Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

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

Poll Aug. 01, 2011 - 05:36AM JST ( 233 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

233 Comments

6

BrainiacAug. 01, 2011 - 08:29AM JST

Historians have been debating this for 66 years and will continue to do so. From the point of the view of those on the receiving end, I think it would be considered a war crime, though even the definition of a war crime is ambiguous. I'm still not convinced to this day why the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki was necessary.
10

papasmurfinjapanAug. 01, 2011 - 08:57AM JST

Brainiac has pretty much summed it all up with the first post.

Basically if it took place today, yes it would be a war crime, but the world during WW2 was, I am led to believe, a much different place. It is impossible to use 2011 morals to debate something that happened over 60 years ago. But here I go anyway:

I think the use of the a-bomb on Hiroshima was fair enough from an allied point of view (I don't 100% agree with it, but I understand the logic behind the decision). However Nagasaki was, I believe, unnecessary. I also think if we are considering the dropping of the a-bombs being war crimes, one must also consider the fire-bombing of Tokyo to be just as morally questionable.

That said, it's easy for the victor to claim justice and defend the righteousness of their actions - after all, they won - who is going to complain other than the vanquished foe? But I think all Americans should consider this - in a parallel universe if Japan dropped a-bombs on Honolulu and SF "to stop the war" and secure a Japanese victory would Americans consider that a war crime? I have no doubt they would.
3

gogogoAug. 01, 2011 - 09:28AM JST

You're opening a can of worms here JT.
2
Spidapig24Aug. 01, 2011 - 09:35AM JST

I find this question a bit strange, why single one event out in a terrible war when there where hundreds of events that could be named and asked if they where war crimes. I think that JT has asked a very provocative question here, l wonder if they would have asked a question like should the emperor have been tried as a war criminal? Somehow l doubt it, as l said its strange to ask this one question in isolation when they could have picked so many other events.
- ModeratorAug. 01, 2011 - 09:36AM JST
  
  We asked this question because this week marks the anniversary of those bombings.
2

papasmurfinjapanAug. 01, 2011 - 09:48AM JST

@ Spidapig24

JT asks every year, and every year it usually turns into a pretty heated debate. There are a lot of well-informed people here (I'm not one of them), so just sit back and enjoy reading the different viewpoints.
3

cleoAug. 01, 2011 - 10:03AM JST

in a parallel universe if Japan dropped a-bombs on Honolulu and SF "to stop the war" and secure a Japanese victory would Americans consider that a war crime?

I think one of the arguments those who think the US was right/justified put forward is 'If we didn't do, they would have/What if they7d developed the bomb before we did'. Goose and gander.

Lots of war crimes took place - on all sides - during WW2, and this was one of them.
4

SmorkianAug. 01, 2011 - 10:37AM JST

Lots of war crimes took place - on all sides - during WW2, and this was one of them.

Yep, that's pretty much where I stand on this.
2

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 10:53AM JST

It was a truly sad event. Was it a necessary evil? Probably depends on which side of the fence you land on. For me, war is a crime. But, let's not forget that bombings of civilians at the time was pretty much the way war was done and how you broke someone's infrastructure. Any kind of bombing of civilians is considered a crime against humanity by today's standards, but 66 years ago, it was business as usual. If we can say that HIroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime, than we might have to go back and say all that all bombings of civilians in WWI and WWII can be considered war crimes. I know that there are those of you out there who will say that "HIroshima and Nagasaki" were different than the others and you are right. But we must not forget the mindset of the time and how different it is to today's. In that time, a "one punch, war stopper" was what was searched for by all of those involved in WWII, sadly to say, including Japan. And there is not one person who can honestly say that any country who was involved in that war would not have used that weapon. We all speak in hindsight and that is ridiculously unfair to the people at the time. **NO, I'm sorry to say, but it was not a war crime, by the standards of those times, but in today's YES. . A terrible thing to do, yes. But remember these things;

a. Those who demonize the attack and the people who committed it, do so from the comfortable convenience of hindsight. That is unfair and too convenient. b. Every country involved in WWII was searching for that one punch-war stopper and would have have happily used it to to end the war for them. b. Bombings of civilians was business as usual at the time. The more punch your bomb had the better. The more destruction of your enemies infrastructure you did, the closer you were to victory. c. We live in a different mindset that those in the 1940's.

Please do not get me wrong. I believe that any war is a crime against humanity. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in war at all. I have not made excuses for the bombings, just tried to provide reality to the debate. I wish to end all wars and disagree with all wars.
8

GWAug. 01, 2011 - 10:53AM JST

Oh lord help, its that time of the year, victim season, that time of year when Japan only remembers the 2bombs, but continues to forget, brainwash about everything that led up to them................
-1

SquidBertAug. 01, 2011 - 10:59AM JST

I think the bombings were horrible, horrifying, cowardice etc... acts. And by the laws of war today, clearly criminal.

However citing from wikipedia, 'International Review of the Red Cross that, with respect to the "anti-city" or "blitz" strategy, that "in examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property."[75] ' Which makes it seem to me, as judging by the laws of war from its time, it probably was not a criminal act.

Either way, it does not matter. All those people died, because of meaningless war.
3

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 11:02AM JST

I agree with Brainiac and Papsmurf on all issues. Yes, we Americans would have considered it a war crime if it had happened to us. Hell, yes. Look at how people view the "Pearl Harbor Attack" issue. As for the Nagasaki issue there are many of those out there who say that the Japanese government had refused to give up after Hiroshima. I don't know. I don't think it was necessary at all, but then again I don't think Hiroshima was necessary either. Japan had lost. But once again I think a lot of this comes from hindsight. Please forgive me if I am wrong.
0

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 11:18AM JST

Squidbert. You wouldn't feel that the bombings were "cowardice" if you grew up in that time. Not to defend the attacks, just that was the mindset of the time. Bombings of civilians was the norm, not the extreme. You can only call it cowardice from today's standards of thinking.

>it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property

EXACTLY. Civilians were very sadly to say, FAIR GAME. We must honestly, think in the minds of those at the time, the rules of engagement and what they thought before we go off and say it was "cowardice". It was the norm and not in violation of laws. We must not use today's standards and the convenience of hindsight to call it anything than what it was, an unfortunate event in history that we must learn form.

Was it a meaningless war? Yeah, if we don't learn from the lessons of it. But if we can learn from them, than those who have died, no matter where it was, will not die in vain.
1

Leila26Aug. 01, 2011 - 11:32AM JST

The Japanese in Honolulu didn't exactly like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It put them in a horrible position and the Japanese government never apologized to those Japanese. It was a horrible time. Some of them were from families originally from Hiroshima. A double whammy. :(
-1

cleoAug. 01, 2011 - 11:34AM JST

It's very easy to say that hindsight makes us see things differently, that it was wartime then and people had a different mindset. That doesn't absolve people of doing wrong; if it does, then it absolves everyone of everything.

We could easily say that the US was temporarily insane in the aftermath of 9/11 and that that excuses the mess they saw fit to make in Afghanistan and Iraq; we should understand the 'mindset of the time'.

But as others have pointed out, if that kind of reasoning absolves the US of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it also makes Pearl Harbour, Nanking, Dresden, the concentration camps, the Bataan March and all the other atrocities the human race inflicted on itself during those 6 years of insanity, things that in hindsight we need to 'understand' rather than condemn.

I don't buy that. If an act is wrong then it's wrong, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.
2

NessieAug. 01, 2011 - 11:44AM JST

in a parallel universe if Japan dropped a-bombs on Honolulu and SF "to stop the war" and secure a Japanese victory would Americans consider that a war crime?

Only if the US had started the war in that parallel universe. You can't view the bombing in isolation from the context of the war.
-1

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 11:50AM JST

Cleo. I understand where you are going, but I am sorry to disagree. You are lumping everything all together. That can't be done at all. They are all different. Nanking, concentration camps the Bataan Death March are not the same at all as the bombings. They are soooooooooooooooo different and it is sad to see you even connect them to each other.

Nanking, concentration camps, the Bataan Death March and those other things were not the norm of the times and would be considered with disdain at any time in history. ****That is just people personally and physically abusing people because they were in their physical grasps and they could do it with impunity, or so they thought. ****

Bombings of civilians was the norm of the time!!!!!!!!!! It is how you fought and won wars!

Concentration camps and death marches were not. It was how you treated prisoners. Don't confuse the issues.
2

paulinusaAug. 01, 2011 - 11:52AM JST

The Germans were bombing civilian targets in England and the allies were doing the same to Germany. If it weren't for the logistics of distance Japan and Germany might have done the same to the US. However I will say that I don't think the scale of those bombings approached the firebombing of Tokyo (maybe Dresden is the exception) and A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a tough call because it was a dfifferent era and it's not easy to make a judgement if you didn't live through the war at that time.
0

papasmurfinjapanAug. 01, 2011 - 11:54AM JST

Only if the US had started the war in that parallel universe

We don't need to go to a parallel universe to do that.

You can't view the bombing in isolation from the context of the war.

I agree, which means you can't view the war as suddenly beginning with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. What provoked the Japanese to attack America? Do you really believe the Americans were just minding their own business when big bully Japan decided to come along and attack them unprovoked?

I really am opening a can of worms here, and am not sure if it will be considered off topic.
0

GodanAug. 01, 2011 - 11:55AM JST

Agree with GW - many have done their best to whitewash/revise Japan's involvement in WW II to the point that they were only innocent victims. Japan is always the victim, yeah right!
2

sunhawkAug. 01, 2011 - 11:59AM JST

the atomic bombings were a mercy compared to what a d-day style invasion and campaign would have been to our nation back then.
0

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 12:09PM JST

Once again, Cleo.

Bombings of civilians were how you fought wars at the time!!!!! Acceptable for the times. Unacceptable today.

Concentration camps and death marches were NOT done for the purpose of winning a war they were done out of cruelty with cruelty in mind from the get go. Morally unacceptable at any time in recent history and of which the only purpose was for hurting your captives. It's purpose was NOT A MEANS USED TO FIGHT OR WIN A WAR. Unacceptable at anytime, past, present and future.

You conveniently confuse MEANS TO FIGHT WAR with BRUTALITY FOR BRUTALITY'S SAKE! That is so sad, when people confuse a horse with a cow.
0

papasmurfinjapanAug. 01, 2011 - 12:10PM JST

@ cleo

I understand your point, but just like political and social ideology, moral ideology changes over time. No matter how hard it is for a person in this day and age to accept that the taking of an innocent life is morally wrong, up until fairly recently in history it has been regarded as acceptable. Even the Bible has stories of Israel's "righteous" murder, rape and pillage of enemies.

Of course to us living in hindsight in 2011 that doesn't make these things right. But I hesitate to condemn people who lived in a different time and age based on my own moral upbringing, at least as far as the a-bomb is concerned. Maybe it saved more lives than it took, no-one will ever know.
0

lucabrasiAug. 01, 2011 - 12:10PM JST

@papasmurf

Exactly. It's a can of worms, and nobody's willing to examine it properly. There's the "Pearl Harbor was an atrocity" brigade, and the "Hiroshima/Nagasaki were atrocities" brigade, but very few people willing to consider the bigger picture.

As you say, Japan didn't just suddenly decide to bomb Pearl Harbor for the hell of it.
-3
Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 12:15PM JST

Cleo, this baffles me.

We could easily say that the US was temporarily insane in the aftermath of 9/11 and that that excuses the mess they saw fit to make in Afghanistan and Iraq; we should understand the 'mindset of the time'.

I am not a supporter of any war. But I would not call it insanity when the US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. I would simply call it war. Sorry, but I disagreed with both wars, but I also doubt that any country that was attacked by a foreign entity would not result to attacking back. Anyone who says that their leaders would not do such a thing has recently been hitting himself/herself on the head.
- ModeratorAug. 01, 2011 - 12:30PM JST
  
  Readers, please stay on topic and make sure your comments refer to the question asked. References to 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan are not relevant to this discussion.
1

GWAug. 01, 2011 - 12:30PM JST

As you say, Japan didn't just suddenly decide to bomb Pearl Harbor for the hell of it.

Corrrect you are, the US put sanctions on Japan!

But there were reasons for that, good ones.
0

lucabrasiAug. 01, 2011 - 12:41PM JST

@GW

> But there were reasons for that, good ones.

Indeed. Japan's expansionist tendencies, which threatened perceived US interests. But there were reasons for those too. The thing is, you can go back as far as you want and there's always some reason to be found justifying what happened. I guess all we can do is try and learn from it all :(
0

OrangeW3dgeAug. 01, 2011 - 12:53PM JST

Weapons of war are used to end the war. Maybe that is counter-productive if you wish to perpetuate the war, however, in this case, the goal was to end the fighting. The second bomb might not have been necessary (according to what I have read) if the first bomb had achieved it's objective. All of this goes to say that War is a bad idea ... every time. War is crime!
-5

just-a-guyAug. 01, 2011 - 01:17PM JST

Basically the nuclear raids over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally warcrimes but since Imperial Japan has committed even more terrible warcrimes throughout the asia, so the raids became 'legitinated'! The nuclear raids were used to scare off Stalin as considered by Truman that the soviet union is far more dangerous in the eastern europe!
-2

SunnysideUpAug. 01, 2011 - 01:25PM JST

A small evil to end a bigger evil. Absolutely justified by the Americans.
-3

just-a-guyAug. 01, 2011 - 01:26PM JST

I feel very sad for those victims in the nuclear attacks there were many children died in the raids. But the fact was Imperial Japan has done even more terrible warcrimes to others. Why Japan has no 'Colonel Staffenberg' who dared to topple the facist regieme? If japan toppled Hideki Tojo's clique and surrunder even earlier than those nuclear raids, those pains were totally unnecessary! The biggest winner in stragetic terms during the Second world war was the Soviet Union, Stalin took the entire easten europe and Manchuria,north Korea etc. That was totally impossible to achieve if Imperial Japan round up those facists clique a year before the war ended! Truman tested his own 'bombs' was totally a vengenance mania of Americans over the despise of asian countries and people. But Imperial Japan helped him to make things come true!
0
Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 01:30PM JST

By the way, I wish JT would come up with some better and more current polls than this one. How about some more relevant topics to today's issues and problems, not polls about who was right and who was wrong so very long ago that will not foster any kind of understanding but simply invite irritation over such sensitive issues. Inflammable issues about the past like this are not that helpful. We already have our minds made up about what we think about such issues and there are very few people out there who are willing to change theirs. So, why not polls that are more responsible and deal with TODAY'S problems. Things that we have not already made up our minds about. Oh, am I off-topic again? Oooops
- ModeratorAug. 01, 2011 - 02:30PM JST
  
  Please send your suggestions to the editor.
-1

cleoAug. 01, 2011 - 01:46PM JST

"papasmurf -

Of course to us living in hindsight in 2011 that doesn't make these things right. But I hesitate to condemn people who lived in a different time and age based on my own moral upbringing

Whether you condemn people or understand them in hindsight is your choice, of course. My point is that if it was OK at that point in time for one side to do it, it was OK for the other side, too. And vice versa. Personally I'm on the vice versa side.

Kersey23 -

But I would not call it insanity when the unmentionable happened. I would simply call it war.

Same thing.

It's very easy, especially when you sit under the shower of your own side's propaganda, to accept that what they do is unacceptable brutality, brutality for brutality's sake, the actions of animals (and I wouldn't disagree with that), but that what we do, while regrettable, is forced on us by the circumstance of war, just doing what we have to do to win and should be understood and forgiven, heck, even marked and commemorated with medals and ceremonies.
0

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 02:34PM JST

Cleo.

It's very easy, especially when you sit under the shower of your own side's propaganda, to accept that what they do is unacceptable brutality

Really, now? I don't sit under anyone's propaganda shower. I think for myself. And reality is that bombings of civilians to destroy their infrastructure WAS how you fought wars until recently, when the world would no longer stand for it as a ways to fight wars. This is true and not refutable. It is a fact unless you are drunk or on something.

the actions of animals (and I wouldn't disagree with that), but that what we do, while regrettable, is forced on us by the circumstance of war, just doing what we have to do to win and should be understood and forgiven, heck, even marked and commemorated with medals and ceremonies.

WHERE DID THAT POSSIBLY COME FROM?? I never said or ever even came close to implying that. Who are you talking about here? Actions that have happened in the past should be studied and understood.

Sadly, you seem to have gone off topic a little bit. You were trying to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, death marches and concentration camps are all the same.

One, bombings were how wars were fought. All parties are guilty of it. Two, the Death March, concentration camps and the like were not used as a means to fight a war The two issues are not even close to each other.

Plain English for you. One: How wars were fought. Two: Cruelty to people for the sake of cruelty.

The shower of my own side's propaganda? How condescending. I think for myself. If not, I would say that the Japanese deserved it and had everything they got coming, because I AM American. BUT I NEVER EVER SAID SUCH A THING. I brought fact and reality to an emotional subject that should be devoid of emotion. You are just saying that right is right and wrong is wrong and ignoring how wars were fought at the time. It is not all about right and wrong. It is not black and white at all. Morals today are different than they were of that time. I seem to feel that you are going to tell me that if you had grown up in that time that you would think how you do today? You wouldn't. neither would I.
-1

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 02:39PM JST

What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have never happened. But to condemn those who have done it is to use today's morals to judge people of yesterday and to completely ignore how wars were fought at the time and that is wrong.

