill innocents, it's called terrorism. I can't believe that this can ever be justified. Admit it, it's a war crime.
-4

HelveticaAug. 07, 2012 - 10:28PM JST

I see this way: If you agree that the bombings are War Crime, the civilians are innocents. If you agree that the bombings are Not War Crime, the civilians are soldiers. BTW, The bombings was like "Hitting two birds with one stone."
1

BertieWoosterAug. 07, 2012 - 10:31PM JST

The voice of sanity:

I'm really tired of reading the justifications from either sides, because in the end they are both justifications. It's not so black and white, and obviously a lot of innocent people have died in the both sides of the war. In the end I'd say they are both guilty of war crimes. And that's why you should never start any war in the first place!

Thank you Thomas Anderson
-8

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 11:00PM JST

They were only included in the geneva convention as war crimes after the war. Check your History.

Check your own. The Hague conventions outlawed attacks on civilians before even WWI.
0

malfupeteAug. 07, 2012 - 11:31PM JST

Me thinks no one here is a lawyer well versed in military law. Either way, there is no right answer to this
5

TigermothIIAug. 08, 2012 - 12:02AM JST

BertieWooster - your observations in your posting above about who was against the bombing is certainly interesting, and in a humanistic way I would agree with the opinions of the men asked this question. But also note that these men who were asked the question about the atomic bomb were either military leaders or in government. Also interesting that you mention the thoughts/opinions of the Japanese alive at the time, and their opinions of Japan's abilities and desires to fight on. But conversely, through interest I've spoken with a good many combat veterans, or those who were serving in the military for either the U.S., Britain or Australia. Most all of the ones I've spoken to were damned grateful that Truman dropped the bomb.

It's one thing to offer up opinion and second guess so many years after an event, and with so much more information available some 67 years on. Historians love to wax on about what should have and could have been done. So do the amateur pundits and laymen who read a few opinionated books and draw their conclusions. To the grunt in the air, flying dangerous missions over Japan, it was a different story. To the the guys who had watched a good many of their buddies blown to pieces while island hopping across the Pacific in bloody campaigns where the Japanese quite literally fought for every square inch and to the last man, it was a different story. They didn't ask to be pulled into a bloody war that we didn't start, and many of them would never ask anything again - except perhaps to be remembered. I'm sure those men didn't want to see civilians die. But at the same time, they didn't want to die either - and why should they? Nope, I'm afraid I think of these men. If the bombings saved one of them, then to me they were worth it. Sorry, war is hell. It's great to imagine that in some version of 'idyllic war' (what an oxymoron!) that conflict would only involve trained soldiers bred to the task. But in the Second World War they quite literally were citizen soldiers - drafted to fight, and they went because they felt it their duty as citizens of their nation.

So do I shed a tear for the Japanese civilians? No more than they shed a tear for the millions killed because of a war their nation started. Soldiers, civilians - it's really irrelevant; they are all people. No one should have died at Pearl Harbor, no one should have died in China, no one should have died in the Philippines, on Guam, on Iwo Jima, etc. But they did. For whatever reasons scholars might put forth, the Japanese initiated armed conflict and with the Germans began a conflagration of untold magnitude. Civilians of many nations suffered, were brutalized and died in droves.

Okay, so you think the victors write the histories, and determine the criminals. Yeah, that's true. But in this case I don't think there was any question who the criminals were. They brought on themselves and their people fire and ruin. But in my estimation that dogface who was saved by not having to fight another day is just as worthy of life as any citizen of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So no, I don't think it's a war crime. I think most of the criminals got their justice, and the victims of whatever nation should place blame firmly where it belongs.
-4

IshiwaraAug. 08, 2012 - 12:13AM JST

1) The bombs were crimes:Last time I checked. killing civilians to break military resistance is illegal. That was what some Germans were accused of and executed for.

2) Hiroshima was a civilian target. (They could have attacked Kure, a naval base an hour away, but tellingly, they did not.) Having an army HQ in the city does not make the city a military target. Most victims were women and children.

3) It was a scientific experiment: They chose Hiroshima in order to see the effects on a large undamaged city. (Most other cities were already bombed flat.) They chose the early morning, after breakfast, precisely the time when a large number of people were outside. After surrender, the US sent a medical team to research the effects, even secretly collecting body parts without permission of the family members. The doctors refused to give medical aid t the victims.

4) Oppenheimer specifically instructed and designed the bomb to explode high above ground, for maximum damage. On the eve before the bombing he said: "Those poor little people...."

5) Curtis LeMay, the architect of the conventional bombing campaign himself said famously, "If we would have lost the war, we would have been tried as war criminals."

6) Did the bombs hasten the end of the war? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the bottom line is the US dropped nukes on civilians in order to force the Japanese to do what the US wanted.
-5

nigelboyAug. 08, 2012 - 12:16AM JST

Okay, so you think the victors write the histories, and determine the criminals. Yeah, that's true. But in this case I don't think there was any question who the criminals were. They brought on themselves and their people fire and ruin. But in my estimation that dogface who was saved by not having to fight another day is just as worthy of life as any citizen of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So no, I don't think it's a war crime. I think most of the criminals got their justice, and the victims of whatever nation should place blame firmly where it belongs.

This argument goes along the lines of "you hit me first".

If you followed this thread, I think the discussion has evolved further than that, I'm afraid.
-8

BertieWoosterAug. 08, 2012 - 12:31AM JST

TigermothII,

I can see your point of view. I'm sorry to say that I don't entirely agree with it, but I think I understand it.

I do, however feel that it's very narrow and, please excuse me for saying this, it ignores other points of view. Notably, the points, 1 - 6 that Ishiwara-san brings up.

The bombing of Hiroshima was a crime against humanity. The perpetrators of the crime got away with it and hundreds of thousands of innocent, non-military people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time suffered.

All war is a crime against humanity.

Blame doesn't solve war.

We can only solve the problem of war by not doing it.

If we work toward peace, I really, really believe we can achieve it. I honestly do.

If even HALF of the money that is budgeted for armed services and destructive weapons of one kind or another were channelled into peaceful activities, it would make a huge difference.
-5

TakahiroDomingoAug. 08, 2012 - 12:57AM JST

Ishiwara, what insiight!
2

TigermothIIAug. 08, 2012 - 01:25AM JST

If you followed this thread, I think the discussion has evolved further than that, I'm afraid.

I have followed the thread, thank you very much. And while you seem to think I'm incapable of following it or the logic presented therein, I would offer that you seem incapable of understanding my underlying point. Quite obviously you, and many of the other posters on here, feel that the reasons behind the bombings are totally moot. 'Yes, the poor old Japanese did some sort of nasty things, but....'. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. When you bring death and destruction upon millions of innocents in the world, you just might suffer the same.

But my true point is that I fail to understand why you or any of the other posters think the lives of those civilians in Japan (and as stated by Cletus I believe, and subsequently ignored by most of the rest there were military targets there) think the lives of the Allied servicemen who survived the war because of the bombing are worth any less than the Japanese who were subsequently killed. And make no mistake, lives were being lost each and every day. It might have been a number that pales in comparison, yes. But one is enough for me. Since you seem to like analogies, I'll provide you with one: If you and your mates make me and my mates come to your party, and then kill half of us, don't be surprised when the other half kills all of you.

Okay Bertie:

Point (1): if Ishiwara-san had stopped at 'the bombs were crimes' then maybe I could go with this one. As you state, war is a crime against humanity. But the civilian part becomes something of an issue. When you are the initiator of armed conflict, one the nature of the Second World War that saw conscription of civilians into the military to fight the war, then in my opinion you aren't dealing with a professional army, but rather civilians that are rather forced into uniform because of national emergency. As the conflict grows both sides have armies made up of conscripts that the other side goes about trying to annihilate by any means possible. It is a war of killing civilians at this point. If one side kills a million civilians with bombs and machine guns, how is it really any different, or somehow more of a crime if you do it with a single bomb (or two)?

Point (2): Hiroshima was a civilian target. Very true, it had military posts and significance, but was largely civilian. So was London, Dresden, etc. War has always been a terrible instrument that unfortunately brings wanton destruction and death to civilians. It's nothing new, and the Japanese certainly had no issues with practicing war upon civilian populations, so why should then necessarily be immune to the horrors? I know that's rather more a harsh opinion rather than a valid answer to that one, but there it is.

Point (3): Conjecture. And I'll certainly admit that I haven't read enough about the aftermath and conclusions to offer significant opinion on that. Best to admit a lack of knowledge than to bash on in stupidity (a lesson many here could well learn).

Point (4): So what? Those poor people at Pearl, in China, the Philippines, etc. etc. etc. - how many times do we need go through that?

Point (6): This point will be argued forever. Many claim the Japanese were ready to surrender 'at any moment'. But they didn't, did they? Not even after the first bomb (although admittedly they likely had no clue what the hell had even happened at that point). But I again go back to my point that every day the bombings and fighting was continuing, people who would normally have been living out their normal lives were being killed. Any hastening of an end to that was justified.

I do of course realize that my opinions and thoughts on this matter will be found as repugnant by many - of which I don't really care. I stated on another thread dealing with the bombings that I had three Uncles fighting in the Pacific (one was 16 and lied to get in the navy). They all made it home, but if any of them had died as we awaited the Japanese surrender, would I feel any more relief that while my uncles were dead, those Japanese civilians were fine an dandy? No. Why sugar coat it and lie? It's that simple; the men who fought on the Allied side did not really ask to be there, but were forced into war by the actions of the aggressors. My care at that point is how many of them were able to make it home alive. The important point is that the war was brought to a quick and final end.