Brutalizing people just for the sake of it is evil from the conception of the idea to do so. And that is what death marchs and concentration camps are for. Not to win a war.
2

TamaramaAug. 01, 2011 - 02:51PM JST

My short answer is; Yes, the bombings of both cities were war crimes. My country was at war with Japan at that time, and both my grandfathers fought against them in the Solomon Islands. One was a broken man as a result. As a little kid I grew up learning the Japanese were bad (is that why I married one?!). But the war gave the US an excuse to conduct a full blown live science experiment that comprehensively concluded all of the research and development they had done on the Manhatten Project. They had seen what the explosion looked like, they knew what it would likely do, and under the guise of 'warfare' they let it go. If they really wanted to give Japan fair warning, they could have dropped one in Tokyo Harbor first, or somewhere similar. War is terrible, but it should not be without some guiding principals or 'boundaries'. In this case, they crossed a line. I can't remember where I read it, but one of the US Military leaders of the time himself declared something to the effect of - It's a good thing we won the war, because we would have been on trial for war crimes otherwise.
-3

Kersey23Aug. 01, 2011 - 03:01PM JST

Sorry, let me clarify. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have never have happened by today's standards. The sad truth. I do however, like and feel that what Tamarama said is so very sadly true. But once again, there is a completely different mindset in today's world than there was at that time. And we are learning this and have developed our attitudes towards this tragic event in hindsight. I invite anyone who says that they would think the same as they do today if they had lived in that time to take a step back and check themselves. We learn from our experiences, our surroundings and how we react to them.
0

TamaramaAug. 01, 2011 - 03:12PM JST

The General in question is Curtis LeMay.
-4

steve@CPFCAug. 01, 2011 - 03:16PM JST

Many innocents died but the bombings were justified. Let us not forget Japan like their allies were facists. The people of Japan were compliant in allowing their conutry to go to war. You reap what you sow. It was a terrinle time in history but for what Japan had doen at the time and what they stood for the bombings were justified.

War is a lot different these days, WWII cannot be compared to todays standards.
2

YubaruAug. 01, 2011 - 03:38PM JST

When will issues like this be laid to rest? Why is it that people today are using today's knowledge and information to judge an issue from over 60 years ago? To truly understand it one would have had to live through both sides of the situation at the same time, which we all know is impossible.

However, it is sad that Japanese children spend so much time on so called peace studies but never are truly educated to why the bombings took place in the first place. I know kids that actually think that the Japanese were victims in the war, and those same kids believe today that Japan is still the victim by hosting US bases as well. They just do not know about Japan's part in how WWII started, and even refuse to acknowledge that it was WWII but the Pacific War. There are too many gaps in their education for them to take a serious look at the issues surrounding the why of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh and I truly hope that the week after next JT runs a poll asking if the Emperor should have been hung as a war criminal, seeing as how the anniversary of the end of WWII is quickly approaching as well. And maybe something when the anniversary of the Nanking Massacre comes about, and for added consideration something regarding Pearl Harbor too. Let's not forget the invasion of Korea, the comfort women issue, the PI, Taiwan, Singapore, and anything else related to a historical anniversary regarding Japan and WWII. Let's keep Japan as the victim!
0

FoxieAug. 01, 2011 - 03:39PM JST

No, they were crimes against humanity; inhuman acts committed against a civilian population.
0

YubaruAug. 01, 2011 - 03:48PM JST

No, they were crimes against humanity; inhuman acts committed against a civilian population.

Question for you here; if they were crimes against humanity, what do call the Battan Death March, or the rape of Nanking, or the forced colonization of Korea, or the raping of tens of thousands of women, committed by the same people who you are claiming that are victims here?

You are using 21st knowledge to judge an event before your time. The end justified the means AT THAT TIME. The only concern was AMERICAN lives at THAT TIME, the enemy didn't matter. Also there was no "crimes against humanity" back then, that came about much, much later.

Don't think for one second that Japan wouldn't have dropped one or two or ten on the US or anywhere else if they had them, to believe otherwise would be totally naive.
0

wpgbhoyAug. 01, 2011 - 03:49PM JST

hah! obv not justified what a laugh. Loads of innocent families died...
3

YubaruAug. 01, 2011 - 04:04PM JST

In war innocents always are the victims, on both sides. People tend to forget that both cities were legitimate military targets, and if anything the military should take a large portion of the blame for headquartering their armies in a city amongst civilians. Similar to using human shields I would say.
-3

GWAug. 01, 2011 - 05:32PM JST

Even what 6+ decades after Aug 1945 & still the vast majority of Japanese have a best a very vague idea about what happened in the 1930s-45, but they sure as hell know about Hiroshima & Nagasaki...................still being brainwashed after all these years.

To the folks who say these bombs were crimes, then what was Japan then a country that killed between 20-30MILLION!

And that doesnt count those brutalized but who survived. In retrospect Japan got off incredibly easy for what it did, without a doubt Japan was one mankinds most brutal, efficient killing machines in all history, but most locals arent aware of that fact.
1

tokyokawasakiAug. 01, 2011 - 05:32PM JST

What is the definition of a "war crime"?
3

TamaramaAug. 01, 2011 - 05:41PM JST

Yubaru

Question for you here; if they were crimes against humanity, what do call the Battan Death March, or the rape of Nanking, or the raping of tens of thousands of women, committed by the same people who you are claiming that are victims here?

I call them war crimes also. Different in nature, but crimes as well. It is perfectly feasible that both sides of a war can be, and are, victims of war crimes. The Rape of Nanking and the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in quite similar numbers of civilian victims, and whether someone dies at the end of a bayonette, or has their skin burnt off in a bombing fire, the result is a hideous death either way.

You are using 21st knowledge to judge an event before your time. The end justified the means AT THAT TIME. The only concern was AMERICAN lives at THAT TIME, the enemy didn't matter. Also there was no "crimes against humanity" back then, that came about much, much later.

I don't like this logic that people are using here - that, what, a mere 66 years ago people were incapable of making judgements about humane behaviour in war??!! I absolutely reject the idea. The First Geneva convention was established in 1864 - 81 years before Hiroshima. As you no doubt know, it is designed to promote the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. It recognises that even in a time of war, people have responsibilities to each other. In 1949, a mere 4 years after the Bombing of Hiroshima, the 4th Geneva Convention, which is specifically designed for the protection of civillians in a time of war, is ratified. So, not only were people of the time keenly aware of the crimes perpertrated on civilians in WW2, they were moved to create International Laws to prevent it from ever happening again.
0

FoxieAug. 01, 2011 - 05:43PM JST

Question for you here; if they were crimes against humanity, what do call the Battan Death March, or the rape of Nanking, or the forced colonization of Korea, or the raping of tens of thousands of women, committed by the same people who you are claiming that are victims here?

Those were of course also crimes against humanity except maybe the forced colonization of Korea which should go into another category together with all other colonizations but that was not the question by JT.
0

kiboushaAug. 01, 2011 - 05:46PM JST

I'm pretty sure if Japan won the war, the bombings would be a war crime. But since the winner was the bomber, it is "debatable". I can't remember who said it, but it was something like "Losers are the criminals". I'm not backing up either sides here, it's only the nature of war, imho.
0

Spidapig24Aug. 01, 2011 - 05:51PM JST

Moderator

We asked this question because this week marks the anniversary of those bombings.

Thank you for the response to my question. I have one more for you though, do you just ask it about the A bombs or do you ask a similar question on Dec 7th, do you also ask a question to mark the end of WW2 along the lines of "Should the emperor have been tried as a war criminal" or do you focus entirely on the US attacks on Japan and conveniently forget other atrocities that occurred like Nanking, Sandakin, Bataan, Stanley hospital, Tol plantation etc. I would be interested to see if you mark other significant anniversaries like you mark this one.
4

GWAug. 01, 2011 - 05:59PM JST

JT how about this for a question of the day!

If Japan had won WWII would you want to live in Japan or any of the many countries Japan invaded if Japanese were running things?

How about it!
1

YubaruAug. 01, 2011 - 06:09PM JST

To those that consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki "war crimes" what do you propose be done? It's not like any of the significant participants are alive to be held accountable, so what do you want done?

Keep in mind however that the pendulum swings both ways.
0

Spidapig24Aug. 01, 2011 - 06:24PM JST

Foxie,

No, they were crimes against humanity; inhuman acts committed against a civilian population

A few points for you to ponder. 1. " The heavy industries that began to develop in the 1920s had turned into military plants by the latter half of the 1930s. Prior to the atomic bombing, the entire harbor on taken on the military ambience of the Kure naval base." 2."an Imperial Headquarters that served as command center for the war was established in the city" This was at Hiroshima castle a couple of hundred meters from the hyper-center of the bomb 3."army forces gathered in Hiroshima and dispatched troops. Military facilities expanded every year." 4."To combat chronic labor shortages, military depots and factories mobilized women and students. It is said that by May 1944, about one quarter of the factory workers in the prefecture were mobilized students." 5."The evacuation of schoolchildren and other people from major cities was actively promoted around Japan, spreading to Hiroshima in March 1945. "

So far from being targeted at a civilian population the bomb was dropped on effectively a military city that was involved in the manufacture of war materials, had a large military harbour, and was the home to a Imperial army headquarters. Furthermore a good proportion of its civilians had evacuated and many of those who stayed where involved in the war effort. In fact many of the children killed where school kids that where working for the military to clear firebreaks or working in communications. So you say innocent city. Looks more like legitimate military target.
3

shinaykahnAug. 01, 2011 - 07:18PM JST

We Europeans have to thank Japan from bombing Pearl Harbor because if they didn't, US wouldn't have entered the war, and we needed help, French and British troops were wiped out by Nazis . The only way to quickly stop a stubborn nation and very dangerous at that time(kamikaze) - was the atomic bomb,
The tragedy made them stronger and set them on a path of peace...so in the end all went well. Peace, love and understanding always comes with the price of blood and many lives.
2

wpgbhoyAug. 01, 2011 - 07:24PM JST

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."

Im in the warcrimes camp, obv Japan was guilty of them as well. Definitely glad they Surrendered and US won, Japan needed to be stopped. Just does not seem right to make the call to kill so many innocents in one go like that. The argument of it saving american lives does not justify so many civilian deaths. American soldiers should be fighting japanese soldiers and if more happened to die getting the same result without using the bombs then so be it. There would be honor in that. No honor in dropping a giant bomb on a city only shame. Have a visit to one of the atomic bomb museums if you get a chance.
0

wpgbhoyAug. 01, 2011 - 07:26PM JST

By the way quote from the book by Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times
-1

TakahiroDomingoAug. 01, 2011 - 08:05PM JST

Yeap, definitely, no doubt, horrific war crime. Somebody please tell me, during WW2: -how many civilian innocent japanese were killed by american war people/machines -and how many civilian innocent americans were killed by japanese war people/machines
0

HumanTargetAug. 01, 2011 - 08:19PM JST

The major argument has always been whether the bombings were necessary to end the war.

Well, you could argue all day that they weren't strictly necessary. The outcome, however, was in all likelihood far preferable to what would have happened if we had continued with conventional warfare.

As others have pointed out, the firebombing of cities was basically commonplace back then and the collective firebombings of major cities on all sides of the conflict were racking up a huge toll.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time estimated nearly 400,000 American soldiers dead if they had chosen to invade Japan, which is already more than the total number of victims in the two bombings. And that's only the American side. Obviously, there would have been a greater or equal number of Japanese dead, and then there's this little tidbit: The Japanese government had approved measures to extend the draft to teenage boys AND women in their late teens to mid forties.

It's ludicrous to think that, given another year or two of conflict, Japan wouldn't have conscripted these people. And you also need to remember the Soviet Union, at the time of the bombings, had recently declared war on Japan and was preparing for its own invasion of Honshu.

There's also a point to be made that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily valuable targets. Hiroshima was a military staging ground and troop assembly area, and Nagasaki was a major location for war materials manufacturing. Add to that the fact that the Japanese were actively slaughtering literally hundreds of thousands of noncombatant Chinese every single month of the war and you wonder how much higher the civilian toll would have been had the bombs not been dropped. Certainly another 2 years of all out war, and thus another two years of brutal murder perpetrated by the Japanese in the lands they occupied, is a realistic outlook.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time with fundamentalist Christians, tea partyers, and libertarians certainly understand that you cannot reason with someone who is inherently irrational. Hirohito and the like were the Kim Jong-Ils of their day - completely irrational, maniacally devoted. This was known at the time, and at the time - as now - it probably wasn't unrealistic to think that the Japanese Empire would have fought literally to the last man and woman on the island.

You can argue up and down about whether it was a war crime or not, but you cannot realistically argue that it wasn't for the greater good of humanity.
-5

johninnahaAug. 01, 2011 - 08:20PM JST

I'm sick of hearing this old refrain from Americans that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped Japan by putting an end to the war.

This is a very poor attempt at justifying a totally senseless act of genocide.

By 1945, Japan was finished.

I wonder what the real reason for these bombs was.

Wanting to try out a new toy?

The chance to see exactly what damage an Atom bomb would do?
0

yabitsAug. 01, 2011 - 08:37PM JST

Yes, I believe they were crimes against humanity.

Some Americans may have legitimately believed that dropping them would bring a swifter end to the war, but purposely targeting and massively wiping out a civilian population is an evil means that ultimately will bring a bad end.

There were other Americans who knew that Japan was defeated and its infrastructure destroyed to the point where it no longer represented a threat. Those in strategic planning knew that certain Japanese cities were purposely kept free from routine bombing attacks during the war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki among them. The reason for that was they knew of a special kind of bomb was in development and, when it was dropped, it would be more accurate to assess the actual damage wrought on the city.

That fact, combined with the fact that a different kinds of bombs were used on each city, gave this event the look and feel of a scientific experiment conducted with human populations as the guinea pigs.

Most importantly, however, are the long-lasting effects of the radiation used in the bombs on civilians. Even though Japan would unconditionally surrender in August of 1945, thousands of innocent men, women and children would have to suffer throughout many decades afterwards. This is why I believe the United States committed a truly heinous crime against humanity in dropping the bombs.
1

my2senseAug. 01, 2011 - 08:49PM JST

We have been beating a dead horse over the years on this site first week of August. Tamarama and GW had awesome 2 cents. Time to mix it up JT... I dunno man... fire and hire new minds. Time to move on.
0

yabitsAug. 01, 2011 - 08:55PM JST

Hirohito and the like were the Kim Jong-Ils of their day - completely irrational, maniacally devoted.

I would like to comment on this. As it relates to dropping atomic weapons on a civilian population, a great many of whose numbers were completely fed up with war and militarism, it is understandable for the perpetrators of a crime to rationalize it away by making the enemy appear to be crazed sub-humans.

Anyone who knows anything about the character, upbringing, works and writings of the Showa emperor could not possibly find much in common with North Korea's absolute dictator. When I watch Japanese films from the pre-war era (like Tokyo no gassho or Umarete wa mita keredo...), I am mystified at how misunderstanding and mistrust among peoples could ever grow to the point that it did. I think there is a lesson in that which is important for those who are prone to justify violence should discover.
-1

manta60Aug. 01, 2011 - 09:25PM JST

Of course they were a war crime. As sombody previously mentioned, by the time the bombs were dropped Japan was already finished, it was purely a matter of waiting for Japan to realise this fact. The bombs were dropped as a message to the USSR. Just the first of MANY war crimes since committed by this rogue state.
3

John BeckerAug. 01, 2011 - 09:27PM JST

In 2007, I visited the Hiroshima Peace Park in the company of my pen pal, a native of Japan who lives in Tokyo and was born in 1962. (I'm American, live in the U.S. and was born in 1960.)

We walked around the park, looked around in the museum, saw the origami cranes and the "Atomic Bomb dome". We walked right up to the T-shaped bridge that served as an aiming point for the Enola Gay's bombardier. We were both pretty quiet for most of that time. I was certainly affected. I found myself looking 300 meters to the east and about 400 meters up, where the flash would have been...

After a while, we sat down on a park bench and had the conversation I knew we had to have. No hard feelings, just open conversation.

The gist of her argument against the bombings was that the people of Japan were tired of war. She believed that if the war had been conducted in August no differently than it had been in July, the Allies would have won quickly upon invading the home islands.

I disagreed. The last battle before August 6, 1945 was on the island of Okinawa, the bloodiest battle in the Pacific war. It went on from early April until mid-June.

From Wikipedia: "The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 troops killed or captured, and the Allies suffered more than 50,000 casualties of all kinds. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of local civilians were killed, wounded, or committed suicide."

Based on this, the Allies justifiably expected more of the same if they had to execute an amphibious landing and invasion of Kyushu, and press northward from there. There was nothing at all unreasonable about that expectation.