And before you condemn me as and ignorant fool nigelboy think of it this way - if you're of nationality to have had a grandfather (or father) in the war on the Allied side, and your grandfather/father was killed two days before the Japanese finally sued for peace - and the war lasted that extra few weeks because the bombs had not been dropped - would you still see them as war crimes?

Point (5):
0

TigermothIIAug. 08, 2012 - 01:39AM JST

sorry - not sure how Point (5) got shuffled and lost in posting. Likely true, and not much to say there. If we had lost the war and the Japanese had kept to their typical warm and loving behavior, we would probably all be either beheaded or in labor camps, so it wouldn't have mattered much.
0

FadamorAug. 08, 2012 - 02:14AM JST

For anyone who doesn't think it was a war crime, please read the following League of Nations resolution that was uninimously voted on in 1938 - only 7 years before the nuclear bombs were dropped. For a massive dose of irony, read the personal appeal supporting this resolution by none other than U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. My how 7 years will change a point of view!

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D
3

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2012 - 03:14AM JST

BertieWoosterAug. 07, 2012 - 09:39AM JST sfjp330-san,Can you send me a link indicating 25-30miles? Maybe this guy Wilfred has been drinking too much and got lost in distance? Your response: "Because his opinion differs from yours? He describes the scene that he witnessed in 1945. That's what he said he saw. HARDLY a building is how he described it. Most residential property at that time would have been built of wood, so I think it's likely that the blast would have knocked out a huge area."

My opinion differs from yours because it's ridiculous to say Hiroshima A-bombing devasted 25-30 miles radius. Your talking about 40-50km. Even if the housing is built on wood, the mountain protected the inland properties. If you know anything about geography of Hiroshima, there is high mountains surrounding the city and also facing the sea. If you travel 5 miles north, south, or west, you run into high mountains. There's nowhere where in Hiroshima that is flat for 25-30 miles radius of land. The farthest east away from the sea is probably close to Furuichi, close to eastern part of hills, which is less than 5 miles (8km).
-3

IshiwaraAug. 08, 2012 - 03:15AM JST

@Tigermoth

As the conflict grows both sides have armies made up of conscripts that the other side goes about trying to annihilate by any means possible. It is a war of killing civilians at this point.

This was indeed the logic at the time for some of the leaders, but it was not considered "normal". As other posts pointed out, contemporary political leaders of all countries were horrified at the bombings of civilians (in London as well as Dresden etc.)

"Are the lives of the allied servicemen worth less than the Japanese civilians at Hiroshima?" Of course not. (But they are also not worth more.) The question is if Hiroshima was a war crime, and killing civilians to avoid your own military casualties obviously is.
-5
nigelboyAug. 08, 2012 - 03:40AM JST
have followed the thread, thank you very much

Your following points haven't evolved either. It's basically states the following.
1. Civilians are all going to be soldiers eventually.
2. Everybody did it.
3. Need further studying on the candidate targets and the reasons behind choosing those two. Trust me. Having military structure there was secondary.
4. By the rules set forth at Hague as well as the charters set forth subsequently at London charters, it contitutes a war crime. But this again, is "everybody did it."
5. So it is a war crime that even the proponents knew it beforehand.
Lot of words but you haven't really offered anything more than the above. And based on those above, to conclude "But in this case I don't think there was any question who the criminals were.(Japan)", is quite a leap.

As Justice Rolling stated later,

"of course, in Japan we were all aware of the bombings and the burnings of Tokyo and Yokohama and other big cities. It was horrible that we went there for the purpose of vindicating the laws of war, and yet saw every day how the Allies had violated them dreadfully".

I don't think anybody who thinks that A-bomb is a war crime is denying that what the Japanese did was not a war crime. What bothers most is that you think one is a crime while the other isn't without even backing it up.
1
IshiwaraAug. 08, 2012 - 03:41AM JST
This is very much worth reading. FDR in 1939:

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.
```
                             FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
```
3

TheQuestionAug. 08, 2012 - 07:24AM JST

To answer the topic question, NOPE.

War sucks. After years of fighting, tens of thousands dead, and the germans defeated the only thing standing in the way of the wars end was the japanese. After Okinawa it looked like we were going to have another long, viscious campaign with casualty estimates in the hundreds of thousands. The US was tired of war but without an unconditional surrender there was no quick end in sight. That is the situation that leads to the bombs being dropped.
3

TheQuestionAug. 08, 2012 - 07:27AM JST

Dozens of targets were considered and eventually they decided on the two that satisfied the most criteria. Both were military cities, both had factories and ship hubs, and both had large garrisons. Would this still be a question if they were burned to the ground like Dresden?

More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

(Sorry bout the split post, trying to ferret out what was setting of the potentially offensive content ticker)
-9

Alain BellantonAug. 08, 2012 - 08:08AM JST

War crimes? No. Necessary?No. The war was already won at that point. I feel as if it was overkill. Kicking of a downed opponent. Just my opinion.
4

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2012 - 08:44AM JST

In summer of 1945, Russian fleet to transport a few thousand troops to Hokkaido. The U.S. demands that the Soviets withdraw, but Stalin refuses and uses the time given by the surrender to reinforce his forces on Hokkaido. There was a real danger of war breaking out between the two superpowers. If it wasn't for the A-bomb, the Soviets would've occupy Hokkaido and not return to Japan.

I suspect that Truman would face a serious challenge at home. An atomic bombing of Japan is the only thing that would justify the expense of the Manhattan Project. If this expense were not justified, Truman would have faced a Congressional inquiry into the misappropriation of $2 billion. Not only did he want to avoid Congressional hearings, but he also wanted another term of office. His chances of re-election would have been reduced if it were learned by the general public that he wasted money and American lives by not deploying a weapon that could have ended the war more quickly. It would also not present a lesson in the willingness of the U.S. to use weapons of mass destruction.
2

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2012 - 09:04AM JST

Denon Aug. 08, 2012 - 09:01AM JST So the answer is not to bomb the Soviets, but to bomb innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was Hokkaido worth that much?

Why don't you ask the families of 14,000 Americans that lost their lives during the invasion. U.S. did the right thing.
3

sfjp330Aug. 08, 2012 - 09:04AM JST

By the way, invasion of Okinawa in 1945.
-8

DenonAug. 08, 2012 - 09:14AM JST

Dozens of targets were considered and eventually they decided on the two that satisfied the most criteria.

False. Nagasaki was not the primary target. Also, you seem to be ignorant of what the criteria were. The harbor was not damaged.
-8

DenonAug. 08, 2012 - 09:16AM JST

The US was tired of war but without an unconditional surrender there was no quick end in sight.

The only condition the Japanese wanted concerned the emperor. And despite the demand for unconditional surrender, they got the condition anyway. So what the heck is wrong with a conditional surrender? It would have ended the war, something which the bombs actually didnt do.
-8

DenonAug. 08, 2012 - 09:28AM JST

Why don't you ask the families of 14,000 Americans that lost their lives during the invasion.

If the opinion of the grieving were to become justice and rule of law, the world would be a murderous place indeed. I doubt anyone could survive.

Look, killing a man's child for what the man did not wrong and evil. No amount of anger and desire for revenge is ever going to change that.
4

TheQuestionAug. 08, 2012 - 09:48AM JST

False. Nagasaki was not the primary target. Also, you seem to be ignorant of what the criteria were. The harbor was not damaged.

Several cities were veted as possible targets for the bomb but they eventually narrowed it down to four: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki. The criteria for target selection was that each target should have a high military strategic value, contain a large percentage of closely built frame buildings that would be susceptible to damage by blast and fire, and that the site be relatively untouched by previous bombings.

The selection of Nagasaki over say, Niigata, was due to the fact that Nagasaki was more concentrated in terms of city planning. Additionally the harbor was not the primary target, the city's factories and depots were.

The only condition the Japanese wanted concerned the emperor. And despite the demand for unconditional surrender, they got the condition anyway. So what the heck is wrong with a conditional surrender? It would have ended the war, something which the bombs actually didnt do.

Conditional surrenders take time and negotiation, time that the US was not prepared to entertain. Meanwhile the soviets were breathing down Truman's neck.

The bombs secured the unconditional surrender which was the only acceptable outcome from the perspective of the US.
-2

CletusAug. 08, 2012 - 09:52AM JST

Denon

Nagasaki was not the primary target. Also, you seem to be ignorant of what the criteria were. The harbor was not damaged.

You are correct Nagasaki was not the primary target but it was the back up target, its not like they just flew around and said oh this city will do. For the second bombing there was two targets and Nagasaki was the second. The weather saved the first target.

And 70% of Nagasaki's industrial base was destroyed in the blast.

The Hague conventions outlawed attacks on civilians before even WWI.

It did but only if the civilians where "civilians" meeting the criteria, which the vast majority in these cities where not. Many of the civilians had actually been evacuated before the bombings and those left worked in civil defense and also for the military making them belligerents under the terms of the Hague convention. A trip to the Hiroshima peace museum would actually show you that. As for Nagasaki it is also said that many more would have been saved had the Japanese actually took note when the air raid sirens sounded and evacuated to the shelters.
-1

papasmurfinjapanAug. 08, 2012 - 11:43AM JST

Conditional surrenders take time and negotiation, time that the US was not prepared to entertain. Meanwhile the soviets were breathing down Truman's neck.

Actually, before deciding to drop the a-bomb, then Sec.War Stimson recommended that the allies tell the Japanese they can keep the Emperor if they surrender (i.e. a conditional surrender). That is all the Japanese wanted, and the Allies knew it. However the political powers that be didn't like the idea of going soft on Japan, so they deliberately kept that out of the Postdam Declaration, leaving the Japanese to stall surrender to the Americans while trying to work out peace with the Russians.