Japan repeatedly refused to surrender. Even though the leadership knew the war was lost, they pressed on. Tokyo was firebombed (the real war crime, in my opinion), and they pressed on.

And the U.S. came up with the atomic bomb.

I'm sick of hearing this old refrain from Americans that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped Japan by putting an end to the war.

Truman didn't drop the bombs to help Japan. He did it to save Allied lives, which they did. The fact that they saved many more Japanese lives was a good thing too. The U.S. didn't need to "try out a new toy" in Japan because it had already done so at Alamogordo, New Mexico.

My pen pal and I are still friends, because we can accept that not all of our opinions have to coincide.
-1

RaymasakiAug. 01, 2011 - 09:30PM JST

well several countries were Bombing civilians japan & Germany mainly. they started the war. I believe IF we the US Bombed iwojima it would have saved lives. we can't change the past. if so i would have Japan on our side. like in ww1. the Japanese rule was the kokotai an obsolute No surrender writtin in Blood, Never surrender. im Glad now that we have been allies/Friends with Japan since then. i know never forget the past but always think of & improve the future.
8

Loose CannonAug. 01, 2011 - 09:42PM JST

1 The bomb had been tested a mere three months before and only seen by the military and scientists at Los Alamos. There were a few high ranking officers from Washington, but no field commanders to observe the effects. The scientists understood some of the effects of radiation, but were either unable or unwilling to make the government understand the long term effects to organic tissue. The military saw the bomb as just that, a bomb. To many it was the same as a standard bomb with a different chemistry. They did not understand what the device truely was and how it effected people long after.

2 President Harry Truman served in the military and fought on the front lines in WW1. He saw first hand the terrible carnage that war brings. He had been given reports on the bitter and bloody fighting in Berlin and the huge volume of casualties on both sides to take the last outpost of Fascism in Europe. He had long heard from commanders about how the Japanese soldier would not surrender, and rather take their own lives than surrender(Partially why the Japanese treated POW's so poorly was rooted in this ideal). He had been given estimates for the invasion and capture of Japan at 1 million allied, and 12 to 15 million casualties to the Japanese (both military and civillian). He had already known of a "wonder weapon" that could do as much damage with one plane and one bomb, as an entire air armada. He looked at the circumstances and made an executive decision to authorize the use of the bomb.

3 As already stated by others, the firebombing raids over Tokyo earlier in the war caused many more deaths than both A-bomb attacks combined. Even the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg near the end of the war in Europe caused almost as many deaths each. Also stated is the fact that heavy civillian casualties were the standard operating procedure for all nations fighting this war (except the US), they had all suffered the loss, and also caused such loss to their enemies. Bombing was far from the pin-point accuracy that is the focal point of air operations today. American accuracy during daylight raids usually averaged around 15% to within 1 Km of the target. The Brits in their night raids averaged about 5%! The Allies needed large armadas of aircraft to actually hit what they were aiming for.

4 As to these attacks being war crimes because of the weapon used, then why is there not a clamor for war cirmes to be placed on those nations who used chemical weapons in the first world war? Mustard gas ruined many lives because of its effects on lungs in particular. Many who survived the actual attack had their lives severely limited by lung damage or blindness, and most lived a very painful life (usually much shorter lifespan as well). Although many different treaties have been signed by "civilized" nations, that has not stopped chemical or biological weapons developement by most of these same "civilized" nations who signed those treaties.

5 Can we all agree that war is itself a crime against humanity, and not try to limit "crimes" to specifics.
1

Antonios_MAug. 01, 2011 - 09:51PM JST

World War II as a whole was a triumph for Realism. The atrocities and massacres committed during this war however, became an important lesson for what to avoid in a future conflict. Indeed, the planet avoided an unnecessary and probably massively catastrophic atomic war between U.S and the Soviet Union during the period of Cold War. If the U.S didn't drop the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, i am sure that the nuclear war wouldn't have been avoided since none of the two sides (U.S or the Soviets) would have been fully aware of the catastrophic scale of the bombs. This does not justify the dropping of the bombs however. 2 facts: 1) Japan was losing. 2) The Soviets were coming. Once again, a triumph for Realism led to one of the worlds greatest atrocities ever committed together with the Nanking Massacre and the Holocaust.

What provoked the Japanese to attack America? Do you really believe the Americans were just minding their own business when big bully Japan decided to come along and attack them unprovoked?

History may be debatable, but the facts that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor are well known. U.S. imposed an oil embargo on Japan. Indeed, the Japanese went too far with their Asian campaign and the West was not willing to give the whole territory of Eastern Asia to the Japanese. Thus, the Japanese had no other choice but to attack the Pearl Harbor and hope that they would make such a damage that they would force the Americans to sign a treaty beneficial for them. They didn't expect that the attack would just awake a sleeping giant.
-1

yabitsAug. 01, 2011 - 09:57PM JST

There were a few high ranking officers from Washington, but no field commanders to observe the effects. The scientists understood some of the effects of radiation, but were either unable or unwilling to make the government understand the long term effects to organic tissue. The military saw the bomb as just that, a bomb. To many it was the same as a standard bomb with a different chemistry. They did not understand what the device truely was and how it effected people long after.

As conservatives would be fond to quote you: "Ignorance of the law (including the laws of nature) are no excuse.
0

yabitsAug. 01, 2011 - 10:10PM JST

I disagreed. The last battle before August 6, 1945 was on the island of Okinawa, the bloodiest battle in the Pacific war. It went on from early April until mid-June

Two points can be raised here.

First, the battle of Okinawa may be the exception that proves your friend is right on this. After all, Okinawa was the first test as to whether or not Japan could hold a piece they considered part of its homeland. Naturally, they fought fiercely.

But, the leaders in the military had to see the writing on the wall when the test had failed: No matter how much they might resist, Japan would ultimately lose.

The second point deals with the concept of honor vs. the ideal of winning at all costs. There is no honor in destroying thousands of innocent lives and condemning thousands of others to decades living in varying degrees of suffering and misery. It would have been more honorable to allow more battlefield deaths to reach the inevitable outcome than to sacrifice honor for expediency. It used to be that there was some degree of honor conveyed on those who met and fought bravely on a field of battle. There isn't much courage in dropping an atomic weapon against a completely helpless population.

If we look at the people today who don't care about sacrificing innocent lives just as long as they think they are furthering their aims, it's not a very good group to be counted amongst.
7

DSAug. 01, 2011 - 10:13PM JST

Time to dispel a few of the usual rumours about the end of WW2:

a/ Japan was NOT finished militarily. To the contrary, the IJA was stockpiling men and materiel in Kyushu for more than a year. The air force had assembled more than 10,000 aircraft to be used as kamikaze. Look up the operation by the name given to it by the Japanese general staff, Operation Ketsu-Go.

b/ Japan was NOT ready to surrender. See above military preparations. Also, the complete disregard of the Potsdam Declaration which spelled out exactly what would happen to Japan. Also not that the final decision by the Japanese war cabinet to stop the war was a split decision, which needed the totally unprecedented intervention of the Emperor to come to a decision.

c/ there was NO time or need for a "demonstration bomb". The US had only 3 working atomic weapons. One was used as a test in New Mexico, which left 2 for use in combat. There was no way that one would be dropped in the ocean on the off chance that enough high ranking people would see it. They had to be used in combination to give the (false) impression that the US had loads of weapons and was waiting to use them.

d/ Other options: continued firebombing, more civilian casualties. Invasion, millions of civiilan casualties. Continuing blockade, more civilian casualties due to starvation.

Sorry, what was that painless alternative again?
3

SerranoAug. 01, 2011 - 10:21PM JST

The alternative to the A-bombings was an invasion of Honshu which would have taken way more lives on both sides. Even after the near total destruction of Tokyo by fire-bombing 5 months before, incredibly, the Japanese weren't surrendering. Sure, all the bombings were "war crimes." But if these "war crimes" hadn't been carried out we might all be subjects of the Imperial Japanese government now, lol.
0

SerranoAug. 01, 2011 - 10:23PM JST

Incredible! 54% of JT readers say no!
0

wpgbhoyAug. 01, 2011 - 10:47PM JST

defo not a painless alternative. No merit in speculating who may have done what or what may have happened. Thats baseless justification.
0

joseal19Aug. 01, 2011 - 10:57PM JST

For me, the most important thing is to learn from this 2 atrocities, namely the 2 A-bombings, so they never ever happen again. Unfortunately, it seems to me that none of both sides have learned that lesson. The Japanese people celebrates this every year, but i have never heard an apology from the Japanese gorvernment regarding the bloodshed carried out in Manchuria, China during the WWII. The US government still has many nuclear weapons ready to be used. Of course the 2 A-bombs were a war crime to me, same as many others that happen every year -Congo and Sudan to name a few-. But history is written by those who won, never by the losers.
1

TheQuestionAug. 02, 2011 - 02:21AM JST

Short answer. No. The alternative to the bombing required a higher price than the U.S was willing to pay and even if the Japanese were on the ropes they gave no outward indication that they would surrender. Suicide attacks had unnerved many commanders and the idea of fighting an enemy that would use themselves as living bombs was, at the time, an alien and utterly terrifying prospect. The cities were known military targets. While other, admittedly better, targets were considered weather and logistical constraints narrowed the choices down to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had a limited number of atom bombs and they needed to be used to affect rapid surrender.
-3

ZENJIAug. 02, 2011 - 04:56AM JST

i believe this act is a war crime because of this act i have a deep dislike/distrust of all americans pearl harbor was not a day of infamy. it was a brilliant attack on a arrogant enemy
-1

nec123aAug. 02, 2011 - 05:52AM JST

hey Zenji....which came first?

The bombing helped end the war and saved countless Japanese lives. It exposed the war criminals at the heart of the Japanese government and started the internationalisation of Japan.
2

Christina O'NeillAug. 02, 2011 - 07:25AM JST

In my estimation it was a war crime but then i consider the deliberate taking of any life a sad reflection on the human race
-1

YubaruAug. 02, 2011 - 07:30AM JST

Incredible! 54% of JT readers say no!

What's more incredible is the 37% who say yes.
0

EXPAT6988Aug. 02, 2011 - 07:42AM JST

Some diligent research of documents will reveal to you that the decision was made to avoid unnecessary loss of US military lives anticipated in the event of a land assault against the main islands of Japan. To quote a not so popular General of the time, "it is not the duty of the American soldier to die for his country, it is his duty to make the other poor bastard die for his." Af the first bombing (Hiroshima) there was not response indicating surrender, so the second bomb was dropped. War is not nice. Serve in one or two and then make judgements.
2

cleoAug. 02, 2011 - 07:51AM JST

Kersey23 -

The shower of my own side's propaganda? How condescending. I think for myself. If not, I would say that the Japanese deserved it and had everything they got coming, because I AM American. BUT I NEVER EVER SAID SUCH A THING. I brought fact and reality to an emotional subject that should be devoid of emotion. You are just saying that right is right and wrong is wrong and ignoring how wars were fought at the time. It is not all about right and wrong. It is not black and white at all. Morals today are different than they were of that time. I seem to feel that you are going to tell me that if you had grown up in that time that you would think how you do today? You wouldn't. neither would I.

When I said you I didn't mean you Kersey23, I meant the people in general you. There's a space between my comment to you and the comment you take objection to, which was meant as a general remark. Sorry if it got you in a huff.

It's a common tactic in wartime to make the enemy out to be some kind of subhuman beast who deserves to be removed from the earth - none of us are safe while they are still strong. If you and I had lived during that time, I have no doubt we would likely have seen things as we were meant to see them - quite differently to our present views. And we would have been soaked in the propaganda of our own side, with no access to any other opinion. That's not condescending, it's fact. There's no other way to wage war, you have to make your own people believe that you are in the right and that the enemy are monsters - once you have your own side feeling sorry for the little children and innocent civilians on the other side, you find your soldiers refusing to drop bombs. Wars cannot be fought without fanaticism, and the fanatics will find a way to justify any horror or atrocity that will help them win. Doesn't make their actions any less horrible or atrocious, though.
-1

strollerAug. 02, 2011 - 07:56AM JST

war crime Noun: An action carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war.

The US didn't violate any rules, they even gave them warnings.

Japan violated more international rules of war at this time.
0

supercross1985Aug. 02, 2011 - 08:06AM JST

America and Britain went from splitting Berlin with the Russians,into thinking should we just move into Russia and end the real threat,it was already the Cold War,both sides using captured German knowledge and technology in the mad Nuclear Arms race.

Americas dropping of those two bombs was more to do with giving the Russians a firm warning of what they had in store if they took on their old Allies,than ending the war against Japan.Who knows what would have happened if the Russians had got their nuclear arms program up and running first!

How any of us read or interpret history will never be real as we are all victims of our own nations views,lies,even our own parents and teachers bias.But we are all intelligent enough to learn from past mistakes,I hope.
0

nstn123Aug. 02, 2011 - 08:33AM JST

There's no war crime. There's only war.
-2

MrDogAug. 02, 2011 - 09:42AM JST

No. It wasn't a war crime because the allies won.

The losers get tried for war crimes.

The winners can do no wrong.
-2

MrDogAug. 02, 2011 - 09:46AM JST

Oh, and for those saying "war itself is a crime", then surely those who started it should be punished?

Germany started it, that's why no-one got arrested for the fire bombing of Dresden. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they started the war with the U.S., that's why the 2 atomic bombings aren't war crimes. Because they "got what they deserved", apparently...

Like I said above.

The only ones who do "war crimes" are the losers.
1

kurumazakaAug. 02, 2011 - 09:58AM JST

I am one of the few "not sure" voters. From the comfort of my keyboard I can say Hiroshima, no, Nagasaki, yes. In Nagaski, we knew what we had done to Hiroshima and chose to do it again. That said, if I look through the eyes of Harry Truman, I probably would have done the same. Though it is true that Tokyo was sending "feelers" through the Swiss, they were not willing to surrender unconditionally. To a US military planner with intimate knowledge of the resolution of WWI, a conditional surrender would basically mean we could all be doing it again in 20 years. War on the pacific had convinced Washington that Japan was an implacable enemy. The utter brutality and no surrender under any circumstances character of the IJA backfired on Japan big time, and sadly, the civilian population suffered the most over issues they did not understand (deliberate wartime censorship). Did the atomic bombings save many lives on both sides? Almost certainly true, but that is little solace to those who died horrible deaths from burns and radiation sickness. From a strategic standpoint, I agree with Supercross. The entrance of the USSR into the pacific theatre can not be overstated. The Soviets wanted Hokkaido and Tohoku, and the US needed to end the war before they could get in and make a legitimate claim. A "North Japan" akin to North Korea was a very real possibility. I wholeheartedly believe that the bombings were a message to Stalin and a way to kill two birds with one stone. The bombings, a sickening as they are from a human suffering/morality standpoint, are almost certainly the reason hot war never broke out between the superpowers during the cold war, and are the backbone of the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction that still serves as a stabilizer to this day. In the larger picture, the bombings did more good than harm. I no way do I intend to trivialize the terrible cost suffered, but war crime or not, it was an example of sound strategic reasoning. I would add that Japan and Germany were also pursuing the bomb, the US just got there first thanks to Germany's finest scientists having to escape the Holocaust.The technological genie was already out of the bottle. Someone would have used it. (Which is just as true today, and the reason I consider the "world without nukes" thesis to be a dangerously bad joke)
-1

johninnahaAug. 02, 2011 - 10:46AM JST

The war that was given the title of the "War to End All Wars" was WWI, 1914-1918.

It certainly didn't.

Absolutely NO progress has been made since then. In fact, it just got a whole lot worse.

WWII, the Korean War, the senseless Vietnam War, on and on.

And even now, the U.S.A. and U.K. are guilty of killing hundreds of thousands (who knows how many) innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.

This is a bit like giving up smoking by by smoking more.

Creating a police state and increasing the military to force people into submission is not going to end war.

It's just going to make it bloodier.

War or Peace?

It's up to us to decide.
0

AylerAug. 02, 2011 - 12:09PM JST

There are no war crimes, war is the crime.
-2

MrDogAug. 02, 2011 - 12:40PM JST

There are no war crimes, war is the crime.

Hit me with your bunch of daffodils.

Read my post above:

Oh, and for those saying "war itself is a crime", then surely those who started it should be punished?
1

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 01:34PM JST

There are only two sides to this debate: Those who know the atomic and fire bombings were war crimes and those in denial trying (and failing) to lawyer a loophole.

In Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899 it states:

"The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. "

"In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes."

There are many ways one might try to slither around these. First they may say the bombardment was from the air, so the rule of war on the ground don't apply. But, do they believe cannonalls used to roll on the ground? Bombardment always contained an element of the air. Whether from an airplane or a cannon that is bouncing on springs, its the same. Next, someone might try to say that someone in Hiroshima in Nagasaki may have possessed a pistol, therefore the cities were defended. Obviously that is not what is meant by being defended in the treaty.

But there is no getting around the fact that NO CARE was taken to spare any hospitals or other building mentioned in the treaty.

It was completely known the entire city would be flattened. It was completely known the city was full of civilian women and children who had nothing to do with the fighting. And it was completely obvious to anyone that attacking civilians is against the rules of war. In 1939 FDR wrote: "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."