Of course the US couldn't have that, and once Stimson's recommendation was rejected, he was gung-ho for the atomic bombs to get to the Japanese before the Russians.

Sure, the Japanese were bad for stalling, but the Allies were just as bad in that they knew exactly how to bring the war to an end without using the atomic bomb - guarantee the retention of the emperor - yet they chose not to take it. So yes, it was a preventable war crime.
4

TheQuestionAug. 08, 2012 - 11:56AM JST

Actually, before deciding to drop the a-bomb, then Sec.War Stimson recommended that the allies tell the Japanese they can keep the Emperor if they surrender (i.e. a conditional surrender).

Thats why Stimson was an advisor, he advises and as such his statments may be taken under advisement but they did not reflect the overwhelming sentiment of the US government. Everbody had a different opinion on how to take on japan.

Sure, the Japanese were bad for stalling, but the Allies were just as bad in that they knew exactly how to bring the war to an end without using the atomic bomb - guarantee the retention of the emperor - yet they chose not to take it.

Truman made it clear that the US would only accept an unconditional surrender and considering communications at the time being what they were it was likely impossible to have any idea what the japanese were really thinking. They made no outward sign of surrender and there was no way of telling whether such rumors were true or if the japanese were just trying to get more time to build up defenses. Japan didn't act so the US did.

So yes, it was a preventable war crime.

The atomic bombings do not fulfill the criteria for it to have been considered a war crime. Both sites were defended, both had military insillations, both had troops, and neither had provided the US with information to allow the differentiation between civilian and military targets. Even by a loose interpretation of international law the atomic bombings are merely contemptible, though not criminal.
0

papasmurfinjapanAug. 08, 2012 - 12:43PM JST

@ TheQuestion

Thank you for your interesting and well-informed reply. Just one follow-up question.

Thats why Stimson was an advisor, he advises and as such his statments may be taken under advisement but they did not reflect the overwhelming sentiment of the US government.

The US had experienced, well-respected, reasonable thinking politicians and soldiers (Eisenhower comes to mind) who questioned the need for the atomic bomb, yet their concerns fell on deaf ears.

Would you say the "overwhelming sentiment of the US government" was anti-Japanese with a desire for revenge? Was it scientific curiosity to see what damage an a-bomb would cause on a populated area? Was it fear of the Russians? Or was it merely, as the official version attests, to "save American lives"? I suspect it is a mixture of all of the above, which leads me to wonder how much the different factors contributed to the decision making.
1

A CanadianAug. 08, 2012 - 03:19PM JST

Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, September 30, 1938.

The Assembly,

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;
-1

chiisaishimaAug. 08, 2012 - 04:00PM JST

Its WAR folks and terrorizing the civilian population is a tactic used in Wars to break them into submission. Please name a war where there is no lost of innocent lives.

Its not hard to imagine that if the Japanese Government and the imperial army had the upper hand in military technology then, rest assured that they would not have any qualms dropping a couple of A-Bombs on Hawaii/ California and the Japanese civilian population would be holding massive celebrations on the streets shouting Banzai! Banzai!

Thank God history was on the US side!
0

papasmurfinjapanAug. 08, 2012 - 07:03PM JST

Its not hard to imagine that if the Japanese Government and the imperial army had the upper hand in military technology then, rest assured that they would not have any qualms dropping a couple of A-Bombs on Hawaii/ California and the Japanese civilian population would be holding massive celebrations on the streets shouting Banzai! Banzai!

And Americans to this day would be talking of the "war crime" committed against them by the Japanese.
2

TheQuestionAug. 08, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

The US had experienced, well-respected, reasonable thinking politicians and soldiers (Eisenhower comes to mind) who questioned the need for the atomic bomb, yet their concerns fell on deaf ears.

I'd question the term 'deaf ears', Truman himself had numerous reservations about the use of the bombs. The decision to use them was based on the informaiton he had available to him at the time.

Would you say the "overwhelming sentiment of the US government" was anti-Japanese with a desire for revenge?

I wouldn't say that, more like the war had become tiresome and the prospect of a full scale invasion of mainland japan that had been planned out in Operation Downfall was more gruesome than anybody was prepared to willingly entertain.

I suspect it is a mixture of all of the above, which leads me to wonder how much the different factors contributed to the decision making.

While I'm sure the prospect of conflict with the soviets came up in the conversation at some point I honestly think that the primary reason for the delivery of the atomic bombs was the quick resolution of the war.
-7

DenonAug. 08, 2012 - 09:56PM JST

Its WAR folks and terrorizing the civilian population is a tactic used in Wars

They were not terrorized. They were massacred. Nobody used your excuse to try and save the lives of Nazis that got hung for prosecuting all out war, as you seem to think is just the way it is.
1

chiisaishimaAug. 09, 2012 - 12:19AM JST

Its WAR Denon and unfortunately massacres, killings, or whatever you want to call it is part and parcel of WAR I know its wrong but its WAR. Its either you or the enemy that will end up massacred in any WAR.

Germany immediately surrendered with the suicide of Hitler in May 1945. This was not the case for Japan eventhough they were fighting a loosing war, Japan was adamant NEVER to surrender and would rather commit suicide than submit to the enemy. This was the Bushido spirit in which they fought the war. No Japanese soldier would even scantly thought of surrendering as it would bring dishonour to himself his family and the Emperor. The Americans understands this while fighting the Japanese in the Pacific.

Denon, if the Americans were really out to massacre as you put it. They would have dropped the bombs on Tokyo, Osaka or Kyoto or all 3 cities on the same day. Before the bomb were dropped on Hiroshima, US had called for Japan to surrender, Japan upheld the Bushido spirit and ignored it. Even after the first Bomb, Japan refused to surrender and so 3 days later US dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

Yes, the medicine administered was strong (double dose) but the patient needs it before they came to their senses.

The fact is Japan started the War and was the invader during the war. The war victims were US, China, Britain, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, South East Asia, Australia etc etc. Horrendous war crimes were committed on civilians during the Japanese invasion but never once did the Japanese hold a memorial for these victims or mention them in their A bomb memorials. Life is not fair and war is terrible, deal with it.
0

TigermothIIAug. 09, 2012 - 02:10AM JST

"of course, in Japan we were all aware of the bombings and the burnings of Tokyo and Yokohama and other big cities. It was horrible that we went there for the purpose of vindicating the laws of war, and yet saw every day how the Allies had violated them dreadfully".

Dude, for anyone in Japan to even make a comment about someone else 'violating the laws of war' is such a complete mockery and is so utterly disgusting that I think they should be shot for uttering such a comment. It's tantamount to the commandant of Buchenwald stating he 'didn't get fair justice'. C'mon.

Nigelboy I find it somewhat ironic that your continued insistence that my posts are pointless rubbish rather points to the real fact that you just seem to have difficulty comprehending the simple point that I'm making. When an aggressor nation plunges much of the world into a devastating conflagration that kills millions, they reap what they sow. That they were civilians to me is rather pointless - probably 90% of the soldiers fighting the war were civilians until they were forced into uniform by the actions of the Japanese. I find it pointless and a pretense at humanization that so many make a huge distinction. War it a terrible and evil pestilence visited upon mankind. Soldiers and civilians are all one nation. As such, whether I wear camouflage and carry a rifle, or wear a suit and work in an office, I still consider myself part of the nation, and the effort. That's how people carried themselves in the war, and that's why you don't see Londoners sitting about whining because the Germans bombed the bejeezes out of them. Therefore, it's no crime because the US was hitting targets in an enemy territory. And they were doing so to bring about an end to hostilities, and an end to loss of American and Allied lives. That's good enough for me. However much you want to suppose and speculate that the Japanese were on the virtue of surrender is your business.

I don't find this so difficult to understand. Now you might not agree with it, and that is your prerogative. I state it only as my opinion. I know these days we cannot provide opinion without being ridiculed, blasted, labeled and made to feel bloody stupid, but there it is.
0

TigermothIIAug. 09, 2012 - 02:16AM JST

And Americans to this day would be talking of the "war crime" committed against them by the Japanese.

No, I'm not so sure about that. If the Japanese had had the bomb and used it on America to win the war - and if they had gone about occupation in the same friendly and helpful way that they did in, say, China or the Philippines, we would very likely all be dead or in labor camps, and there would be no one left to utter such a phrase.
-1

TigermothIIAug. 09, 2012 - 02:30AM JST

I love those of you quoting the League of Nations. I don't think the League of Nations or any other organization had imagined warfare on the scale of the Second World War. The term Blitzkrieg wasn't really around then, and while it was all well and good to assume the aggressors would behave and a gentlemanly and dignified manner, they in fact did not. I should think that this would by default throw such declarations, no matter how well intended, out the window.

It could be argued that the Allies should have 'stuck to their guns' (no pun intended) and avoided at all costs the horrors inflicted by the enemy. But I would counter that such a measure would have - if not cost them a victory, certainly have made for a much longer and more difficult war and ultimate victorious conclusion. Yes, it has been pretty well shown that even the bombing for example of German industry did little to halt production - it certainly did put a serious damper on being able to transport food, ammunition and supplies to the troops who needed them. The war was largely about getting supplies from point A to point B. Major transportation centers were very often in major cities and centers of population.

Again, of course the humanistic and morality issues make one want to immediately denounce the deliberate bombing of civilian centers as a gross violation of war - a war crime. After a brief hesitation in 1940, the Axis powers had no qualms in violating this tanant. To think that the Allies should have taken the higher ground is noble, but stupid. If the choices are the deaths of civilians, or living under fascism (which would result in the mass killings of 'undesirable' civilians anyway) I would choose the former. Even if I were the civilian. It's a corny old axiom, but indeed freedom isn't free.
2

WilliBAug. 09, 2012 - 04:06AM JST

Every year the same question. No, of course in the context of the time they are not.
1

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 07:01AM JST

@ TigermothII

If the choices are the deaths of civilians, or living under fascism ... I would choose the former.