Even if one still wants to slither around those (which pretty much means no rule exists that cannot be slithered around somehow) even the slitheriest of the slitherers cannot get around the simple fact that it was also a crime against humanity, a class of crime for which the U.S. itself prosecuted the Germans and Japanese for without hesitation. Ex post facto and written rules sure made no difference in the face of well known and established rules of engagement then. If either of those two had dropped atom bombs, we all know what would have happened. Those saying the bombings were not war crimes are so two-faced they embarrass Janus!
-2

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 01:39PM JST

they were not willing to surrender unconditionally.

Conditional surrender is really not so bad! They got their conditions in the end anyhow!
-1

FireyReiAug. 02, 2011 - 01:46PM JST

And if they are viewed as war crimes, what? The US should hang those still alive & connected to the attack?

I smell Japan wanting more 'victim' propaganda to put in the school textbooks, avoiding what the rest of the world knows about that period of history.

Should we make another poll too about the Russian death camps post-WW2?

How about another poll about the British concentration camps during the Boer War?

What exactly is the purpose of this poll Japan Today? Looks like stirring up trouble to me.
-2

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 01:56PM JST

To quote a not so popular General of the time, "it is not the duty of the American soldier to die for his country, it is his duty to make the other poor bastard die for his."

Since Patton is not around to defend his own words, I have to STRONGLY object to misapplication of his quote to innocent civilians. Patton was NOT talking about babies in their mother's arms. He was talking about SOLDIERS!

Patton also said this: "Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men."

This is abundantly clear by the fact that the majority voted "not a war crime".
0

Spidapig24Aug. 02, 2011 - 01:56PM JST

chewitup

There are only two sides to this debate: Those who know the atomic and fire bombings were war crimes and those in denial trying (and failing) to lawyer a loophole. In Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899 it states: "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited. "

You are correct there, thanks for proving the point for those that believe the bombing was not a war crime. As Hiroshima was defended and indeed a military city the according to your above quote was a legitimate target.

Next, someone might try to say that someone in Hiroshima in Nagasaki may have possessed a pistol, therefore the cities were defended. Obviously that is not what is meant by being defended in the treaty.

No you are right they possessed much more than a pistol. They had military vessels in harbour, military barracks and supply warehouse, military industry and also a military headquarters. So again that woul dmake them a fairly big military target.

But there is no getting around the fact that NO CARE was taken to spare any hospitals or other building mentioned in the treaty.

Well true bit hard to be selective when dropping an A bomb. Unlike the Japanese who willfully went into hospitals and raped the nurses and bayonetted patients in their beds. But l guess thats ok as long as it was the Japanese doing it right?

It was completely known the city was full of civilian women and children who had nothing to do with the fighting. And it was completely obvious to anyone that attacking civilians is against the rules of war.

Actually a lot of the children had been evacuated in May of 1945 and those that remained where in the service of the military and used for communications duties and clearing fire breaks. They were actually employed by the military. So sorry weak argument there.

Even if one still wants to slither around those (which pretty much means no rule exists that cannot be slithered around somehow) even the slitheriest of the slitherers cannot get around the simple fact that it was also a crime against humanity, a class of crime for which the U.S. itself prosecuted the Germans and Japanese for without hesitation.

No see thats where your wrong, the US and allies prosecuted those who started a war of aggression and those that committed war crimes such as killing POW's and civilians in massacres. They tried those that ran concentration camps, and ethnic cleansing campaigns. And you need to remember it was a horrible war and the Germans and Japanese both willfully targeted civilians long before the US entered the war. But working on your theory the allies should have tried the biggest war criminal of them all, the beloved emperor.
0

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 02, 2011 - 02:02PM JST

chewitup

There are only two sides to this debate: Those who know the atomic and fire bombings were war crimes and those in denial trying (and failing) to lawyer a loophole.

Sounds like GW Bush. Only two sides?
-4

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 02:02PM JST

And if they are viewed as war crimes, what? The US should hang those still alive & connected to the attack?

Fatal flaw #1: You decide guilt or innocence based on the possible sentence. The sentence is a separate question and I sure am not asking for a sentence, but just admission of the war crime.

Fatal flaw #2: You assume it should be the United States dishing out the justice.

"Should we make another poll too about the Russian death camps post-WW2?"

Fatal flaw #3: You believe the question is contingent upon the actions of others.
-3

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 02:04PM JST

Starting war is a crime. Yes.

But so are the criminal actions of all sides from that point on.
0

SerranoAug. 02, 2011 - 02:12PM JST

War sucks. But so does tyranny.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The U.S. could have

a ) surrendered and there would not have been any war ( Pacific war )

But the U.S. chose to

b ) commit "war crimes" by bombing the Japanese into submission, and win the war

I submit that the world is better off with choice b.
-4

smithinjapanAug. 02, 2011 - 02:53PM JST

The bombings were 100% war crimes, and that is justified by the fact that they only committed them because they needed to show the Soviets the might of America, and to justify the billions they spent on the project. There is no other reason. The idea that bombs that killed hundreds of thousands 'saved lives' is completely ludicrous, and speculative at best. There is valid proof that the 'war of attrition' was going to end soon without the bombings, but no...

sarge; "b ) commit "war crimes" by bombing the Japanese into submission, and win the war. I submit that the world is better off with choice b."

Of course you do, because, besides the name change to escape the silliness posted under your past moniker, you're still you. It isn't an issue of 'if the US did not nuke Japan the US would have needed to surrender' by any means, my friend.
-4

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 03:37PM JST

Well true bit hard to be selective when dropping an A bomb.

You think that would fly if it were America that got an A-bomb dropped on it? Come on. "A bit hard" simply does not cut it. If a guy decided to defend his home with a gatling gun, in the process not only killing the intruder but his own family and some people next door too, you would come back with "Its a bit hard to avoid collateral damage with a gatlin gun". Same if he used dynamite. You would say he should have used a shotgun. Do you think the U.S. lacked smaller and more precise bombs?? Come on, the U.S. was NOT EVEN TRYING. Its as clear as day.

You are correct there, thanks for proving the point for those that believe the bombing was not a war crime. As Hiroshima was defended and indeed a military city the according to your above quote was a legitimate target.

No. No. Thank you for proving that you will overlook words if it suits. Every undefended building destroyed was a war crime.

They had military vessels in harbour, military barracks and supply warehouse, military industry and also a military headquarters.

Slither, slither, slither. How does a supply warehouse constitute a defense? Just chucking that in there shows how weak you think your own case is that you need to pad it with fluff! A military headquarters? What, did you think they were to use the paper the orders were written on to inflict paper cuts on enemy soldiers? Industry? I don't know what they were making, but even half finished miliary vehicles don't count, doubly so as there was no one to drive them! Shells without cannons also don't count. And the vessels in the harbor are debatable at best. They were not there for defense. I suspect they were there being repaired.

Your whole post is desperate 8 ways from Sunday. You are just too chicken to challenge your own brainwashing.

Unlike the Japanese who willfully went into hospitals and raped the nurses and bayonetted patients in their beds. But l guess thats ok as long as it was the Japanese doing it right?

Desperate. Pathetic. Two wrongs don't make a right, and HOW DARE YOU allow your own pathetic lack of moral integrity to become a lens for my views!

They were actually employed by the military.

They were not BELLIGERANTS. You have to be carrying a weapon to become a belligerant. Collecting scrap, running communications etc do not make you a belligerant. And BABIES? Hello?

Not only did the U.S. military clearly not even try to obey the rules, clearly, you are not even trying to be honest with YOURSELF.

committed war crimes such as killing POW's and civilians in massacres.

And Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Tokyo were not massacres of civilians? Tell you what. I will let you find your own numbers. How many military personnel were killed at Hiroshima? How many civilians?

And you need to remember it was a horrible war and the Germans and Japanese both willfully targeted civilians long before the US entered the war.

Two wrongs still are not making a right.
-5

chewitupAug. 02, 2011 - 03:49PM JST

Most of the lame excuses for the bombings amount to "It would hurt my pride to admit these were war crimes." Do some introspection and you will find its nearly the whole foundation. Well it hurts MY PRIDE to admit that so many of my fellow man are so friggen weak. But I endure.
0

FireyReiAug. 02, 2011 - 04:14PM JST

Chewitup,

Here are your 'fatal flaws':

Fatal flaw #1: I am asking for the purpose of this poll. What Japan wants from it. Not making any decisions but posing a possible need from Japan Today.

Fatal flaw #2: You're ignoring the main point - should people be hanged for this if proved a crime?

Fatal flaw #3: I believe if this should be brought up, in all fairness, other possible crimes should be brought up too. Unless you believe in double standards?

Do you seriously believe your linguistic skill that high as to fully comprehend my meaning, from a few lines of text?

You're blowing your own trumpet son.
2

Spidapig24Aug. 02, 2011 - 04:19PM JST

chewitup

You think that would fly if it were America that got an A-bomb dropped on it? Come on. "A bit hard" simply does not cut it. If a guy decided to defend his home with a gatling gun, in the process not only killing the intruder but his own family and some people next door too, you would come back with "Its a bit hard to avoid collateral damage with a gatlin gun". Same if he used dynamite. You would say he should have used a shotgun. Do you think the U.S. lacked smaller and more precise bombs?? Come on, the U.S. was NOT EVEN TRYING. Its as clear as day.

We are talking WW2, they didnt have cruise missiles and laser guided bombs. All bombs dropped where dumb bombs that where at the mercy of speed, wind etc. They didnt have the sophisticated bomb aiming devices around today. So to answer your question yes the US did lack smaller more precise bombs. But more importantly the city was packed with military targets as l have said. One thing l didnt mention earlier was the use of civilian homes by the japanese military to billet soldier prior to their departure to war duties. So technically by stationing of active duty troops in civilian homes the Japanese removed the argument of the attack being on civilian targets.

No. No. Thank you for proving that you will overlook words if it suits. Every undefended building destroyed was a war crime.

So the fact that there was a major military headquarters located in the middle of the city, all the cities industry had been turned into war industry, soldiers where stationed in civilian homes prior to dispatch to the war front, the harbor had been turned into a military hub. And you still say it was a civilian target. You forget we are talking about the 1940's when weapons were not accurate and to attack a target there was lots of collateral damage. There where not the pinpoint accurate weapons of today. But you seem to forget that.
1

MrDogAug. 02, 2011 - 04:19PM JST

Sometimes the things done in war can be morally wrong, but necessary for the whole. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a message to Japan that they should either give up, or get obliterated. The bomb on Nagasaki was to show them that the Hiroshima bomb wasn't a one-off and that the allies were serious about it and had more to come if necessary.

Morally wrong? Maybe.

Saved lives and ended the war? Yes.

"We make war so that we may live in peace." - Aristotle
4

Spidapig24Aug. 02, 2011 - 04:22PM JST

Chewitup

cont'd.

How does a supply warehouse constitute a defense?

he supply warehouses in Hiroshima where used to store weapons and war equipment manufactured in Hiroshima and surrounding areas prior to its shipment from Hiroshima harbor to the front lines. So that said it is involved in the war effort, held war supplies and therefore was a target.

Just chucking that in there shows how weak you think your own case is that you need to pad it with fluff! A military headquarters? What, did you think they were to use the paper the orders were written on to inflict paper cuts on enemy soldiers? Industry?

Wow you seriously are struggling arnt you. A military headquarters is a valuable target, l am not sure if you realise this (judging by your comment you dont) military headquarters issue the orders about where soldiers, ships etc are sent, they plan attacks, and organise the war fighting. So please before you come out with comments like "What, did you think they were to use the paper the orders were written on to inflict paper cuts on enemy soldiers" try actually researching.

I don't know what they were making, but even half finished miliary vehicles don't count, doubly so as there was no one to drive them! Shells without cannons also don't count. And the vessels in the harbor are debatable at best. They were not there for defense. I suspect they were there being repaired.

Sorry but this is one of the strangest statements l have EVER heard in my life. So in your logic a half built tank is not a target until it is built, armed and manned. That is the most unbelievable thing l have ever heard. Any war industry is a target, any warship damaged or otherwise is a target (unless it has a white surrender flag), anything associated with the military is a target. I suggest you actually look these things up and learn about it before posting this ill informed comment.
3

Spidapig24Aug. 02, 2011 - 04:23PM JST

Chewitup

cont'd

Your whole post is desperate 8 ways from Sunday. You are just too chicken to challenge your own brainwashing.

Actually its funny l used to think that maybe the US went to far with this bombing and that indeed they did target a civilian area. But you know what changed my mind, l went to Hiroshima. I went to the peace park, l went to the museum there and read more about what happened and a lot of details particularly about military units in Hiroshima and how the city had become a military city was brought to light by the Japanese museum. Not by US history but by Japanese accounts of the event. Interesting that isnt it? Have you been there Chewitup? Maybe you should and you to could learn a few things. For example the military headquarters in Hiroshima was responsible for the operations in the South Pacific, an area that was still actively fighting the war.

"Unlike the Japanese who willfully went into hospitals and raped the nurses and bayonetted patients in their beds. But l guess thats ok as long as it was the Japanese doing it right?" Desperate. Pathetic. Two wrongs don't make a right, and HOW DARE YOU allow your own pathetic lack of moral integrity to become a lens for my views!

Thats funny you seem to defend the Japanese you tend to overlook the atrocities that they committed. This was not a noble war fought by two noble enemies who respected the rules of war. The Japanese where ruthless war criminals who massacred civilians, murdered POW's who had surrendered, used Okinawans as human shields, raped women and killed kids. They ignored ever rule of war that you so fondly quoted. And you are complaining about a couple of bombs that killed 200,000 Japanese. At least they didnt go through the hell that the Japanese inflicted on millions of people. So how dare you down play what your murderous rampage of countrymen did to innocents around the world. How dare you complain about legitimate bombing of a military target when your despicable emperor and government gave orders AFTER your surrender to murder surviving POW's to cover up the mistreatment. Personally l am disgusted how easily Japan got off after the war.

"They were actually employed by the military." They were not BELLIGERANTS. You have to be carrying a weapon to become a belligerant. Collecting scrap, running communications etc do not make you a belligerant. And BABIES? Hello?

If you employed by the military you are an enemy combatant regardless. But using your logic what are your feeling about the attack on Pearl Harbor as they where in port no threat to anyone. Then l guess on your theory thats a war crime too?

And Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Tokyo were not massacres of civilians? Tell you what. I will let you find your own numbers. How many military personnel were killed at Hiroshima? How many civilians?

How many civilians did Japan kill during the war. Your countrymen killed more at Nanking with bullets and bayonets than died at Hiroshima. But you will say two wrongs dont make a right and you would be correct but you complain about 2 bombings, yet do not mention the hundreds of atrocities committed by your countrymen and you even glorify them by arguing this point
0

yaneeAug. 02, 2011 - 05:57PM JST

Not war crimes. The only mistake that was made was that the first bomb was not dropped on Tokyo to disable the top military officials and the emperor himself, thus ending the war immediately.
0

YubaruAug. 02, 2011 - 06:35PM JST

Funny reading through some of the comments on this topic. More appropriate for discussion should be in my opinion the continued arsenals of nukes that more and more countries throughout the world have created and others aim towards still.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not by definition war crimes, but they were and still are, and hopefully will forever,be symbols of the horrors of not just nukes but war itself. Japan has to stop playing the victim, the US has to stop trying to justify something it's forefathers decided was appropriate to save AMERICAN AND JAPANESE lives.

In the long run it doesnt matter really, all that matters is how we live from now on and learn from our past, quit pointing fingers, GROW UP, and move on.
0

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 02, 2011 - 08:34PM JST

spidapig

But you know what changed my mind, l went to Hiroshima. I went to the peace park, l went to the museum there and read more about what happened and a lot of details particularly about military units in Hiroshima and how the city had become a military city was brought to light by the Japanese museum.

So did I. And like spidapig I found many of my convictions about the issue changed. It was also rather depressing to encounter school kids from all over the country but with the same, apparently Monbusho-approved, vague and formulaic statements about not WW2 but war in general. This was well over twenty years ago. But I doubt things are that much different.

I think chewitup owes himself a visit to Hiroshima.
0

Spidapig24Aug. 02, 2011 - 08:43PM JST

Breitbart

So did I. And like spidapig I found many of my convictions about the issue changed. It was also rather depressing to encounter school kids from all over the country but with the same, apparently Monbusho-approved, vague and formulaic statements about not WW2 but war in general. This was well over twenty years ago. But I doubt things are that much different. I think chewitup owes himself a visit to Hiroshima.