That was not the choice for Americans. The Japanese had no capacity to occupy the US. The choice was: 1) let's talk and negotiate. 2) Invade Japanese homeland and loose many servicemen. 3) Nuke Japanese civilians and force them to surrender. Three sounds good if you are an American politician. Does not make it less illegal.

The issue here is actually really simple: to kill civilians in order to achieve military aims was (and still is) a war crime. Period.
0

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 07:04AM JST

To repeat:

The issue is really simple: to deliberately kill civilians in order to achieve military aims was (and still is) a war crime. Period.

I am frankly baffled so many people voted "no" in this poll.
2

sfjp330Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:13AM JST

Ishiwara Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:01AM JST The issue here is actually really simple: to kill civilians in order to achieve military aims was (and still is) a war crime. Period.

This is exactly what JIA did to the neighboring countries from 1931-45. So it's ok for Japan to do it but if other countries do it to you, you start crying unfair. Remember, the U.S. was still at war with Japan in August 6, 1945.
4

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 07:26AM JST

@sfjp330

This is exactly what JIA did to the neighboring countries from 1931-45. So it's ok for Japan to do it but if other countries do it to you, you start crying unfair.

Of course it was NOT OK for Japan to commit all their war crimes. That is why they are called war crimes. Why is it so hard to admit that the allies also committed war crimes?
-2

Consume my painAug. 09, 2012 - 07:33AM JST

All the bodies were mutilated. Most of us cannot judge this due to it being so long ago. History is viewed differently by each person, all have some agenda whether deliberate or not.

I would take with a pinch of salt any opinions of a so called "patriot" or "phile" ie Japanophile. This things must be looked at without bias and most posters here are full of bias where as right now i am full of beer.
3

sfjp330Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:35AM JST

Ishiwara Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:26AM JST Why is it so hard to admit that the allies also committed war crimes?

In Okinawa invasion in 1945, can you distingush the difference between Okinawan civilians and JIA? So what do you want the U.S. soldiers to do? Some of these obachan and ojichun were carrying concealed weapons, grenades and blowing up U.S. soldiers on every chance they get. So, where do you draw the line?
3

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 07:40AM JST

@ sfjp330

In Okinawa invasion in 1945, can you distingush the difference between Okinawan civilians and JIA? So what do you want the U.S. soldiers to do? Some of these obachan and ojichun were carrying concealed weapons, grenades and blowing up U.S. soldiers on every chance they get. So, where do you draw the line?

Agreed. And overall, I think allied soldiers fought more humanely than the IJA did. In fact, the IJA killed a lot of Okinawans. But that is not the question here, we are talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2

sfjp330Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:48AM JST

Ishikawa...if you said Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing is a war crime, then what about the Tokyo fire bombing in 1944, which estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people that were mostly civilians? This is more than Hiroshima a-bomb. How do you categories this? Another war crime to you?
1

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 07:53AM JST

Time out. We need to clear up what we are talking about.

"Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime?" is the question. Answer is yes of course, deliberately killing civilians is a warcrime. It was so by the standards of the time, and it was so now.

"Did Japan start with bombing civilians" (Yes, in China in 1937) "Did Japan commit more warcrimes" (yes) "Would I have done the same?" (perhaps) "Did it end the war more quickly? (Perhaps, perhaps not) " should Japan remember more their own war crimes, rather than focusing on Hiroshima? (perhaps),

These are all different questions.
-2

sfjp330Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:58AM JST

Ishiwara Aug. 09, 2012 - 07:53AM JST. "Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime?" is the question. Answer is yes of course, deliberately killing civilians is a warcrime.

We know what the question is. Your dodging the question. What makes Hiroshma unique compare to Tokyo fire bombing? In Tokyo, the innocent civilians were also the main target and killed more than Hiroshima.
1

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 08:07AM JST

@ sfjp330

We know what the question is. Your dodging the question. What makes Hiroshma unique compare to Tokyo fire bombing? In Tokyo, the innocent civilians were also the main target and killed more than Hiroshima.

I am not dodging any question. The Tokyo firebombing was also a warcrime. And that of Osaka, Nagoya, and other cities as well.
1

sfjp330Aug. 09, 2012 - 08:42AM JST

Ishiwara....In mid 1945, If U.S. decided not use the atomic bomb, what would've happened? What if U.S. military decided to to have a full scale invasion in Kyushu? There would've been heavy casualties on both sides, and the estimated kill ratio was 22 Japanese kill for every one of U.S. troops. The JIA and the Japanese civilians would be in the front line fighting against the U.S. and thousands and thousands of innocent people would've been killed. At the time, after Japan refused to surrender, and do you think this was better alternative for U.S. to invade Kyushu and Honshu to win the war unconditionally? If this happened, would you consider invasion of Kyushu as war crime?
0

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 09:00AM JST

@ sfjp330

You are slightly confused. The US did not have to invade Japan. It was not like God came down from heaven and told them to do this. The Americans decided they wanted "unconditional surrender," something totally unprecedented. They could have responded to Japanese feelers for negotiation and conditional surrender.

If this happened, would you consider invasion of Kyushu as war crime?

Of course not. Invading Kyushu would have been a legitimate act of war.
-2

sfjp330Aug. 09, 2012 - 09:34AM JST

Ishiwara Aug. 09, 2012 - 09:00AM JST The Americans decided they wanted "unconditional surrender," something totally unprecedented. They could have responded to Japanese feelers for negotiation and conditional surrender.

Are you serious? How can you have negotiatons? Why would you ask for conditions knowing what the outcome of war is? The U.S. had already suffered enough loss during the war and did not want to send a million soldiers to their death in an invasion of Japan. Emperor Hirohito would not accept defeat and their people would fight to the death. Even after the A-bombs were dropped they didn't surrender immediately. The Japanese were concerned of the Soviet's threat to attack Northern Japan.
1

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 09:49AM JST

@sfjp330

Did you read what I wrote? The US had a choice NOT to invade Japan. If they did not want to loose a million men, then they should not continue to fight.

The U.S. had already suffered enough loss during the war

Well, the US lost less than 100,000 in the Pacific war. Horrible as it was, this was actually not a lot for the times. (The Soviets lost around 10 million, not counting civilians.) The US also lost almost no civilian lives.

And as I said, and many posts above have pointed out, the Japanese were already on their knees, short of food (through the naval blockade), and had begun asking for negotiations.

And to repeat, this is all besides the point. The question is if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. And the answer is of course yes. It is illegal to kill civilians. What's so difficult to understand about that?
1

CletusAug. 09, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

Ishiwara

The US had a choice NOT to invade Japan. If they did not want to loose a million men, then they should not continue to fight.

So your saying they should let the Japanese get away with their aggression, murder, genocide and other atrocities that they committed during their rampage?

And as I said, and many posts above have pointed out, the Japanese were already on their knees, short of food (through the naval blockade), and had begun asking for negotiations.

Hmm and while they asked for these negotiations they still fought, their leaders still sent out orders to murder all remaining POW's at some camps and they continued to carry out their crimes around their captured areas. How many more people had to die while Japan negotiated.

The question is if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. And the answer is of course yes. It is illegal to kill civilians. What's so difficult to understand about that?

If you believe that these attacks where war crimes then so be it. However in the scheme of things that occurred in WW2 these "war crimes" are at the bottom end of the scale compared to some other events many of them carried out by the very people that now claim victim status for being on the receiving end of these bombs or do you forget that?
-5

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 10:07AM JST

What's so difficult to understand about that?

Its not. They understand. They just dont want to accept the truth.
-4

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 10:14AM JST

There would've been heavy casualties on both sides,

You dont kill women and babies to avoid military casualties.

The JIA and the Japanese civilians would be in the front line fighting against the U.S. and thousands and thousands of innocent people would've been killed.

Anyone who picks up a weapon on the front lines is no longer innocent, so no, you grossly overestimate the number of innocents that would be killed to attempt to justify the number of real innocents that were actually massacred.

We know what the question is. Your dodging the question. What makes Hiroshma unique compare to Tokyo fire bombing?

You accuse others of dodging? You just dodged the question again by yet again asking a completely different question!

The firebombings and nukings were all war crimes! Stop dodging!
-3

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 10:20AM JST

@Cletus

So your saying they should let the Japanese get away with their aggression, murder, genocide and other atrocities that they committed during their rampage?

No, that would not be right of course. But ask yourself; what is more humane: to give a guarantee about the Emperor and at least try and talk, or just immediately drop not one nuke, but two on innocent civilians?

However in the scheme of things that occurred in WW2 these "war crimes" are at the bottom end of the scale compared to some other events many of them carried out by the very people that now claim victim status for being on the receiving end of these bombs or do you forget that?

Sorry, even the conventional bombing of Tokyo alone burned more than 100,000 people alive. If you add to that the bombing of 70 or so other cities and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don't think that is the "bottom end," but rather the "high end," even by WWII standards.

Does it allow Japan to claim victim status? Yes. Japan was both aggressor and victim. So was Germany and Italy.
-2

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 10:24AM JST

Dude, for anyone in Japan to even make a comment about someone else 'violating the laws of war' is such a complete mockery

Right is right and it does not change with nationality. Trying to tell someone their correct answer is now wrong because of where they were born is the complete mockery here.

I know Japanese who know damned well the atrocities committed by both Imperial Japan and America of WWII. But just as we see abject and willful ignorance of American atrocities too, it does not make those people wrong about Japanese atrocities. In other words, yes it is possible for anyone to be half-right. The only people even close to being completely right know that both sides committed atrocities and admit it. There are bad apples in every barrel, as sure as most Americans and most Japanese are good people, but still they have prison populations, politicians and lawyers! There is a bit of evil everywhere!
0

OnniyamaAug. 09, 2012 - 10:27AM JST

The first bomb, no. The second bomb, yes.
0

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 10:31AM JST

@ Onniyama

The first bomb, no. The second bomb, yes.

Interesting position to take. Why the distinction?
-7

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 11:14AM JST

Not that I even think the numbers are legit, but its nice to see the numbers finally start to turn around and the number of people who realize that this was a war crime and vote that way increase.
-2

CletusAug. 09, 2012 - 11:22AM JST

Ishiwara

I think you just showed you are incapable of rationally and dispassionately discussing this issue. You simply think in terms of revenge. So by the same logic, would it now be OK for the US to use carbombs against Iraqi civilians and behead prisoners live on CNN?

Hmm, let me ask you then. Are you Japanese? If so the exact same comment you just threw at me applies to you.

And what exactly did the US need to take revenge for? Pearl Harbor? A conventional military attack.

Who is talking revenge. Japan started a war of aggression and the outcome of that war was it gets bombed. What do you think a nation can start a war of aggression then throw its hands up and say dont hurt us..... Were innocent

"Japan" did not get punished. Innocent women and children did. They were not in Indonesia or Vietnam, they were at home, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes Japan did get punished. As for your innocent women and children comment, well why were these cities used as military cities if the Japanese where so worried about their civilians. Why was Hiroshima home to the 2nd Army HQ smack bang in the middle of the city if they were so caring about their civilians. You do not place valuable military targets in the middle of civilians and then complain about civilian losses. Unless you Japan that is
3

BellpeppersAug. 09, 2012 - 11:46AM JST

No. It's war (which is a combination of crimes.)
-6

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 12:39PM JST

You do not place valuable military targets in the middle of civilians and then complain about civilian losses.

You think the people complaining are the same people who decided the location of the base??

You think a whole city has to be destroyed to get to one HQ??

You think if a criminal grabs an innocent person to use as a human shield, that you are justified to shoot straight through the innocent to kill the criminal? Without even doing a single thing to avoid killing the innocent?

If this is your position, then the Pentagon is not nearly far enough away from Washington D.C.!
3

OnniyamaAug. 09, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

Ishiwara. I just feel that the first bomb was enough to convince the Japanese to capitulate (3 days was not enough time for them to adequately assess the situation and make a decision) and enough to show the Russians the power they now possessed. The second bomb was just plain cruel (in so short a time that is). Unfortunately, the U.S. failed to use their upper hand to drive the Russians out of eastern Europe and we all know the suffering that mistake caused.
-2

CletusAug. 09, 2012 - 12:48PM JST

Denon

You think a whole city has to be destroyed to get to one HQ??

Do you seriously think that was the only military target in Hiroshima? Maybe you should rely less on video games and more on history books for your facts.
0

irishosaruAug. 09, 2012 - 06:38PM JST

Yes I do.

Here's a quote from defense secretary McNamara, recalling a conversation he had with General Curtis LeMay:

"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
0

OlegekAug. 09, 2012 - 08:44PM JST

Onniyama Unfortunately, the U.S. failed to use their upper hand to drive the Russians out of eastern Europe and we all know the suffering that mistake caused.

Common mistake.... US has not not "upper hand"

And it was more simple and more honest way - to use its "upper hand" and to beat Nazi Germany before Russian comes in Europe....

They was not able to beat Adolf Hitler - so how was it possible to beat Red Army which defeat Fürer?
0

OnniyamaAug. 09, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

Olegek. It would have taken relatively little to defeat Russia after WW2. One, the Allies had several million troops and 250 000 aircraft sitting in Europe. Two, they had the bomb. Three, they had a couple million highly trained German troops who would have loved to have joined the Allies to repel the Communists out of Europe. That is how. It was simply that the Allied leaders could not agree on a unified plan.
0

sonnoujouiAug. 09, 2012 - 11:33PM JST

Looking at the poll, it seems like 2/3 of the JT accounts are actually americans.
0

TigermothIIAug. 10, 2012 - 12:46AM JST

Maybe you should rely less on video games and more on history books for your facts.

Best line ever.

The only people even close to being completely right know that both sides committed atrocities and admit it.

Ah, but therein lies one of the key problems. Japan has continuously refused to admit most of their atrocities, fault and guilt in the war (as so often noted in history text books that seem to 'leave out' vital parts). Americans don't deny that they dropped the bombs. And despite that I and quite a few others believe it was justified, there are many in America that would disagree and think it an abomination. I think that's normal. What's not normal is that Japan too often wants to be the victim rather than just shoulder the blame and move on. The Japanese always seem to have a history of a strong sense of honor. I should think it would be much more honorable to accept guilt rather than to allay it and point fingers.
-1

IshiwaraAug. 10, 2012 - 02:41AM JST

@Tigermothill

Japan has continuously refused to admit most of their atrocities, fault and guilt in the war (as so often noted in history text books that seem to 'leave out' vital parts). Americans don't deny that they dropped the bombs.

The Japanese government has apologized dozens of times. Wikipedia even has a whole list. Textbooks mention Japanese aggression and the Nanking massacre (for the latter, it mentions usually either "a very large number of people" or a figure the Chinese don't agree with).

Americans don't deny dropping the bomb, which would be hard to do. But America hides a lot in their history textbooks: massacres on the Philippines in 1900-1910, No Gun Ri, Vietnam, Latin America.

The discussion here is on the Abomb, not on what the Japanese do with it. Japanese don't claim victim status, Japan was an aggressor. But many hope Hiroshima and Nagasaki will not be repeated. Perhaps an American apology would help.
-6

wtfjapanAug. 10, 2012 - 03:07AM JST

I wish these war crime conspirators would give it a break, simple fact America wanted the war ended as quickly as possible with as few lives lost to the allies as possible, Japan started the war, they lost the war, if they want someone to apologize they should have demanded the emperor and the imperial army do it since it was them who brainwashed the population into fighting
0

sfjp330Aug. 10, 2012 - 04:08AM JST

DenonAug. 09, 2012 - 12:39PM JST You do not place valuable military targets in the middle of civilians and then complain about civilian losses. You think a whole city has to be destroyed to get to one HQ??

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected. Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifty-Ninth Army, and most of the 224th Division, and a mobile unit. The Hiroshima's air defenses comprised five batteries anti-aircraft guns. Hiroshima was a supplier and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.
1

KabukiloverAug. 10, 2012 - 04:50AM JST

If we accept that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes because they killed a largely civilian population and not simply because A-bombs were used then we are obligated to accept all civilian bombings as war crimes. In that case all the combatants, including Japan, were guilty. Fifteen percent of the casualties in WWII were civilians.

When we talk about what "Japan" was going to do about the war we need to consider those in command. The military, Navy and Army, held the most power next to Hirohito in the government. They were prepared to fight to the last Japanese. When Hirohito decided to surrender (though the actual word was not used) the military commanders attempted a coupe, which almost succeeded. When it failed they killed themselves.

As far as the so-called attempts to surrender, this was the unofficial work of a weaker faction in the cabinet. What they wanted was a negotiated peace. This actually was nothing new. The whole objective of Pearl Harbor was to force the US to not impose sanctions on Japan. And there was division in the cabinet regarding the attack. The strongest side, the military, got its way. An interesting side note is that apparently Hirohito's mother was opposed to the attack--a classic case of the dangers of not listening to your mother.

No idea what Hirohito's mom said about anything after that, but Nagasaki did it for Hirohito. It was a major turnaround, as his entire approach to the war was always attack and never retreat. Yes, the A-bombs were decisive in finally getting Japan to surrender (without actually saying so). Like it or not.

The Japanese leaders knew what those bombs were. They, like the Germans, were working on one. In fact a German submarine was carrying enriched uranium to Japan when Germany surrendered. The captain surrendered to the US. The Japanese scientists on board killed themselves.

There are a lot of agendas tacked on to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that have nothing to do with the actual state of the war in the summer of 1945. Some are wholesome, like using the A-bombings to prove that nuclear war was not a good thing, and some are bad, like the lies perpetuated by the Japanese right-wing and various Axis Sallies in the West who say Japan was morally good and the US was bad. Others having used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to dodge Japan's hideous war crimes (the victim Japan, worst victim of the war stuff). Others have used the A-bombings inappropriately (in my view) to get at the American military-industrial complex (a truly evil institution).

In retrospect, what alternatives alternatives were there to the A-bombs? Invasion of Honshu without using the A-bombs? Consider the casualties and time it would take. Consider the public fury when there was the possibility of bring the war to a quick end with A-bombs. What about bombing the Imperial Palace and the Army and Navy HQs a few blocks away. This could very well have wrecked the American plans to use Hirohito as the Occupation's figurehead to maintain peace and an acceptable stability.

After the fact scenarios are nice but useless.

Truman was in double bind. Having the A-bomb he was obligated to use it. Yet at the same time, if he used it he was obligated to face retrospective condemnation for using this horrid and then exotic weapon on a civilian population.

The use of the atom bombs was business as usual, only the explosives were different. For those on the ground, was dying more pleasant from conventional fire bombs on Tokyo than being A-bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? War truly is hell, which is a good reason to not have wars.