I went about a month ago and apart from a couple of sections of the museum where things were well a little ambiguous in their accounts l found the museum very forthright about some issues infact l learnt more about why the city was targeted from this museum than from some internet sites that gave reasons for the bombing. It was refreshing to see the level of detail and recommend it to everyone. Very sobering experience indeed and you can walk away with a deeper understanding of the event.
1

VirtuosoAug. 02, 2011 - 10:25PM JST

Unfortunately there was an unspoken mutual agreement among the warring nations that civilians would not be spared. In fact, they were killed, indiscriminately, by the millions. Look at what was done to Nanjing, Warsaw, Chungking, London, Berlin, Leningrad, Manila, etc. Ergo, it would only have been viewed as a war crime if the bombs had been dropped after Japan had accepted the Potsdam accords.
1

SerranoAug. 02, 2011 - 10:47PM JST

I see that smithinjapan ( Aug.2, 2:53pm ) is in favor of the U.S. continuing to drop conventional bombs on Japan and invade Honshu at a terrible cost on both sides that would have made Hiroshima & Nagasaki look like a picnic, and continues to insult posters.
0

SeiharinokazeAug. 02, 2011 - 11:03PM JST

I don't use the definition of war crime here. But MacArthur thought that the war would be brought to end soon when he knew in June 1945 that Japan asked for the Soviet's mediation for peace. And Dwight Eisenhower felt depressed when he was informed in mid-July by Henry Stimson of the decision to use the atomic bomb and voiced his misgivings that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. He knew then that Japan was seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face". To nuke a country which was exploring to surrender after being practically defeated already was at least not commendable.
1

sdbriAug. 03, 2011 - 12:47AM JST

No, but the Japanese brutalization of all its neighbors certainly was. The fact that they acknowledge one but not the other as crimes shows how insincere they still are and why none of their asian neighbors take them seriously on this.
-3

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 01:12AM JST

The fact that they acknowledge one but not the other as crimes shows how insincere they still are

They? You really think they all think the same?

A lot of Japanese don't even know about the crimes you speak of. Many that do agree they were crimes.

But, this thread is proof of the power of denial. Those of us not in denial just get tired of beating our heads against the wall of people in denial. And so denial gets the floor, whether its Americans talking about Hiroshima or Japanese talking about Unit 731, denial seems to be as hard as diamonds.

I rationalize this denial as people feel very keenly that what their countrymen did is strongly related to themselves. I see it when people practically take credit for their national team winning. It means nothing to me. Therefore I can admit the truth without shame. American Olympic gold is nothing to do with me. Neither is atom bomb infamy.
-1

nigelboyAug. 03, 2011 - 01:25AM JST

MacArthur thought that the war would be brought to end soon when he knew in June 1945 that Japan asked for the Soviet's mediation for peace.

I believe we had similar discussion last year at the same time in that it was the failure of these negotiations with the Soviets and their subsequent declaration of war against Japan was the primary reason for Japan's decision to surrender and not as a result of the A-bombs.
0

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 01:27AM JST

I think chewitup owes himself a visit to Hiroshima.

Been there. Changes nothing. Even some Japanese guy saying Japanese deserved to be bombed changes nothing. Odds are he was not the one bombed! He sure did not die in the atom bombings! How very pompous of anyone to think the old men, young mothers, schoolkids and newborn babies in Hiroshima deserved to be bombed because buttholes like Tojo in Tokyo decided to launch a war! I mean really! If some Iraqi or Afghani wants to take pot shots at GWB for the wars in their countries, I won't complain. But to think that I, or my wife or my son should also be attacked? Get out a town! Heck, they can go after my cousins who were stupid and arrogant enough to go fight as well! But me and my family? Nothing to do with it.

And that is why the Hague convention that America was bound to at that time states that civilians are to be left alone.

But, truth be told, to interpret the relaying of official American "reasons" for choosing Hiroshima as being one and the same with approval for those "reasons" is just move proof how deep denial is here.
0

WilliBAug. 03, 2011 - 01:49AM JST

chewitup:

" How very pompous of anyone to think the old men, young mothers, schoolkids and newborn babies in Hiroshima deserved to be bombed "

....and nobody thinks that. Strawman argument.

Fact is, old men, young mothers, schoolkids and newborn babies were killed war theaters all over the world in WW2. That does not make it OK. But it means that the a-bombs were not unique in that. How do you think ld men, young mothers, schoolkids and newborn babies fared e.g. in the conventional firebombing of Tokyo?
-3

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 01:50AM JST

I believe we had similar discussion last year at the same time in that it was the failure of these negotiations with the Soviets and their subsequent declaration of war against Japan was the primary reason for Japan's decision to surrender and not as a result of the A-bombs.

There were several reasons for the surrender. But yes, it does seem the decision was made before the A-bombs. If the A-bombs did anything, they ended the foot dragging.
0

HeythiaAug. 03, 2011 - 01:52AM JST

Hague convention? The US violates every convention ever made in history and then blame it on another country. The convention is a joke like the UN
0

HeythiaAug. 03, 2011 - 01:59AM JST

Also I like people here rationalize a-bombing with rape of Nanking.

So a group of soldiers go out and rape a bunch of chinese people. Instead of punishing those soldiers, let's drop 2 a-bombs on a group of civilians.

Am I missing the logic here or am I on crazy pills?

Last I checked, you should punish the criminals and not the bystanders. it's like arresting a murderer's parents and giving them life in prison for what the murderer did.

But I'm not used to this European logic, can someone fill me in here?
-1

nigelboyAug. 03, 2011 - 02:04AM JST

So a group of soldiers go out and rape a bunch of chinese people. Instead of punishing those soldiers, let's drop 2 a-bombs on a group of civilians.

Actually, those soldiers were punished where military tribunals were held throughout Asia after the war. The Allied soldiers were basically exempt from these tribunals simply because they were winners.
0

MennaSAug. 03, 2011 - 03:52AM JST

Overall, war is just a big cluster of crimes done by humanity against humanity. But I believe that if you deal the first blow, I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones. So, taking that into the context of WW2: the Axis Powers was committing mass genocide and they attacked the US, so I believe the U.S. was morally correct to defend itself. Regardless, it's still a crime to kill other people. So if the world had a court I'm pretty sure the US would be guilty of self-defense resulting in death. Not as bad as mass-murder for the sake of ethnic purification.....
0

amerijapAug. 03, 2011 - 03:56AM JST

I wonder how many times we have encountered this open-ended question every year when the X-day is approaching, and where this will bring us in the future. I don't know how many people in this forum are truly thinking about the meaning of engaging in this history debate to seek its end--yes, what is the end? Reconciliation? Compensation? Mutual agreement on what has been discussed and what was being neglected at the time of war(and will likely to be buried forever for the sake of national/political stability?? History debate is, without a doubt, culture war. It reflects upon your perception of your home country, your neighbors, your friends and foes in a contemporary period. What I usually see in the debate so far is a mundane repetitiveness of focusing too much on the nitty-gritty of the facts (what the perpetrators did in a specific time or a period)--rather than the process (or the progress) in which the former victims and victimizers turned the pages from the past and transformed their state sovereignty into liberal/social democracy or communist (like NK). It really makes me wonder what exactly the folks here are pursuing through this critical-rational deliberation. I've always expected that it should be something we might get beyond arguing culture for culture's sake. But, I have to say, the character of the debate in this forum does not seem to move in that direction.
0

BessonovYanAug. 03, 2011 - 04:55AM JST

The question suggests readers to designate to state a legal estimation of bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is an occasion to eternal disputes between lawyers and historians. However the answer to this question doesn't give understanding of an essence of the occurred event. From the point of view of the USSR wasn't what military necessity to dump nuclear bombs to Japan. The destiny of Japan has been predetermined. destruction of exclusively civilians as has affected army of Japan. How many the ships, planes, soldiers were lost by army of Japan as a result of nuclear bombardments? If I correctly understand - any fighting unit. In essence it was intimidation not only the Emperor and the Government of Japan, but also the whole world. By means of the cruelty of the USA have explained to the World, who the new owner on mother Earth. Terror of civilians is the basic way of conducting war of the western civilization. This terror proceeds last 1000. The West likes to speak about humanism and other nonsense much. However the West regularly makes massacre.
0

BessonovYanAug. 03, 2011 - 06:08AM JST

In Japan bring up fear before a nuclear bomb and radiation last 66 years. It isn't correct. Radioactive technologies in itself aren't guilty. The nuclear weapon is the intimidation weapon. I think that fear education before a nuclear bomb and radiation to be spent last 66 years not casually. By means of fear it is possible to operate public opinion of a Japanese society. I very much hope that this fear won't concern the prime minister of Kan and it will be free in decision-making. Against radiation there are no medicines. However, the nuclear weapon can be made useless. For this purpose it is necessary to cease to be afraid to die of explosion of a nuclear bomb and not to be afraid to die of radiation. The person caught radiation is worthy encouragement and sympathy, as sick cold.
-2

AylerAug. 03, 2011 - 08:01AM JST

Hit me with your bunch of daffodils.

pathetic
-2

sf2kAug. 03, 2011 - 09:22AM JST

conveniently missing are all the Japanese war criminals. There was a reason Japan was bombed. There were so many war criminals in Japan at the time, Americans knew they had no hope of a surrender on the grounds of a truce and would have to fight to the last man, so indoctrinated were the Japanese Army. Japanese took no to few prisoners, were battle hardened, and of course Nanjing was more fresh on the mind than now.

In that light perhaps it can be understood. Condoned or not Japan should be happy the war criminals lost.
-2

FrungyAug. 03, 2011 - 11:07AM JST

So many people view this as a simple US vs Japan thing, but in truth it wasn't. Yes, it would have been costly in lives to invade the mainland, but that wasn't the only option, a coastal bombardment was another strategic option on the table, and given the proximity of Japan's major manufacturing centres and the ease of sending aircraft inland to bomb other facilities it was clear that this wasn't about the cost of invading Japan.

Instead this was about the US and Russia, in effect the beginning of the Cold War. The Allied push to seize Germany was driven by fears of a rapidly expanding and very aggressive Russia, lead by what could only be described as a complete nutcase who was in many ways worse than Hitler (Stalin was a complete maniac).

The U.S. bombed Japan as a signal to Russia that they had nuclear capabilities and the will to use them. Was it right? Well, one has to assume a very broad view of history, not looking just at WW2, but also at the entire Cold War. If Russia knew that the U.S. had atomic weapons and was loathe to use them then the Cold War would have ended very differently, with Russia bombing the U.S. pre-emptively and today we'd all speak Russian. Now while Russia subsequently had some very cool presidents it also tends to treat it's territories very badly, for example Georgia, and while I have some valid criticism of imperialist U.S. foreign policy, well everything is relative and by comparison with the alternative, Russian world domination, the U.S. has been a saint.

In summary, I do consider what happened in Japan to be a war crime, because the moment we start dismissing a criminal act because it was necessary we lose sight of the absolute rule of law, however if it came to court I would be sympathetic to the U.S.'s conundrum, and with hindsight the bombing of Japan was in the greater good. One point I would raise though is that Japan's should get the credit for stopping Russia, since in effect they made the sacrifice, but were still villified, which strikes me as very unfair.
-6

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 01:05PM JST

Americans knew they had no hope of a surrender on the grounds of a truce and would have to fight to the last man

How many times has that been said? Yet, they lose two cities and call it quits? Obviously, they were not prepared to fight to the last man! You might have a better case if they lost, say, 20 cities rather than just 2.

How do you think ld men, young mothers, schoolkids and newborn babies fared e.g. in the conventional firebombing of Tokyo?

To avoid going in circles, you should try reading my posts. This is supposed to be about the A bombs, so I am not going to mention the firebombs in every post. Calling them war crimes once was enough.

....and nobody thinks that. Strawman argument.

Forgive me. Its like a canyon worth of difference between saying destroying the civilians of those cities was justified and saying it was all fair game since the Japanese started it, to saying they deserved it! Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Seems to me that people keep saying "the Japanese" over and over again and think every last man, woman, child and baby is responsible for Nanking and Pearl Harbor, and therefore targeting civlians because they are "the Japanese" was justified. What? You don't see it? Ha! You want it both ways just as much as the others. Strawman my lilly white butt.

I suppose now you are going to say civies were not the target, as if the epicenter of the bomb was the harbor! It wasn't. It was the city center and it was chosen for the purpose of causing maximum damage to THE CITY. Civilians were one of the targets. There is no way to slither around that.
-2

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 01:19PM JST

conveniently missing are all the Japanese war criminals. There was a reason Japan was bombed.

Case in point to the above. This guy apparently thinks killing a baby in Hiroshima is fair game because some guy from Niigata is a war criminal! Apparently they baby deserved it! Otherwise, what is the point? Japan's war crimes were pretty well done by the time of the A-bombings. Nanking was done. Japan was being pushed out of China. There was no emergency to stop the war crimes. So why slaughter women and babies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Apparently, they deserved it for Pearl Harbor. So need to target war industry, ships, AA guns etc. specifically with smaller bombs. Just nuke whole cities of civilians. No problem!
-3

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 01:29PM JST

So in your logic a half built tank is not a target until it is built, armed and manned.

The tank is a target. The tank being a target does not make a hospital next door a target. Nor city hall. Nor downtown. Nor the whole freaking city. Nor the whole country if you had a bomb that big. The target is the tank.

Sorry but this is one of the strangest statements l have EVER heard in my life.

Back at you. It was obvious I was talking about what would make Hiroshima, the entire city, a legit target to bombard into oblivion. A half-finished tank does not remotely cut it.

As I said, you want to lawyer a loophole and desperately. You completely ignore the obvious spirit of the rules, and try to slither between gaps in the words of the rules and think that makes it all good.
2

steve@CPFCAug. 03, 2011 - 01:31PM JST

chewitup; Japanese war crimes were still being committed on alarge scale particualr against allied prisoners and allied civilians forced into internment camps. In fact the time just before surrneder was one of the worst times for atrocities as the Japanese troops were low on rations and allowed their prisoners to starve.

Not only were allied prisoners tortuerd and murdered but civilians including children on a large scale. The fear of the Japanese military was one that made the bombs possible, there were other reasons of course. We hear a lot about "all sides committed wat crimes". but the US and its western allies did not embark in mass torture of prisoners and civilians, there are incidents but these were Japanese policy. Just take a look at the survival rate for allied prisoner at the hands of Japanese compared to Japanese prisoner survival rates at the hands of the allies. Easy to see who were out of controle and without humanity.

Japan was a facist country allied to Nazi Germany and facist Italy who wnated to take over the world and commit mass ethnic cleansing. Innocents in Japan died dued to bombings, sad but the Japanese leader are to blame and to a lesser extent the Japanese adult population of teh time who did not stand up to them.
-2

Spidapig24Aug. 03, 2011 - 02:01PM JST

chewitup,

How very pompous of anyone to think the old men, young mothers, schoolkids and newborn babies in Hiroshima deserved to be bombed because buttholes like Tojo in Tokyo decided to launch a war!

Well l will simplify this for you, as the Japanese leader Tojo, and Hirohito started this war and put the Japanese people at risk by their actions. You are obviously upset that innocents died and that is understandable but maybe your anger should be directed at those that started this war not those that where attacked by the Japanese. But also how very pompous to think that the people of Hiroshima are any way more important than the Chinese, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indian, Dutch, Australian, New Zealanders, Americans or Islanders that died at the hands of the Japanese (and lm talking civilians and POW's here). You seem to place more value on the lives of Japanese than on the lives of those the Japanese murdered.

And that is why the Hague convention that America was bound to at that time states that civilians are to be left alone.

Why should one side be forced to abide by rules that the other side broke and continued to break since day on even before the US entered to war. Japan at no time abided by the rules of war yet you expect the US to abide by them. Get real. But again you only seem to see the US as the bad guy here and you keep forgetting the A bombs where a culmination of a war full of Japanese atrocities. But you cant admit that can you?

But, truth be told, to interpret the relaying of official American "reasons" for choosing Hiroshima as being one and the same with approval for those "reasons" is just move proof how deep denial is here

Actually l would say the most compelling arguement as to why Hiroshima was bombed comes from the Japanese after all even they admit it was a military city.

Forgive me. Its like a canyon worth of difference between saying destroying the civilians of those cities was justified and saying it was all fair game since the Japanese started it, to saying they deserved it!

You keep saying civilians like this city was purely a civilian city, yet you have been given proof to the opposite and refuse to acknowledge it. Do yourself a favour and actually get some facts behind your argument, l suggest you visit the Hiroshima peace museum site online and read about Hiroshima before the bombing. This was not a civilian city but a military city. So it was a target and a legitimate target.

Seems to me that people keep saying "the Japanese" over and over again and think every last man, woman, child and baby is responsible for Nanking and Pearl Harbor, and therefore targeting civlians because they are "the Japanese" was justified. What? You don't see it? Ha! You want it both ways just as much as the others.

This wasnt targeting civilians it was target a military city and military infrastructure that was built in a city. Unlike Japan who did attack cities and civilian populations, by the way how do you feel about that? Do you think that the Japanese attacks on civilian populations constituted war crime? Dont worry l know you wont answer that.

I suppose now you are going to say civies were not the target, as if the epicenter of the bomb was the harbor! It wasn't. It was the city center and it was chosen for the purpose of causing maximum damage to THE CITY. Civilians were one of the targets. There is no way to slither around that.

Actually the epicenter was a couple of hundred meters from the Imperial headquarters at the Hiroshima castle. But yes the idea was to cause maximum damage to the city and its infrastructure. As l said before this was because of Hiroshima's function as a military city and military logistics point.