Excuse me. I'm in a rush and not proofreading. Pardon errors.
1

ojiiu812badboyAug. 10, 2012 - 04:52AM JST

Truman believed that he had to stop the war as the numbers of dead grew larger on both sides. He was fully responsible, because he (the president) was the only one who could give the order. Rather than this, I tried to "walk in his moccasins" and can't imagine the pain that man took to his grave. President Obama said let's talk to our enemies, let'a have a dialogue, and he got a lot flack for that. We still haven't learned. So many lives were lost and here we are on Japanese soil debating. Makes sense? Every war is a crime!
-1

IshiwaraAug. 10, 2012 - 07:24AM JST

The bottom line is: deliberate killing of civilians to achieve your aims was at the time, and still is, a war crime.

(Obviously, the fact that Japan committed more war crimes (Nanjing, pow's etc.) does not make nuclear bombing less of a crime.)

In WWI, Germans killed random Belgium civilians to stop what they thought was civilian armed resistance. War crime? Yes. In 1900-1910, in the Philippines, American troops were told to "kill every boy over 10 years old" to stop resistance: war crime. In My Lai, Vietnam, American troops killed 500 civilians as either revenge, or to stop Vietcong activity in that area: war crime.

Everybody agrees that these actions (and yes, the many Japanese actions in Asia) were war crimes. Only about the Abombs people start to rationalize and justify. Bizarre.
1

John ConstantineAug. 10, 2012 - 08:33AM JST

If memory serves correctly the decision was based on the fact that when America went after Okinawa America suffered several thousand casualties but the Japanese suffered far worse...something like 12 thousand American versus over 150-200 thousand soldiers/civilians...I could be very wrong. However on the mainland "Japan" there was a slogan something like "A Nation of 150 million but we die as One". At one point they even began to train civilians with bamboo spears with pads on the end as not to hurt each other during training. I saw photos of the women/children training. If that is true...I am not sure of the stats as I was not part of that era. However after America applied the casualty rate versus population as was suffered in Okinawa it was said that the casulty rate could be over a million. Which was why the decided to drop the bombs...in order to prevent such a waste of life. I am not sure about the exact numbers but they (America) thought this solution was the lesser of two evils.

Would I have dropped them on populated cities...no. A demonstartion might have done wonders and avoided such acts but we will never know.
-1

lucabrasiAug. 10, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

However after America applied the casualty rate versus population as was suffered in Okinawa it was said that the casulty rate could be over a million. Which was why the decided to drop the bombs...in order to prevent such a waste of life.

A seriously benign view of the US government and its military. Nothing to do with intimidating the Soviets, then? Nothing to do with satisfying the bloodlust of the US population at the time? Nothing to do with the military wanting to try out its new toy, and use data from the explosions to improve the design of future bombs? No, it was all for the sake of the Japanese folks....
3

RickyrabAug. 10, 2012 - 09:20AM JST

The whole war was a war crime. Come on, now.
1

Dennis BauerAug. 10, 2012 - 09:26AM JST

lovely all those justifications, cities are not militairy targets, but alas history is written by the victors.
3

RickyrabAug. 10, 2012 - 09:29AM JST

Let's see.... 1) Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and committed atrocities in China. 2) America was roused, and parts of it (such as California) decided to quarantine Japanese. 3) Both countries fought each other over the Pacific Ocean and demolished various places, such as Manila, to get the enemy out of the way. 4)By mid 1945, the US was getting a bit tired of fighting, having already defeated the Nazis, and they wanted a quick end to the war. We had this new weapon at hand and we didn't know what it was going to do. We had some clue, though - a "munitions explosion" in Alamogordo that somehow got eclipsed by an actual munitions explosion in Halifax. So Truman did what he did - he authorized the dropping of the Bomb, and ended the war. Whether it was a war crime, I'm not sure, but what he did was hurtful to many people. Couldn't the Bomb have been dropped offshore or on some uninhabited area?
0

lucabrasiAug. 10, 2012 - 09:47AM JST

@Ricky

Couldn't the Bomb have been dropped offshore or on some uninhabited area?

No human data for the military scientists :(
1

KabukiloverAug. 10, 2012 - 09:58AM JST

One big error in my above. In WWII 50%, not 15% or the casualties were civilians.
-1

KabukiloverAug. 10, 2012 - 10:13AM JST

From　above: "...but alas history is written by the victors." In Japan it is written by the losers. Japanese textbooks are written by the losers. Textbooks are long on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and short on Japanese crimes against humanity, if they are mentioned at all.

Japan as a nation is short of remorse for the atrocities it committed in its Imperial aggressions but makes up for it with an infinite capacity for self-pity. The catch phrase "Japan is the only country to to be Atom-bombed" is used often for a multiple purposes.

The yearly pity parties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are products Japan's selective amnesia. Fortunately, they have also become platforms against nuclear weapons and, lately, nuclear power
4

lucabrasiAug. 10, 2012 - 10:17AM JST

The yearly pity parties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Lovely turn of phrase... hope to hear you applying it soon to the 9/11 memorial services.
-1

IshiwaraAug. 10, 2012 - 11:22AM JST

@ Kabukilover

Textbooks are long on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and short on Japanese crimes against humanity, if they are mentioned at all.

This is a common misperception. The vast majority of textbooks discuss Japan's aggression and also the Nanjing massacre. The controversial right-wing textbooks that whitewash everything have been adopted by only 0.25% of schools.

(This is not meant to undermine your point that Japan should pay more attention to Japan's crimes than to the Abomb.)
-4

CletusAug. 10, 2012 - 11:49AM JST

Ishiwara

This is a common misperception. The vast majority of textbooks discuss Japan's aggression and also the Nanjing massacre. The controversial right-wing textbooks that whitewash everything have been adopted by only 0.25% of schools.

If Japanese textbooks are anything like the information at the Japanese museums (i.e. Yasukuni shrine museum, Hiroshima Peace park museum, Yamato museum etc etc) then there will be hardly a mention of Japanese aggression. Infact the only mention is a small comment followed by paragraph after paragraph of how the poor Japanese where forced into the war by the evil white man and how the poor Japanese suffered at the hands of the evil US. About the only museum in the whole of Japan that is remotely unbiased is the one on Okinawa. That shows both sides of the story and is a rare thing in Japan
0

ProbieAug. 10, 2012 - 12:45PM JST

As historian Richard B. Frank pointed out in No Bomb, No End in What If? 2, there has never been the slightest evidence that the Japanese government ever offered terms that the Allies could have found acceptable. Even after the bombs fell, there was an attempted coup by hard-line officers opposed to surrender. If the U.S. invasion plans had failed catastrophically or, more likely, been abandoned as unworkable, the only available strategy would have been starving Japan into submission, coupled, more than likely, with a Russian invasion from the north. Sometimes a horrible end is preferable to horrors without end.
-1

OlegekAug. 10, 2012 - 10:04PM JST

@Onniyama

Olegek. It would have taken relatively little to defeat Russia after WW2. One, the Allies had several million troops and 250 000 aircraft sitting in Europe. Two, they had the bomb.

So why in this situation Allies didn't beat Adolf ? In really they didn't make anything big agains Wermacht...

Using all this strenght it was so easy to beat Japanes Empire...

But . Roosevelt and Churchill need so bad Russian help in Far East ... tell me why ?

Three, they had a couple million highly trained German troops who would have loved to have joined the Allies to repel the Communists out of Europe.

Germans would be happy to fight for those who destroyed their country... of cause....

And what about Anglo-Saxson heroes ?
-3

nigelboyAug. 10, 2012 - 10:13PM JST

I don't find this so difficult to understand. Now you might not agree with it, and that is your prerogative. I state it only as my opinion. I know these days we cannot provide opinion without being ridiculed, blasted, labeled and made to feel bloody stupid, but there it is.

TigermothII

Sorry for my absence. It's quit obvious that I don't agree with your opinion. Furthermore, your post needs to be ridiculed in the sense that what it boils down to is,

You did first. You did it to others. You did it more.

There is absolutely no substance there to even counter argue your points.

Having said that, I stated my point in another article which is,

1) If one is considered a crime, so is the other. 2) If one is not considered a crime, then neither is the other.
-8

just-a-bigguyAug. 11, 2012 - 02:49AM JST

Warcrimes were for losers!
-2

IshiwaraAug. 11, 2012 - 02:57AM JST

@ Probie

As historian Richard B. Frank pointed out...

Richard Frank is only one historian, and many historians (including from the US and Europe) don't agree with his analysis. Many don't agree with his teleological reasoning: that Japan had to surrender unconditionally, and that America was the instrument in executing this. Also, he does not answer very convincingly why a second bomb on Nagasaki was necessary.

Frank, by the way, was also a former marine officer who saw action in Vietnam. This has helped him become a good military historian, but has made him less objective. He also wrote for The Weekly Standard an ultra-right wing platform in the US.
-3

IshiwaraAug. 11, 2012 - 03:05AM JST

@ Cletus

If Japanese textbooks are anything like the information at the Japanese museums (i.e. Yasukuni shrine museum, Hiroshima Peace park museum, Yamato museum etc etc) then there will be hardly a mention of Japanese aggression. Infact the only mention is a small comment followed by paragraph after paragraph of how the poor Japanese where forced into the war by the evil white man and how the poor Japanese suffered at the hands of the evil US. About the only museum in the whole of Japan that is remotely unbiased is the one on Okinawa. That shows both sides of the story and is a rare thing in Japan.

Your comment shows you have not read the textbooks in Japanese.

By the way, you don't think that Western colonialism is not a long-term cause for the Pacific war? And that the ABCD blockade, and American help to the Chiang Kai Shek, the decision to double the size of the US fleet, and the relocation of the American fleet to Pearl Harbor, are all factors that led to the war?

And what do you expect from the Hiroshima museum: 5 halls of details about Nanjing and then how the heroic Americans came and saved the Japanese from themselves? It is a museum about Hiroshima.

If you have the chance, visit the Osaka Peace Museum. Very good museum.
1

andrewfx51Aug. 11, 2012 - 03:08AM JST

Pardoning members of Unit 731 so the US could use their research was a war crime. The bomb? Hard to say. I've had some conspiracy theorists point out that one bomb was dropped on the Catholic centre of Japan (Nagasaki) and that it was selected for that reason, but don't think there's much truth to it though.

Many people died in the atomic blasts, a tragedy, but after their deaths, the world is yet to see an atomic weapon used on humans since, and that I think is something we can all be glad of - martyred for peace, irrespective of the leadership of the time.

Just hope the escalation of nationalism in East Asia subsides, and quickly, or we could all be asking similar questions of events in our lifetimes.
1

sfjp330Aug. 11, 2012 - 03:46AM JST

Ishiwara Aug. 11, 2012 - 03:05AM JST. And what do you expect from the Hiroshima museum: 5 halls of details about Nanjing and then how the heroic Americans came and saved the Japanese from themselves? It is a museum about Hiroshima.

I expect more. It's all about Japan continuing playing the victim card and nothing else is allowed. To have a better understanding of atrocities that were committed by JIA to their neighboring countries, is there any large museum in Tokyo or other major cities that detail the massacure of Nanjing, Manila, Manchuria, and other parts of Southeast Asia that are paid by the Japan goverment? In a annual August 6th rememberance, dide anybody including Noda mentioned about the sufferings that Japan caused to their neighbors? No wonder Chinese delegation never attends Hiroshima memorial.
1

HonestDictatorAug. 11, 2012 - 04:20AM JST

While attacking civilians during a war is a war crime back during the time the bombs were dropped was due to the fact that back in those days the Japanese military and government was based on a system where every Japanese citizen was commanded to fight to the last man or woman should the US step on their soil. Surrender was not an option, and the US was informed that everyone would attack and kill the US soldiers that landed at that time. Believe it or not the US actually lost a lot of soldiers than necessary just to take Iwo Jima, Okinawa and also some Japanese occupied bases in southeast asia. So with those experiences in mind the US approached the Japanese homeland with the expectations that it would be equally bad with the "orders' that the Japanese Imperial Military had at the time. The bombs still did cost many uncessary deaths on the Japanese civilian side for not just the war period but many decades afterwards.

Just my opinion but I do believe there is something out in the universe that "balances" the scales. The war crimes caused by the Japanese military in China and the other countries they invaded were visited back upon the people. Same with many of the Nazi's and their roles with genocide. The US also lost a lot over periods of time due to whatever wrong choices were made. Karma (if you believe in it like that ) does exist. People will pay one way or another for any evil they have commited.
-2
tkoind2Aug. 11, 2012 - 10:16AM JST
1. It was a crime for the leaders of Japan to initiate the war. The war was lost from day 1. A simple matter of economic capacity of the allies vs. Japan. A foregone conclusion.
2. It was a crime for the leaders of Japan to call upon the people here to choose suicide over survival. A rational government would have surrendered when the end in defeat was so clearly inevitable.
3. War is itself an attrocity. The firebombings in Japan destroyed more lives than the nuclear bombs. But these horrific destructions of nearly every major city in Japan are paled by the nuclear attacks. But in my opinion equal in their human horror.
4. I believe that had the bombs not been dropped, millions more on both sides would have died. You only need look at Saipan and Okinawa as examples of how a mainland invasion would have gone.
5. And yet I believe that the use of these nuclear weapons was also a criminal act. One that I am sure the leaders of the time weighed against the alternatives. Either way it was destined to be horrific, bloody and criminal.
All this stems from human inability to avoid war, the ultimate crime.
-2

IshiwaraAug. 11, 2012 - 11:01AM JST

@ Honestdictator

Just my opinion but I do believe there is something out in the universe that "balances" the scales. The war crimes caused by the Japanese military in China and the other countries they invaded were visited back upon the people. Same with many of the Nazi's and their roles with genocide. The US also lost a lot over periods of time due to whatever wrong choices were made. Karma (if you believe in it like that ) does exist. People will pay one way or another for any evil they have committed.

I understand why things look like karma from a large perspective, and in retrospect. But I think the problem with such a view is that it was not "Japan" that was punished, but innocent women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I know you probably did not intend it this way, but some people use the same logic with 9/11, that it "America" had it coming because of their aggressive foreign policy.
-1
IshiwaraAug. 11, 2012 - 11:12AM JST
@ tkoind2

Interesting and balanced view; allow me some some comments:
1. It was a crime for the leaders of Japan to initiate the war. The war was lost from day 1. A simple matter of economic capacity of the allies vs. Japan. A foregone conclusion.
True. But there are some mitigating factors. The Japanese thought they were "encircled" by the Americans, British, Dutch, and Chinese. Nobody sold them oil, and why would a small country like Holland, that colonized Indonesia, have the right to that oil? And in 1940, the US was already helping China, doubling the fleet, and bringing it to Hawaii, which many Japanese saw as a threat. The Japanese did not count on the US fighting a total war. Big miscalculation.

2.It was a crime for the leaders of Japan to call upon the people here to choose suicide over survival. A rational government would have surrendered when the end in defeat was so clearly inevitable.

A lot of Japanese were indeed angry with the Japanese leadership in 1945 for bringing such misery. But calling on everyone to "fight to the last" was not that unusual. Even Churchill's famous speeches called on everyone fighting and to "never surrender." Also, the US treated Japan quite nicely after 1945, but how would you know this was going to happen? They just firebombed all major Japanese cities. Maybe they'll rape everyone, kill the Emperor, turn Japan into a second Philippines?

I think I agree with 3-5. The US calculated, knew dropping atomic bombs was a warcrime, and decided to do it anyway in order to minimize their own losses.

With firebombing more than 100,000 civilians to death in Tokyo, they had already crossed a moral threshold.
1

Nancy FoustAug. 11, 2012 - 11:31AM JST

The bombings were more about the US dick-waving at the USSR. Japan was already trying to work out surrender terms and the US was well aware of this. The USSR was prepping for invasion. These two cities were full of women and children. Truman swore he would not use the bomb on civilians then turned around and did. Things Japan did were wrong. What the US did was wrong. The US is so full of the notion that the bombing was needed to end the war and prevent more deaths. This is said in schools and repeated whenever the bombings are brought up. It needs to stop. It prevents any real understanding or analysis of what the US did.
1

DisillusionedAug. 11, 2012 - 04:35PM JST

Wow! So many untruths in this thread. Japan was not about to surrender at all! Yes, the people were staving and yes, their military had just about run out of weapons, but they were instructed to keep fighting to the last man or to kill themselves to avoid being enslaved by the US war machine (as they saw it). The southern islands were the hot seats at the end of the war and there were many mass-suicides by Japanese.

However, the question is, was dropping the bombs a war crime? Isn't all war a crime? How can there be laws to a war? There has been a lot of controversy over the years about the reasons for the bombs being dropped. One of my favorites is, the US wanted to get control of Japan before the 2 million Russian troops waiting in the north swept through. The had orders to kill everyone and leave Japan a desert. There are also many politically motivated scenarios for reasons the bombs were dropped, but the truth is, the US and the rest of the allied forces were stretched to their limits and the war had to be ended regardless of the circumstances and that is all there is to it. Japan was not the victim in this war. They were the aggressors and had been for the first half of last century. I have no sympathy for the Japanese over the bombings. The crimes they committed throughout Asia in the 40 years leading up to the bombing were far worse. Any schoolboy knows what happens when you start a fight with the biggest kid in the playground. He gets thumped! As did the Japanese!
3

HonestDictatorAug. 12, 2012 - 05:41AM JST

I know you probably did not intend it this way, but some people use the same logic with 9/11, that it "America" had it coming because of their aggressive foreign policy.

Actually, that is exactly what I meant in my comment. It doesn't matter who is killed or harmed in the process (innocent or not) all "debts" must be paid. It may come in many forms, it may come all at once, or over a long period of time. During WWII there were some US and NATO soldiers on the "good side" that commited equally horrible atrocities to the enemy as well.
2

cornbread1Aug. 12, 2012 - 05:50AM JST

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

Also true for S. Korea's anger towards Japan all these years.
0

FeihuAug. 12, 2012 - 12:07PM JST

The losers of wars commit war crimes. The winners make "tactical errors".
1

GigamaxAug. 12, 2012 - 12:55PM JST

People who say there not war crimes are just desperate.

You see, even if you are rushing someone to the hospital, speeding is still a crime. It may however be justified.

But when defenders of the bombings avoid the "justified crime" discussion, and instead try to declare it just wasn't a crime, you know they are desperate. And they are desperate because they know in their heart of hearts that it was a crime and it was not even justified. But admit all that takes a type of courage they just don't have. So no surprise they go all out to defend the cowardice of these war crimes.
3

Akemi MokotoAug. 13, 2012 - 05:15AM JST

Yes. Killing INNOCENT CIVILIANS was a crime then and it is a crime now. It is never justifiable to kill innocent civilians to further your own goal...unless you are willing to say Al Qaeda was justified in attacking America in 2001. Hey, it was war and Al Qaeda CLAIMED they did it because of what America was doing to their region. Same thing right? Yep. Justified? Nope.

The US attacks on Japan violated 2 articles in an international treaty both countries signed:

Hague Convention (1907)

Article 25 (Section IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land): “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.”

Article 27 (Section IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land): “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.”