Case in point to the above. This guy apparently thinks killing a baby in Hiroshima is fair game because some guy from Niigata is a war criminal! Apparently they baby deserved it! Otherwise, what is the point?

Actually what he is saying is that Japans actions in the war made Japan as a whole a target. Much like Japans attacks on Australian civilians, they justify it because they where at war with each other. So you see if its good enough for one side (Japan) to do its, but you seem angry when Japans on the receiving end.

Japan's war crimes were pretty well done by the time of the A-bombings. Nanking was done. Japan was being pushed out of China. There was no emergency to stop the war crimes.

Ya think? Maybe you would like to explain the orders issued AFTER the A bombs where dropped AFTER Japan announced they would surrender, the orders that instructed the Japanese holding POW's to kill them so their would be no witnesses left to the treatment of POW's in captivity. Please explain that one for me? You seem to be so intent on defending the Japanese and damning the US l would love to hear your response to that.

So why slaughter women and babies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Apparently, they deserved it for Pearl Harbor. So need to target war industry, ships, AA guns etc. specifically with smaller bombs. Just nuke whole cities of civilians. No problem!

Yep exactly! By the way if civilians where evacuated in May of 45 from Hiroshima (by Japans own admission) then those who remained where involved in the war effort so a legitimate target. Any civilians left had obviously at their own risk decided to stay.
0

Howdy DoodyAug. 03, 2011 - 02:42PM JST

I myself, don't believe that these bombings to be a war crime. At the time, under the circumstances, it was necessary and thus it happened. As a result, the Japanese government surrendered, and thus the Japanese people have grown to be a symbol of peace, dignity, and prosperity. I personally believe that Japan would not be as successful and peaceful a nation as it is now, had the A-bomb not been dropped. We now must move on from that and strive to be a world free of nuclear weapons, (and hopefully one free of guns).
-2

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 03:48PM JST

chewitup; Japanese war crimes were still being committed on alarge scale particualr against allied prisoners and allied civilians forced into internment camps. In fact the time just before surrneder was one of the worst times for atrocities as the Japanese troops were low on rations and allowed their prisoners to starve.

Take notice spidapig. This man has made a good case against me. It still does not make women in babies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki legit targets, but he has a point.
-4

chewitupAug. 03, 2011 - 04:04PM JST

Nope the target is the industries that are being used to build it.

Boy, I still don't understand what part of the city center being where the bomb was dropped you are not understanding here. Ground zero was not a factory. Nor can I understand what part of the bomb being too big if the target was industry you don't get. The attack must fit the target. The target does not widen to fit the attack. The only way to be this incredibly bass ackwards to be in complete denial, and you are.

What you are saying is like if a bank robber was in a house full of his family, women, children babies, etc, that the police can and should just blow up the house and call it a day, because its easier that way, and gee, it was HIS babies. But hey, the target was the bank robber. Who thought the kids would die? Gee, it was not our intention that they die! We did not want the blast to kill the kids, but I guess our will power and use of the force just did not shield them from the blast! Bummer.

Bummer? No. Bullcrap! There is no difference between knowing full well innocent civilians across an entire city would die from your bomb and actually targeting them. That goes double when you actually aim for the center of the city! No court is going to allow a mere stated sentiment to become solid grounds for denial of intent, and neither will I! It was intended to kill the civilians because it was a foregone conclusion that the A-bomb would massacre them. It was not anything like an errant bullet at all!
-2

my2senseAug. 03, 2011 - 04:27PM JST

Let me cut and dry this: If Nazi Germany won the A-Bomb race, Hitler would have bombed a quarter of the world. If Imperial Japan won the race they would have done they same yet alone take over it. Case closed. We are lucky to be here and exist. We warned and they blew us off... we warned again and they blew us off. We even asked them to evacuate the city. We hit em once and they would not surrender, so we had to hit em again. Sorry but the US did not want to bomb civilians. Time to move on and forgive. Trust me...Either one of those evil empires was willing to take down your ancestors and take over the planet. War sucks and so do nukes and I hope we can scoop em all up and send to the sun.
-2

Spidapig24Aug. 03, 2011 - 04:32PM JST

chewitup,

Boy, I still don't understand what part of the city center being where the bomb was dropped you are not understanding here. Ground zero was not a factory.

You are right ground zero was not a factory. The aiming point was a bridge in the city about 500 meters from the Imperial Japanese military headquarters. It just so happened that the bomb was off target and exploded above a hospital. Regardless of where in the city it exploded it would have caused massive damage. But there is one thing you are forgetting and you have said it time and again and its been answered but you still dont get it. You keep saying that they should have attacked with smaller more precise weapons. You seem to forget something in WW2 there was no precision weapons. Do yourself a favour do some research look up how many missions and tons of bombs it took in WW2 to destroy a single target? Thats right how many tons! In the end the number of civilians killed might have been less, then again it may have been more. The point is you are advocating that they used an alternative that didnt exist. And given the fact the the city had targets all over it then who knows the devastation may have been worse we will never know. But one thing is for certain given the city was defended against air attack (oops so it was defended doesnt that make it a target according to what you said yesterday ""The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.") then the toll on the attacking aircrews would have been higher so one plane with one bomb reduced the risks to them.

Nor can I understand what part of the bomb being too big if the target was industry you don't get. The attack must fit the target. The target does not widen to fit the attack. The only way to be this incredibly bass ackwards to be in complete denial, and you are.

Let me see l will explain it again 1 plane with 1 A bomb or a couple of hundred planes with a couple of hundred tons of bombs. Look at other cities that where targeted with conventional bombs. Yes the bombing was over a longer period but the death tolls where equally high and devastation equally bad. The only difference is that it didnt happen in a instant.

What you are saying is like if a bank robber was in a house full of his family, women, children babies, etc, that the police can and should just blow up the house and call it a day, because its easier that way, and gee, it was HIS babies. But hey, the target was the bank robber. Who thought the kids would die? Gee, it was not our intention that they die! We did not want the blast to kill the kids, but I guess our will power and use of the force just did not shield them from the blast! Bummer.

So you equate the Japanese military action in WW2 to a bank robber. Sorry l cant stop laughing, how would you feel if in the process of commissioning the bank robbery the robber killed all the people in the bank and the town, raped the women killed the kids. Killed anyone not of his race and enslaved the rest of the survivors. And the house was full of his fellow kind and they where providing him material, financial and moral support. And if a police officer entered the house then his hostages would capture the officer hand him to the robber and result in the officers murder. Now that would be a more accurate analogy true?

There is no difference between knowing full well innocent civilians across an entire city would die from your bomb and actually targeting them. That goes double when you actually aim for the center of the city! No court is going to allow a mere stated sentiment to become solid grounds for denial of intent, and neither will I! It was intended to kill the civilians because it was a foregone conclusion that the A-bomb would massacre them. It was not anything like an errant bullet at a all.

Actually you are correct and l am getting sick of your blindness to the truth so l will say this no doubt it will offend but so be it. The facts are: 1. Japan started a war of aggression in the Pacific, 2. Japan at no time abided by the rules you cite, 3. Japan while severely crippled was at the time of the bombings still waging a war of aggression and refusing to surrender, 4. The Japanese people supported it military by housing troops in civilian homes, by working in the war industries, 5. war is bad, bad things happen, 6. Many cities in Japan where bombed many died, however Japan also bombed and killed many cities and killed millions of civilians during the war.

If killing a hundred thousand Japanese (not all civilians) ended a war that had cost millions of lives then so be it. It is a small price to pay for world peace, is it sad yes. Was it a war crime, probably in the true sense of the law. But in context of the war was it the worst thing that happened not by a long shot.

You are passionate about the fact that you believe it was wrong l respect that. I just hope that you feel equally passionate about the other war crimes committed by the Japanese during the war.

We will never agree on this so lets just agree to disagree, afterall the past is the past and as long as we learn from it then we honor those that did die on all sides true?
2

Howdy DoodyAug. 03, 2011 - 05:06PM JST

If Imperial Japan won the race they would have done they same yet alone take over it. Case closed.

Good point, my2sense. If the bomb had not been dropped, Japan would not have turned out to be the peaceful, prosperous, and wonderful country it is today. Bottom line is that it was necessary. Had it not been dropped, Japanese people would've remained aggressive and rude in nature. Now, I say that we on both sides of the debate should come together to get rid of all of the needless weapons in the world.
0

whiskeysourAug. 03, 2011 - 06:28PM JST

America didn`t win the war !!!!! Without the bombs the war would have continued for a long time. More civilian deaths could have taken place.

If America only used regular bombs and etc. It would have taken a decade to takeover the country. Plus who wanted a full military invasion of Japan ?

I think more women,children and teenagers would have died in the most bloodiest battle if the a bombs were not used.

After the war, America helped rebuild Japan. America won`t admit it during that time. But they were running out of soldiers.
1

kaketamaAug. 03, 2011 - 07:26PM JST

I don't think it's a war crime because a law punishing such a attack was created in 1977 and i feel it is useless to determine wether or not it is a war crime. Japan should not continue to crame that A-bombing is a kind of war crime and demand the U.S. to apologize for it. That has already been over and past incident. It is beneficial to reflect on past in an attempt to make the future better, but it's ridiculous to dig up past to criticize others.
1

Howdy DoodyAug. 03, 2011 - 09:23PM JST

It is beneficial to reflect on past in an attempt to make the future better, but it's ridiculous to dig up past to criticize others.

Exactly. The past is the past, and what's happened has happened. We should move on and enjoy the fact that everything turned out for the better. We can enjoy living in an age of peace and prosperity. While it's alright to remember the past, we should move on.
-2

hoserfellaAug. 03, 2011 - 09:58PM JST

JT - I'd say 80% of the responses so far are a good reason not to ask such a controversial question. Clearly most posters here have proven themselves to be unaware of basic history, or complete lilly-livered, bleeding-heart revisionists. Either way, it's always cringe-worthy. Stick to which AKB48 member JT posters prefer.
-1

umiosoAug. 04, 2011 - 12:36AM JST

No.
0

nicklin2005Aug. 04, 2011 - 03:02AM JST

JT is treading on dangerous waters by debating this topic. It is so easy to critique these events 60+ years later. War is never a good thing, too many innocent lives are lost. However, with that said, a country has to defend itself and I do not feel the Americans stepped over the line. If JT wants to debate, why dont they discuss the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the attrocities committed in China ? To this day the Japanese deny any wrong doings.
0

sfjp330Aug. 04, 2011 - 04:16AM JST

Beyond the numbers killed Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains the question of intent. Japan bears the chief responsibility for the war, and killed many Chinese civilians almost exclusively in connection with the practice of racial imperialism. Japan invaded the neighboring countries with elaborate colonization plans.Tens of Millions were to starve, and millions more were to be shot, deported, enslaved, or assimilated. Such plans, though unfulfilled, provided the rationale for the bloodiest occupation in the history of the world. The Japanese placed thousands of Chinese prisoners of war in starvation camps, where many perished from hunger and another half were shot. At the war’s end the U.S. killed tens of thousands of civilian people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in their own reprisals.
0

Earthinfold MantoothAug. 04, 2011 - 06:01AM JST

I think all wars have been a crime for the last 200 years. None of them were really necessary. It is a crime to war. As far as the general legal consensus, no, not a crime. All is fair in love and war, according to lawyers. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a similar action, with less destructive energy released. I suppose one could classify war crimes on a scale of civilian destruction. The worst war crime in history is the war against terrorism that has killed over one million people.
2

WillemAug. 04, 2011 - 06:22AM JST

Whether we're talking about the law of today or 60 years back, 100 years back, 500 years back or 1000 years back, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the victims are civilians or the military itself; any action you take to end people's lives is a crime. War itself is a crime. So ofcourse the a-bombings are also crimes.
1

bass4funkAug. 04, 2011 - 07:12AM JST

I have my own personal feelings about the war. I refrain from commenting who was a war criminal or who wasn't. I have my own personal feelings and I'll keep them them to myself, probably better that way. I'll leave the rest to the historians to debate those points. But I will say to anyone that has never been to Hiroshima should really go. If that doesn't move you.... I don't care what side of the fence you are about the war, one thing, going through that museum will give you pause and reflect at least. Been there about a dozen times, used to live in the city and it had a very profound affect on me. I would also go to the memorial ceremony, very difficult to keep a dry eye with thousands of people attending, very moving. I recommend anyone that can to go there and and visit the place, very somber and it will have a lasting impression on you..
1

sfjp330Aug. 04, 2011 - 08:04AM JST

bass4funkAug. 04, 2011 - 07:12AM JST I will say to anyone that has never been to Hiroshima should really go. If that doesn't move you.... I don't care what side of the fence you are about the war, one thing, going through that museum will give you pause and reflect at least. Been there about a dozen times, used to live in the city and it had a very profound affect on me. I would also go to the memorial ceremony, very difficult to keep a dry eye with thousands of people attending, very moving.

I also have been to Hiroshima many times and stayed in Gion, which is 5 km from downtown Hiroshima memorial. I visit the museum, and it is moving. I also talked to people that actually saw the mushroom cloud and it can be seen from Gion. After U.S. dropped the bomb, many of the wounded civilians walked slowly to the river and rinse off the burns. Some were saying "misu kure!"(give me water) before they died. Even after six decades, the memory of the bomb and destruction is fresh for people in Hiroshima.
1

Zenny11Aug. 04, 2011 - 08:21AM JST

Agree with sfjp330.

The museum is moving, now at times I do commissions on plastic models and often get asked to do the model of the A-Tower(only sold at the museum) and most of my clients are from the US military interestingly enough. Must have done that kit about 60 times so far.

As for the Kobe fire-bombing(just as bad as the Tokyo one) watch "Hotaru no Haka"(Grave/Tombstone of Fireflies, on the 15th(?) in the afternoon movie slot). Movie/Book is based on the writers real life experiences and one of the best of Takahata movies(got bundled with Totoro for release).

I can't watch that movie without a fresh box of tissues and I am jaded as I was in the military and seen many horrors.
0

OrangeW3dgeAug. 04, 2011 - 09:51AM JST

There is no honor in War. It makes criminals of all of us. There is no winning in War. We all lose because of it. Trying to put an end to War may be the only reason to engage in it, and one may engage in criminal-like solutions to achieve that end. Where is the crime? Being Human
0

WishknewAug. 04, 2011 - 10:29AM JST

Not a war crime, by a long shot. Consider that it ended all the war in Asia. It disheartened me sometimes when I see Japanese seems to have no repentance when talking about WW2, acting as if they are the only victims or worse, have no idea the horrible things their older generations did to other countries. My grandfather was one of the forced labor in their concentration camps, let's just say it was no picnic.
1

cloa513Aug. 04, 2011 - 10:36AM JST

What nonsense OrangeW3edge- we could have not had the 2nd world war- Nazis, Imperialist Japanese and Fascist Italians could have overrun the entire world- no war if no resistance. Billions of people they didn't like would have died in civil action. If the Libyans hadn't taken up arms in resistance the Libyan government could have slaughtered everyone who resisted or just happened to be around. Pol Pot could slaughtered even more people if the Vietnamese Army hadn't overrun them. War is necesary in certain circumstances. The A-bombs were absolutely necesary the alternative was direct invasion and door to door fighting like in Germany and 10 of millions dead on both sides.
0

bass4funkAug. 04, 2011 - 10:46AM JST

Look whatever you think, watching Peal Harbor being bombed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bottom-line, people died, again, the historians can sort out the politics, but real people died a mother, father, sister, brother, babies.... Japan and the U.S. have come along way and though we have disagreements and tick each other off from time to time and now that we can stand shoulder to shoulder, think about it, how many here on JT (that are Americans) are married to a Japanese? Japanese live in the states, Americans live in Japan, working together in business, TV, movies and music, when you think about almost 70 years ago, who would have ever thought we can come together, live, engage in dialogue and although some people on both sides will never get over this emotionally, but at least with each passing generation, Not perfect, but we are learning and thankfully, moving in the right direction and to go from enemy to the strongest ally in Asia, shows that anything is possible.
0

the_harperAug. 04, 2011 - 01:10PM JST

I'm amazed that so many people can see the facts presented in a place like the museum in Hiroshima and still believe that the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and the often forgotten Nagasaki were justified - even by the social norms of the time.

A number of people have posted here saying that Hiroshima was a valid target because there was a significant military presence in the city. Perhaps they don't know that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a number of other potential targets were intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing raids so that after the atomic bombs were dropped, all the damage could be attributed to the atomic bombs. This alone contradicts those who claim that the bombs were not dropped as an experiment. Perhaps also these same people don't know that Enola Gay was not alone in the sky - other aircraft flew alongside and dropped instruments to record the effects of the atomic bomb.

Did the USA drop the bombs to save American lives? Absolutely. One bomb could achieve what took entire squadrons dropping incendiaries. Was a full scale invasion of Honshu necessary? Not really - US forces were in a position to burn Japanese cities down with incendiaries until the Japanese government capitulated. More people died in the firestorms in Tokyo alone than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Did the US use the bomb to save Japanese lives? Hardly. The other major consideration which has been mentioned was that the Russians were preparing to invade Japan. The US needed to force Japan to capitulate quickly, but also wanted to send a warning to the Russians.