That ends is discussion. Was it a war crime? Yes. That clearly shows it. Case closed.
1

junaid83Aug. 13, 2012 - 07:35AM JST

A bomb which killed thousands of Japanese civilian lives, do you think was a good deed?? no , its was purely war crime.

might is not right, right is right

Japanese people who lost their lives in A bomb, what was their crime?? they were civilians. (innocent women , men and children)
3

cabadajeAug. 13, 2012 - 07:43AM JST

Regarding Art. 25, you are saying none of the military buildings or supply depots in Hiroshima or Nagasaki were defended?

What steps, necessary or otherwise, do you believe were skipped regarding Art. 27?
1

Matthew SimonAug. 13, 2012 - 09:14AM JST

I think its fair to say that the bombings were necessary evils. They avoided a longer more costly invasion that would have devastated this fine nation. Though tragic, those thousands that died actually saved millions. Also think about this. Had the bombings not happened a similar situation could have occurred that in Europe where a longer drawn out ground war could have caused the Soviet Union to invade the main islands of Japan in a land grab and created a second Iron Curtain in Asia.
-6

LH10Aug. 13, 2012 - 10:02AM JST

YEAH! IT WAS A WAR CRIME! INNOCENT PEOPLE DIED! WHY THE ^$%^ DID THEY USE THOSE BOMBS? AMERICA ALWAYS KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE. THEY WEREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED! PEARL HARBOR WAS A FALSE FLAG SO THAT THE AMERICANS CAN HAVE FUN PLAYING WITH THEIR WEAPONS, THEY JUST LOVE WAR GAMES . THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS *^%& DO (-_- #) no country should go through war, afgan, iraq, syria etc. people should research the truth. RIP HIROSHIMA + NAGASAKI VICTIMS. <3 NIPPON <3
2

Dell_1957Aug. 13, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

Why is it that Japan continues to view themselves as the victims...the Americans had been at war in Europe and had lost 406,000 killed (including 6,000 merchant marine civilians;) 600,000 Wounded; 5,600 American civilians where killed in this war, mostly of them Merchant Marine Sailors that died in convoy wars. Quite frankly we were tired of seen so many of our soldiers been killed and were fed up with war.

Then Japan tries to take advantage of the US thinking we could not possibly defend ourselves with so much loss from the European war by attacking us....that's right...Japan started this mess and now Japan continues to say they are the victims.

If Japan had not started this war there would not be any need for these considerations of war crimes by any side.
-3

lucabrasiAug. 13, 2012 - 10:14AM JST

@Dell

If Japan had not started this war there would not be any need for these considerations of war crimes by any side.

If America hadn't tried to prevent Japan's efforts to build an empire in Asia (just like Britain in India or France in Africa), then Pearl Harbour wouldn't have been bombed and, as you say, there would not be any need for these considerations of war crimes by any side.

The Japanese problem was being yellow in a world ruled by white folk.
1

Dell_1957Aug. 13, 2012 - 10:45AM JST

@lucabrasi

Can you show any credible information to support your post?
2

thywillbedoneAug. 13, 2012 - 10:45AM JST

The question is shallow. A-bombs were simply a more efficient method of doing a task that was already being performed. The US air force was sending 1000+ conventional bombers at a time totally unopposed towards the end, and dropping mostly incendiary bombs designed to kill civilians, so singling out A-bomb seems a bit myopic.

Today, there is a more disturbing mindset becoming prevalent, which is:, there are no innocent civilians, because civilians enable the actions of their governments. Osama Bin Laden cited this justification in the WTC attacks, stating that US tax payers are legitimate targets because their taxes enable government crimes against Muslims. Thus, even children are legitimate targets, because they will grow up to become taxpayers. A similar mindset is also a de facto accepted military justification on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

So, my answer to the question is: I don't know, it doesn't matter. In the next big war we will all be viewed as legitimate targets in some commander's eyes.
1

A CanadianAug. 13, 2012 - 10:47AM JST

The bombs were a war crime and dropped for two reasons - as a warning to the USSR and to justify the huge spend of the Manhattan Project. Japan was already defeated. Even Eisenhower, whom I would consider an expert on war, said the following, "I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'.".

Japan was in fact negotiating surrender with the condition that the Emperor remain as a figurehead to save face but the US wanted unconditional surrender. In the end, Japan surrendered and was allowed to keep the Emperor. Truman was a war criminal.
-3

lucabrasiAug. 13, 2012 - 11:09AM JST

@Dell

Google "ABCD line."
3

Dell_1957Aug. 13, 2012 - 12:58PM JST

@lucabrasi

I did not find anything in the article to support your post except the explanation of how Japan itself was very aggressive in invading countries and committing atrocities and the humiliating and shameful surrender.
4

Dell_1957Aug. 13, 2012 - 01:44PM JST

@Ishiwara

>

1) The bombs were crimes:Last time I checked. killing civilians to break military resistance is illegal. That was what some Germans were accused of and executed for.

2) Hiroshima was a civilian target. (They could have attacked Kure, a naval base an hour away, but tellingly, they did not.) Having an army HQ in the city does not make the city a military target. Most victims were women and children.

3) It was a scientific experiment: They chose Hiroshima in order to see the effects on a large undamaged city. (Most other cities were already bombed flat.) They chose the early morning, after breakfast, precisely the time when a large number of people were outside. After surrender, the US sent a medical team to research the effects, even secretly collecting body parts without permission of the family members. The doctors refused to give medical aid t the victims.

4) Oppenheimer specifically instructed and designed the bomb to explode high above ground, for maximum damage. On the eve before the bombing he said: "Those poor little people...."

5) Curtis LeMay, the architect of the conventional bombing campaign himself said famously, "If we would have lost the war, we would have been tried as war criminals."

6) Did the bombs hasten the end of the war? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the bottom line is the US dropped nukes on civilians in order to force the Japanese to do what the US wanted.>

For your post to be fair you need to include the atrocities Japan did to the hundreds of thousands of people of the countries they invaded.
0

irishosaruAug. 13, 2012 - 05:14PM JST

There is an incredible amount if idiotic whataboutery in this thread. How hard is it to comprehend that Japanese war crimes committed in WW2 are not relevant to the question posed in this thread.

The fact that the Japanese military committed heinous crimes against humanity doesn't mean that acts against the Japanese cannot be considered war crimes, nor does it mean that Japanese people cannot argue that the two atomic bombings.

To suggest otherwise is truly misunderstanding the essence of debate.
0

Judith KelmanAug. 13, 2012 - 06:12PM JST

"It was a scientific experiment:"

Explanation enough! The Japanese people were used as guinea pigs, just like troops were during bomb tests. Of course it was a war crime. It was a crime against humanity, against creation, and mankind should be for ever ashamed
0

Thomas AndersonAug. 13, 2012 - 06:23PM JST

How hard is it to comprehend that Japanese war crimes committed in WW2 are not relevant to the question posed in this thread.

The question is is it justified or not.
-3

OlegekAug. 13, 2012 - 09:33PM JST

Matthew Simon

I think its fair to say that the bombings were necessary evils.

Every evil is necessary from the point ... of devil..

They avoided a longer more costly invasion that would have devastated this fine nation

You mean American nation ?

. Though tragic, those thousands that died actually saved millions.

not thousands but hundreds of thousands plus their children and grandchildren are crippled by radiation

They probably saved millions of American soldiers which should have been killed during the assault Tokyo

nightmare of US politicians.....and generals...

Also think about this.Had the bombings not happened a similar situation could have occurred that in Europe where a longer drawn out ground war could have caused the Soviet Union to invade the main islands of Japan in a land grab and created a second Iron Curtain in Asia.

First - Iron Curtain - this expression was created by Josef Goebbels

....after that was widely used by US propaganda....

(just like Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun in US space industry...)

Second SU began this war against Japan ONLY at the request of Roosevelt, Churchill (SU lost about 30 mio peoples and had another problems - like totally destroyed economy)

Third SU in year 1945 had no real big fleet at Pacific ...so without US logistic help - massive Russian invasion was totally impossible...
-1

HonestDictatorAug. 13, 2012 - 10:23PM JST

Wow LH10 must have slept through all those history classes. Cracked me up.
-1

Oz_MonsterAug. 14, 2012 - 01:13AM JST

Justifications and reasons for dropping the A-bombs aside. My vote YES. Why?

Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945 CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL AUGUST 8, 1945 [Signatories: USA, USSR, Britain, France] [excerpts] ARTICLE VI

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

**Conclusion. ** Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizeable garrison.

The Atomic Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhuman acts on innocent civilian populations, (b) therefore a Crime against Humanity, and wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages (a) therefore also a War Crime.
0

Rounin78Aug. 30, 2012 - 09:57AM JST

Its war. War is war.
0

kazetsukaiSep. 20, 2012 - 12:59PM JST

War viewed with 20/20 hind sight is a matter of "opinion" based on what factual data one base the analysis on and the "basis" of evaluation of that data. If this was discussed at the time it was actually used, it may have made some sense. But then there probably was not a good definition of what war crimes were at that time. And of course the 'victor' always takes the "positive" position claiming "righteousness".

If one views the "current" view of war and violence and crime, especially after the Viet Nam war, based on the Judeo/Christian values and principles and the internationally accepted definitions, then you get one opinion. If you are a firm believer in another religion, you may have a different opinion. We may not come to a meaningful evaluation and answer to take a meaningful position to be useful in this survey.

The point is... this question which involves a very critical issue would have been better if it was NOT asked in the manner it is written. Of course, this was to get statistics and data of opinions of the readers.

If it was phrased more specifically, limiting the parameters we may have a better discussion.

Most important is to define the question as being based on what criteria?
Then there are host of other things that must go into a question such as this, to keep emotional reactions out of the discussion and to avoid misdirected assumptions and arguments.
0

Kunta KinteJan. 10, 2013 - 03:39AM JST

It is a war crime, and USA should be punished for it by all means!