The use of the weapons was justified in the minds of those who made the decision at the time. I think the key thing which someone suggested above was that as far as the people making that decision were concerned, it was just another kind of bomb. However, all sorts of things felt to be justified in war are still war crimes.
0

Rob HeemskerkAug. 04, 2011 - 10:38PM JST

In my opinion was the second bomb on Nagasaki a real warcrime. It was not necessary, but they had a bomb,manufactured for Europe, and the war had ended there, so they used it on Nagasaki.
0

SerranoAug. 04, 2011 - 10:43PM JST

"the second bomb on Nagasaki ( was ) a real warcrime. It was not necessary"

What about the first bomb on Hiroshima? Was that necessary?
0

BessonovYanAug. 05, 2011 - 05:10AM JST

> sf2kAug. 03, 2011 - 09:22AM JST

conveniently missing are all the Japanese war criminals. There was a reason Japan was bombed. There were so many war criminals in Japan at the time, Americans knew they had no hope of a surrender on the grounds of a truce and would have to fight to the last man, so indoctrinated were the Japanese Army. Japanese took no to few prisoners, were battle hardened, and of course Nanjing was more fresh on the mind than now.

In that light perhaps it can be understood. Condoned or not Japan should be happy the war criminals lost.

No one country in the World didn't ask the USA to revenge for crimes of Japan by means of a a-bomb.
-2

BessonovYanAug. 05, 2011 - 05:24AM JST

Good point, my2sense. If the bomb had not been dropped, Japan would not have turned out to be the peaceful, prosperous, and wonderful country it is today. Bottom line is that it was necessary. Had it not been dropped, Japanese people would've remained aggressive and rude in nature. Now, I say that we on both sides of the debate should come together to get rid of all of the needless weapons in the world.

Whether correctly I you understand, what you suggest Japanese to sell memory of civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in exchange for economy?

I think that you overestimate a role of the USA in achievements of Japan. In the World it is a lot of countries which are under the influence of the USA, but it is not enough countries which have reached successes, comparable with Japan. At present Japan one of the largest creditors of the USA.
-4

BessonovYanAug. 05, 2011 - 05:35AM JST

JT is treading on dangerous waters by debating this topic. It is so easy to critique these events 60+ years later. War is never a good thing, too many innocent lives are lost. However, with that said, a country has to defend itself and I do not feel the Americans stepped over the line. If JT wants to debate, why dont they discuss the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the attrocities committed in China ? To this day the Japanese deny any wrong doings.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - peace cities. The Pearl-harbr - military base. I think in 1945 no any country in the World didn't ask the USA to make violence against civilians. Bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is bombardment of the civil purposes, instead of the military purposes. The USA have committed crimes against civil in Japan, trying to justify crimes of Japan in the countries of Asia. However, the USA began to cooperate military criminals of Japan, for example the USA cooperated with criminals of unit 731. In result, the USA were committed by a crime against civilians and has harbored criminals.
1

MiyagidadAug. 05, 2011 - 06:27AM JST

The wholesale slaughter of civilians - no brainer.

Everyone involved with this knew it was a war crime. Necessary or not is a totally different question.

Were other war crimes committed during WWII - no brainer.

This whole line of questioning is ridiculous - why did I waste my time here!!!
-2

guanyu189Aug. 05, 2011 - 07:40AM JST

not a war crime. japan deserved it.
1

timtakAug. 05, 2011 - 08:58AM JST

I agree with Rob Heemskerk - Nagasaki dropped so close after Hiroshima is difficult to even start to attempt to justify or think through.

Gratuitous and criminal. As for Hiroshima at the very least sad, bad, regrettable slaughter. The first bomb could have been on the top of Mount Fuji or within view of Tokyo out to sea.
0

rdinero35Aug. 05, 2011 - 09:34AM JST

A-bomb was major milestone to stop the imperial army from infinite slaughtering, in and out of Japan. I think Japan deserved it. There were so many innocents who were treated as slaves, prostitues and the hands or legs were chopped off by the imperial army that even today counties in Asia (china, phillipines, australia, korea..and so on) do not accept Japanese from their heart..
-1

AlbuswhiteAug. 05, 2011 - 09:35AM JST

I have taught history and political science classes at the University of Hawaii, Univ of Guam and Northern Nevada College. Whenever that WW II issue (use of atomic bombs on Japan) was part of the course I simply told my students what is an historical fact, Japan - foolishly - made an attempt to surrender thru the Soviet Union which the Soviet Union never relayed to the U.S. and also thru the Papal Legate to Switzerland which the U.S ignored.

So, yes on the basis that Japan was willing to enter surrender talks, a war crime was committed.
1

Sawada2Aug. 05, 2011 - 10:23AM JST

I can always remember my GrandFather weeping when he was ever asked about the war and only being a kid at the time I didn't understand, but as time went by he would try over and over to explain to me and my Father of the horrible things our country did during the war to innocent people, and to P.O. W's, I know he was severly wounded in the war and he could never return and die with his comrades but to me that was ok I got to know and Love him even if he was a Worrior for our wonderful country. I remember on one of my visits to the museum in Hiroshima and other Japanese kids who I believe didn't really know what had happened in Japan during the war would laugh and screw around like Hiroshima was nothing to them and all these people died in vain, to this day I weep from what happened to the innocent people who were just like me and my family and friends the people who I love and our way of life. I have learned many things in my life and I believe it was wrong to drop the bomb on our country because I have found out that Japan was trying to surrender but as

"Albuswhite

said our country Foolishly made an attempt to surrender but they used the wrong channels, such a horrible mistake.
0

Aaron OkoroAug. 05, 2011 - 11:46AM JST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Japanese Army 731 was a war crime. The u.s had to drop the bomb to stop things like this from continuing.
0

LouReedAug. 05, 2011 - 06:31PM JST

Every year the Japan Times asks the same question, over and over again. It's time to move on!

Moderator: That's the Japan Times' business, not ours.
0

LouReedAug. 05, 2011 - 08:28PM JST

I meant Japan today, you bring up this or a similar question every year as well!
2

MASSWIPEAug. 05, 2011 - 11:28PM JST

This isn't a very helpful question to ask. The moral absolutists can declare it was a war crime, so there, the US shouldn't have done it. But, accepting that it was a war crime (I'd say it was), the really interesting question (even more so than "Did the US have to commit a war crime to end the war quickly?") is this: Did the US have to commit a war crime to preempt a Soviet occupation of northern Japan? Facts on the ground had forced the US to accept the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe a few months earlier. Did the US have to prevent such "facts on the ground" from being established in northern Japan by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Without the bombings, would the Japanese have surrendered as quickly as they did to stop the march of Soviet armed forces into Hokkaido? The people who are convinced that the bombings had nothing to do with Japan's decision to surrender probably think yes, but I'm not so sure. Be thankful that Sapporo wasn't renamed New Stalingrad, and be thankful that Hokkaido didn't turn into an extension of the Gulag Archipelago.
0

SeiharinokazeAug. 06, 2011 - 01:41AM JST

The war didn't end until September 2, 1945, three weeks after Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration, during which time Japan fought all along with the Soviets Union. The a-bombings didn't seem to prevent the Soviet Union from marching down and taking what had been promised to them or even more. And Japan did it though not quite satisfactorily with all its remaining might. If some Americans really thought that the war was almost over when they knew Japan asked for the Soviets' mediation for peace, they might have started negotiation. The reason why the Soviets' invasion rather than a-bombings prompted Japan to surrender was mostly because it would mean the eradication of the emperor, the quaint national polity, something more serious than a complete loss of face to her (for what was Ruth Benedict researching on Japan at the time?). Japan was willing to pull troops from China anyway. But then who would take on the responsibility to check the Soviets invasion in the area?
-1

BessonovYanAug. 06, 2011 - 03:20AM JST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 Japanese Army 731 was a war crime. The u.s had to drop the bomb to stop things like this from continuing.

Are you really don't know, that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki dead only civilians, but after 2 September government of u.s. had collaboration with members of unit 731?
0

ScotchAug. 06, 2011 - 03:26AM JST

I'd say one bombing was enough. The second was over kill. But it's hard to comment on such a situation considering EVERY country in this war was committing what would be considered crimes today. I have family who were in Japanese war camps and trust me you have no idea what was done to them. The whole war was a massive waste of human life.
0

BessonovYanAug. 06, 2011 - 03:33AM JST

A-bomb was major milestone to stop the imperial army from infinite slaughtering, in and out of Japan.

A-bomb was not major milestone to stop the imperial army, because in 1945 Japan was without reserves of oil. Really reserves of oil and bad economy state was major milestone to stop the imperial army.

u.s. don't kill by a-bomb some soldiers, ships and airplanes.

I think Japan deserved it.

You are not right, because Japan army was not kill come civilians of u.s.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 04:34AM JST

Some Americans call the A bomb attacks "revenge" for pearl harbor. I would like to point out that the civilian casualties besides base workers were caused by the Americans themselves. Improperly fused anti aircraft rounds fell into the civilian areas. It was the Americans "pride" that was hurt and they killed, killed and killed some more. While the Imperial Japanese Army was wrong by killing civilians, it does not give license for the Americans to do the same. Thus the A-bomb attacks were war crimes. There is not much time left to trial and hang the responsible Americans. What they did was beyond repulsive.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 04:42AM JST

rdinero35, by the time the bombs were dropped the war was really over. The Americans wanted to try their new toys before peace. As in the on the beach movie, "there is still time brother". The only "good" thing out of this is showing how horrible these weapons are when used. People received burns over a large percentage of their bodies and took days to die. The suffering inflicted is not possible to describe and the Americans still defend their use of such horror. No the bombing of Japans civilians was a war crime.
0

steve@CPFCAug. 06, 2011 - 05:50AM JST

YutriOtamni; The war was not over, japan still occupied large parts of Asia where POW's and innocents civilains were being abused and killed daily in camps.The war was not over at all that is a modern day myth started by anti a bomb people. Without total surrender many more innocents would have died and been tortured by Japanese forces.
0

BessonovYanAug. 06, 2011 - 06:43AM JST

steve@CPFC: The "large parts of Asia" not part of USA, also Asian civilians not citizen of USA.
-1

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 07:30AM JST

steve@CPFC, the bombs killed over 1/4 of a million of innocent Japanese civilians. There is no excuse for this butchery. It just makes a good excuse. Remember the Americans killed 1/3 of the population with their steel typhoon. While some were killed by the Japanese the majority were killed by the Americans. Then again the Americans never had a problem killing Japanese civilians. I still like the picture of an American women holding a Japanese skull on the cover of Time. Then there was the cigarette lighter made out of Japanese bones given to President Roosevelt. The truth is America was just as bad as the Japanese.
0

Spidapig24Aug. 06, 2011 - 07:42AM JST

YuriOtani

The truth is America was just as bad as the Japanese.

Given some of your past comments about the US and your selective memory on historical events (like still now misquoting the numbers of Okinawans killed during the battle on that island) its no surprise that you make statements like the one above.

So the US was as bad as the Japanese hey? Funny l never saw the US murdering POW's (even after the surrender), never saw the US raping women, killing people as they lay in their hospital beds, using death marches and starvation, working prisoners to death, performing inhuman medical experiments. Are you sure you want to compare the US to Japan. The fact is the Japanese behaved like animals, diregarded the so called rules of war and then complained when they were bombed. Oh and as for your statement they killed 1/4 million innocent civilians you make me laugh YuriOtani. So every person in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a innocent civilian hey? Maybe you should head to the peace museum in Hiroshima and learn a bit about your own countries history before making nonesense comments.
-2

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 08:02AM JST

Spidapig24, many of the Americans were like animals due to their intense racists hatred of the Japanese. Just try goggling "American war crimes" and see how many hits you will get. My family spent years in a concentration camp and that was after the war! It was the American practice not to take prisoners in the battle for Okinawa. So I suppose Americans killing hundreds of thousands of people by bombing should not surprise me. Oh fyi, the civilians of Japan did not start the war with America, the country was in the hands of a strong dictatorship. There was nothing they could of done to prevent the war.
-1

SuperLibAug. 06, 2011 - 08:13AM JST

Pretty much all of WWII was a war crime. Not sure why people want to pick and choose specifics....
0

mimitchyAug. 06, 2011 - 08:40AM JST

The A-bombing crew were heroes, they managed to convince the surviving 80 million Japanese to immediately choose to become American subjuga..I mean subjects instead of further contemplating death before losing independence.

Who am I kidding

American a-bomb apologists are like the kettle that calls the Al-Qaeda terrorists and their supporter pots 'black'
0

NeoJamalAug. 06, 2011 - 09:05AM JST

American a-bomb apologists are like the kettle that calls the Al-Qaeda terrorists and their supporter pots 'black'

Yep, the very same nutjobs who fear that Iraqi Al-Qaeda affiliates might try to plant and detonate the late Saddam's hidden WMDs in some US city in retaliation for the invasion of Iraq and thin that's UNCALLED FOR, but have no regrets about nuking Japan..TWICE.

That hypocritical way of thinking is deliberate, it stems from self-perceived status of moral superiority: something not difficult to grasp, considering how the generation of Americans who dropped the nukes thought that Black-Americans were close to mentally retarded and enacted laws to keep them away in their so-called 'separate but equal' establishments.
0

MASSWIPEAug. 06, 2011 - 09:51AM JST

"The a-bombings didn't seem to prevent the Soviet Union from marching down and taking what had been promised to them or even more."

Seiharinokaze--There's really not much point in responding to your typically convoluted comments, but I choose not to take seriously anybody who seems to think that history would have unfolded in the exact same way without the occurrence of a significant event, such as the atomic bombings on August 6 and 9. If you wish to believe that, on cue, Japan would have surrendered on August 15, signed the terms of surrender aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, and emerged from the war a unitary, intact country (unlike Korea) even without the atomic bombings, fine. That's a counterfactual argument that can never be proven or disproven.
0

David L ReinkeAug. 06, 2011 - 09:56AM JST

Dr. Jacob Bronowski worked on the Manhattan Project, and I believe he has the best take on this -- still.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4BhkkGdMDg&feature=related

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7br6ibK8ic&NR=1

Finally, it is important to remember that war itself is the crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQLl-6_hxs&feature=related

"It is tempting to close one's eyes to history and instead to speculate about the roots of war in some possible animal instinct: as if, like the tiger, we still had to kill to live, or, like the Robin Redbreast, to defend a nesting territory. But war, organized war, in not a human instinct. It is a highly planed and cooperative form of theft." -- Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent Of Man
0

Paul ArensonAug. 06, 2011 - 10:57AM JST

the voices who say, ' oh, no, why do the Japanese only remember Hiroshima but not their own crimes' seem, on the surface, to have a point. but, in fact, the major anti bomb groups in Japan-Hidankyo, Gensuikyo, gensuikin, social democrats and communists, all protest liberal democrat party and friends' (unrepentant ex fascists) attempts to glorify Japanese fascism. the communists and others who opposed the emperor system were killed and jailed. they are the main people protesting against historical revisionism in the form of 'tsukuru kai' junior high texts. they are fighting against enforced patriotism under guidelines that have seen more and more teachers punished and even found criminally liable for refusing to participate in flag and anthem ceremonies.

as a young protester and military refuser I was constantly told by pro military americans that I am lucky to be living in a "free" country, as they accosted me on the fringes of veterans day parades and tore off my peace buttons while saying 'you should go back to Russia where they don't have our freedoms-love it or leave it'.

these are the the same species of human who would deny people in Japan the freedom to oppose mindless, legally mandated patriotism. and many oaf them, especially the LDP, has been in the business of supporting US military bases in Japan, making secret dealscto allow the introduction of nuclear weapons, supporting the us in maintaining it's nuclear weapons while it hypocritically singles out it's favorite rogue nation of the moment.

in short, while there is an official Hiroshima day meeting to which they are obliged to preent to pay homage to, they are no at all involved in the anti war, anti nuclear movement.

those in Japan who fight against nuclear weapons, and increasingly, nuclear power (forced on Japan by the GHQ) are those who opposed Japanese fascism and oppose Jpanese gov support for military adventures all over the world.
0

Paul ArensonAug. 06, 2011 - 11:01AM JST

oops...pretend to pay homage to-damn iPad auto correct. meant to say they pretend to be anti nuclear, as it would be taboo to avoid these ceremonies. but by their actions, these politicians give the lie to their professed anti nuclear sentiments, and the REAL anti nuclear activists know these people to be hypocrits.
0

Sawada2Aug. 06, 2011 - 11:05AM JST

I hear of so much criticism about the atroscities that the Japanese Army did to many if not all of the countries that they fought in but you must remember these men where only doing what a tyrannical dictatorship forced them to do, these men lived under a code and that code had nothing in it that mentioned surrender or give up, they would rather die then live in disgrace of giving up. My GranFather lived under this code and it took years of loving him to show he had self worth instead of just being fodder for some dictator to use as a dog. I myself still believe that many innocent people were murdered my the bombing of our beautiful Country but as I see many Americans here living side by side with us and people from other countries I love them all, my arms are open to them and you to live here in Peace and in Love.

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 08:02AM JST

Spidapig24, many of the Americans were like animals due to their intense racists hatred of the Japanese.. My family spent years in a concentration camp and that was after the war! Americans killing hundreds of thousands of people by bombing should not surprise me. Oh fyi, the civilians of Japan did not start the war with America, the country was in the hands of a strong dictatorship. There was nothing they could of done to prevent the war.
2

Paul ArensonAug. 06, 2011 - 12:40PM JST

and to say that the citizens, even the kids, of Hiroshima were fair game, because they did not oppose the war--as some pro bomb person said, then would you say a nation that opposed the US for it's killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq would be justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on Central Park because many Americans voted for George W Bush and thus enabled the killing? Fair game? And we call ourselves rational adults?
3

Spidapig24Aug. 06, 2011 - 01:01PM JST

YuriOtani

As always l enjoy reading your slanted view on things, you still seem unable to accept any blame that your country may have been at fault and you continue like a good Japanese to have the eternal victim mentality.

many of the Americans were like animals due to their intense racists hatred of the Japanese. Just try goggling "American war crimes" and see how many hits you will get.

Oh l do not disagree with this statement and never have disagreed, but maybe you should try looking a little deeper at what could have caused this intense hatred (love the way you throw racist in there). Given the fact that the Japanese behavior and attitude to prisoners and civilians did not change throughout the entire war and was actually on display before the US entered the war then what is your excuse for the racist Japanese behavior that was displayed time and again. You accuse the US of being racist towards Japan, yes maybe it was but what of Japanese racism and ethnic cleansing in places like China, Korea, Philippines, India, Burma to name a few. You accuse the US of being "racist" towards the Japanese yet you ignore the facts of Japanese treatment of other ethnic groups.

My family spent years in a concentration camp and that was after the war!

Well let me see your family is Japanese true? Not only that isnt it true nearly all the building on your island where destroyed therefore there was no where to live? Isnt it also true that the Japanese had stopped providing food to the locals before the invasion to feed their troops. So there was also no food. So let me see no food, no buildings thanks to the Japanese military and yet you still manage to twist the truth to blame the US.

It was the American practice not to take prisoners in the battle for Okinawa.

Try learning a bit of history l think you will find throughout the entire war in the Pacific both the allies and the Japanese took few prisoners. Why where few Japanese prisoners taken, could it have something to do with the fact that they preferred to commit suicide rather than face the disgrace of capture. Could it also be that some who did surrender also did so as a ruse to draw troops closer and then try and attack them one last time. But yes l do agree on occasion there where areas where prisoners where not taken (Kokoda trail) for example.

So I suppose Americans killing hundreds of thousands of people by bombing should not surprise me.

Sorry but it was a war people died on all sides not just on the Japanese side. You seem worried about a hundred thousand Japanese being killed in a bombing. How do you feel about the millions killed and maimed by the Japanese in their attacks? But like you lm am not surprised at Japanese actions given their belief that they are superior to other races and their previous treatment of captured areas.

Oh fyi, the civilians of Japan did not start the war with America, the country was in the hands of a strong dictatorship. There was nothing they could of done to prevent the war.

That may be true, but l doubt it. There is an interesting photo at the Peace museum showing civilians in Hiroshima celebrating the capture of Nanking. You know the place where the Japanese killed up to 300,000 civilians. Oh those poor innocent Japanese civilians who did no wrong in the war celebrating the annihilation of a city and the massacre of its inhabitants....

But by all means please continue your slanted view on history it makes for a good laugh.
1

steve@CPFCAug. 06, 2011 - 02:07PM JST

There are people saying that at the time of the bombings the Japanese were not mass killing Americans, so what!!! The Americans were part of an alliance. Millions were still under brutal Japanese military control at the time of the bombings. These included tens of thousands of allied troops and innocents civilians of which some were forced into prostitution.

This was a war of facism against democracy. Look at the survival rates of allied troops in Japanese custody compared to teh otehr way round. Easy to see why the Japanese were despised so much. Allied war crimes were isolated but dsid happen. Japanese war crimes were military policy and were not frowned upon by leaders. There is a big difference. I suugest some read so info produced at the time and see why the bombs were a good idea.
-1

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 10:43PM JST

Spidapig24, I am from Okinawa and not Japanese. My ancestors were farmers and fishermen. Some of them worked in construction battalions but were not soldiers. My comment to you is two wrongs do not make a right. Because some of the Japanese did these horrible things does not give license to the Americans to do the same. About China, their revolution and after the revolution killed hundreds of times more Chinese then the Japanese killed. Again what the Japanese solders did was not right but wrong. Your supporting of the killing of so many innocents is just wrong. Maybe you should take some time and look through the pictures. If you have any empathy, you can see using such devices is wrong.
-1

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2011 - 11:39PM JST

steve@CPFC, military policy was not made by the civilians. They were between the rock and the hard place. If they showed disapproval of any kind toward the government they were killed or imprisoned. They did what they were told to do, support the government, wave flags at approved events, etc. By your reasoning if a countries soldiers commit war crimes it opens up their civilian population to being killed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So if America was right killing hundreds of thousands of civilians then, then they would be right to do the same to America for killing hundreds of thousands of their civilians. The bombs were wrong then as they are now. Killing of helpless civilians is just wrong. Does not matter if it is Japanese killing Chinese or Americans killing Japanese civilians. When a country takes the moral high ground then they need to back it up with their actions.
-2

steve@CPFCAug. 07, 2011 - 12:28AM JST

YuriOtani; I said at the time the Japanese killing machine was still murdering POW'sand innocents in amy place of Asia. japan was killing millions of innocent civilians for almost a decade. japan would not stop acting like barbarians in lands they occupied. The people they were slaughtering were Americas allies and America stopped those killings by killing Japanese. You protect your own and allies first. The Japanese needed to be stopped. Like the Germans the Japanese allows facists to rule their country. The Germansaacept what happened to them including Dresden , they accept they were part of the most terrible alliance of evil ever.

So the Japanese governemnt of the time were aliens or something? No, they were Japanese. Innocent deaths are tragic but the bombings did not kill over 20 million innocents as the Imperial army did in their military adventures.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 07, 2011 - 12:36AM JST

steve@CPFC, well excuse me me, my family is not Japanese and the people of Okinawa never did give their consent to be a part of the Japanese Empire. 1/3 of the Okinawa people were slaughtered to meet the hate of the them American people. The people of the Japanese cities were innocent as well. There was never a need to kill so many. The Americans did not learn the lessons of the blitz or their own bombing. Neither one broke the will of the people to carry on.
-1

BessonovYanAug. 07, 2011 - 12:40AM JST

steve@CPFC

This was a war of facism against democracy.

The WW1 and WW2 were business project. On June, 24th 1941 New York the Time has published it is declared the senator, the future USA president Harry Trumen: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible...".

Japan army was not kill civilians of USA, because USA had not right revenge for Korea and China.

To 1945 Japan it was very weak. The USA understood this fact. For this reason of the USA have decided to show force of the weapon on Japan. Thus, the USA used Japan as public range and whole world intimidation. It was act of terrorism against the whole world.

The USA as haven't condemned members of group 731. The government of the USA actively cooperated with members of group 731.
-1

BessonovYanAug. 07, 2011 - 03:34AM JST

Civilian of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is innocent victim. Union USA and members of unit 731 is union of war crimes.
0

miyazawa3Aug. 07, 2011 - 04:32AM JST

Most Japanese and Some Japnized Americans in this forum ( due to their Spouses, families ) Consider this is a War Crime, Any way After the war, Japanese never teach the bitter truth to the Young Generation, It is shame for them to show the world their Big Mistakes and Stupidity..... shown in the wold war 2. However , Japan won the Sympathy , because of the Destruction It made. Whatever millions of people or a just a one person Dies in the War is Crime against to Humanity , that we all know. Whether it is Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Nanjing, Ho chiming, Kandahar, Honolulu. they all are crimes , simply we say War Crimes, Crime against to a crime , Made to stop the war, and that is we should not forget..it is the everlasting truth.
0

Spidapig24Aug. 07, 2011 - 08:02AM JST

YuriOtani,

I am from Okinawa and not Japanese. My ancestors were farmers and fishermen.

So you claim to be Okinawan not Japanese, ok well as Okinawa has officially been part of Japan since 1868 and had voting rights and Okinawan's have been elected to the Diet since the 1890's l would say that you are part of Japan and infact Japanese. Just because you say your not doesnt make it so. After all hasnt Okinawa had a relationship with Japan and although a autonomous prefecture it has been part of Japan since 1609 when the Japanese invaded the islands.

Some of them worked in construction battalions but were not soldiers.

Well thats an interesting comment as it is well documented that most of those that worked in the construction battalions where pressed into combat during the battle. In other words fought as soldiers on the Japanese side.

Because some of the Japanese did these horrible things does not give license to the Americans to do the same.

Oh thats tight it was only "some" Japanese, get serious will you. You constantly downplay this issue and play the victim card so well. Japan hence the Japanese people where at war and suffered attacks. Okinawa as a Japanese prefecture was part of that war. Like it or not you and your people where part of the Japanese empire.

About China, their revolution and after the revolution killed hundreds of times more Chinese then the Japanese killed.

Oh so that makes what the Japanese did not bad then, because the Chinese killed more of there own in the Civil war then what Japan did wasnt bad. I think that statement sums your position up perfectly.

Maybe you should take some time and look through the pictures. If you have any empathy, you can see using such devices is wrong.

Actually l have looked through the pictures, l have also been to the memorial and museum and seen the Japanese side of the event. The funny thing is even the Japanese memorial portrays Hiroshima as a military (not civilian) city and that the civilians had been told to evacuate the city in May. But in your hatred of all things western you fail to see that. Have you been to Hiroshima?

The bombs were wrong then as they are now. Killing of helpless civilians is just wrong.

Again with the helpless civilians argument. Yes some civilians where killed in Hiroshima, can you tell me the percentage of civilians and military people killed? Why do you keep denying what is readily accepted, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military targets with civilians in the city as well so sadly civilians died. No more than during the bombing of other cities just quicker. However compare that to the Japanese slaughter of the Chinese at Nanking, this was purely a civilian city of no military value when the Japanese massacred hundreds of thousands. Oh but you justified that didnt you?

1/3 of the Okinawa people were slaughtered to meet the hate of the them American people

Good to see you are continuing this falsehood. 1/3 of the Okinawans didnt die in the attack, it is estimated that between 1/10 and 1/3 died. That is between 42,000 and 150,000 people, the funny thing is the US believes the figure to be 142,000 while the Okinawans claim 100,000 so your 1/3 is based on US figures (which include Okinawans who fought with the IJA) rather than your own governments figure of 100,000.
1

YuriOtaniAug. 07, 2011 - 08:55AM JST

Spidapig24, so when the Taliban nuke Norfolk it is ok? After all the Americans have committed some war crimes against them or should I say the Afghan and Iraqi people. Norfolk Virgina is concentrated US military and there have been offenses. What about those unmarked airplanes? So you are saying that any disregard for the rules of war allows the other side to throw away the book? Using atomic weapons is a war crime. There is never an excuse, at least for using them first.
1

amerijapAug. 07, 2011 - 08:56AM JST

If you examine the massive killings of civilians through any means--shooting, bombing, burning, burying, torturing, etc.,--from the standpoint of human rights, any incident that leads to such consequence should be considered as (war) crime regardless of its timeline. The tricky thing is that many inhumane/brutal conducts occurred in wartime are framed/re-framed in a different context from contemporary period. This means that moral conduct in war event was evaluated--from victor's frame of mind--that's how we encountered the key terms like victor's justice, the Nuremberg or the Nanjing Trials, etc.

As far as the issue is concerned, I think it's the matter of how you define war crime and how you look at the dropping of a-bomb in humanitarian and political/military contexts. (i.e., a political choice for Truman and its ramification on the interests of the Imperial Headquarter, the Japanese soldiers, civilians, and the Soviet Union.) In my view, the consequence of dropping a-bomb brought a sacrificial lamb to the two cities--Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively,-- for the pursuit of victory for the allies and justice upon the evil.

Having said that, I think it's right time to turn our attention to the rhetorical choice that precedes military triumph over humanity due to the political ramification on wartime. Should compromising humanity of local people (and your friends/allies as well) for the pursuit of military justice in wartime be always considered legitimate today? My answer is no.
-1

Aaron OkoroAug. 07, 2011 - 09:16AM JST

May the People of Japan need to learn the real lesson of Hiroshima: Don’t launch a sneak attack on America (or any other nation) on a Sunday morning while your diplomats are pretending to negotiate peace. Put differently, if I walk up to a tough guy who appears to be dozing and punch him in the nose, I should not complain if he wakes up and proceeds to break every bone in my body, so that I can’t do it again (to him or anyone else)…
-1

majimekunAug. 07, 2011 - 09:24AM JST

So, can someone explain why the US didn't drop the bomb on military infrastructures instead?

I believe that this alone would have sent the right message to the stubborn japanese army : "see what we can do?"

I understand it was the norm to bomb civilians during this era but if they were so eager to kill japanese people, why not drop the bomb right in the middle of Tokyo??

The reason is that the US wanted Japan to be able to recover ... but they also wanted to test the bomb on a civilian target.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 07, 2011 - 09:57AM JST

Nagasaki was the center for the Universal Catholic Church, they had nothing to do with the war. The Americans are good at saying one thing but their true selves get in the way. FYI I belong to that church as well as my ancestors as far back as possible. It was truly a war crime attacking the church. There is no excuse, no excuse possible for such a barbarian act.
0

salarymanbluesAug. 07, 2011 - 10:20AM JST

This topic is getting old and repetitive now so I just add two related comments which I feel are interesting.

I felt quite sick when I read that Emporer Hirohito preferred to fight a land battle on Japanese soil rather than dissolve the Imperial household. He was quite keen to demand all Japanese sacrifice their lives as a human barrier to protect his family. The only reason he requested the military to surrender was because the Americans were willing to leave the imperial family untouched (Potsdam agreement). This was an incredibly astute (or lucky) move on the part of the Americans which was key to getting the surrender.

A slight aside but interesting comment: I think the Japanese military must have been led by illogical masochists at that time. By doing things like the rape of Nangking, they guaranteed that no-one would ever surrender to them in future and instead would fight to the death. The Allies have always been much smarter in this regard, they treat the losers more fairly which makes it much easier for future enemies to surrender. I feel like the allies were 'professional soldiers' who do their job but really would prefer to have peace, whereas the Japanese had blood-lust.
2

Yu-Kyung KimAug. 07, 2011 - 10:29AM JST

Japanese are good at dishing out but they can't take it. Look all atrocities they had committed during that time to their neighboring countries, and they were the instigators. Why is this question put up? They want some sort of pity from the rest of the world? Bombing was a quick way to force the Japanese to surrender. Why don't Japanese put up a question that it is perfectly reasonable for the leaders of the Japanese government to pay respect to the war criminals in the Yasukuni shrine. Stop feeling sorry for yourself.
-3

YuriOtaniAug. 07, 2011 - 12:04PM JST

salarymanblues, the Americans committed a lot of war crimes. They could also care less about the Chinese, after all they did not enter the war to protect the Chinese. Yu-Kyung Kim, Japan was defeated and it is just an excuse to kill Japanese. There is no way a sane person can defend the a bombs.
-2

Spidapig24Aug. 07, 2011 - 12:15PM JST

YuriOtani

It was truly a war crime attacking the church. There is no excuse, no excuse possible for such a barbarian act.

Its called collateral damage, the church itself wasnt the target but was damaged as a result. If the US deliberately attacked the church that would be a different matter. Unlike your countrymen who had a thing for killing white missionaries and nuns that they found on the Pacific islands, but no doubt you will excuse that as it was your countrymen doing the killing not the US.

Oh and speaking of Nagasaki do you actually know what the target was there? Maybe you should look it up.

But l doubt you will its just much easier to spread your false accusations and blame the US for everything, true?
0

salarymanbluesAug. 07, 2011 - 03:05PM JST

YuriOtani

Yu-Kyung Kim, Japan was defeated and it is just an excuse to kill Japanese.

Then why didn't Japan surrender? Sorry, but the leaders at that time were very misguided and too willing to sacrifice Japanese souls to save their own face.
-1

villagehikerAug. 07, 2011 - 08:48PM JST

From May 1943 through October 1945 my dad served on a U.S. Navy light cruiser as a fire control officer. He tracked targets and fired naval bombard guns, plus anti-aircraft weapons. He fought Japanese sailors, shore gunnery crews and pilots from the Solomon Islands to the East China Sea. Basically a lover, he entered the war frustrated and angry, but soon embraced his forced role as warrior. Weary of killing, on August 8 1945 he wrote, "I guess by now you have heard the news of the atomic bomb dropped on Japan. In a way it is a wonderful idea as it will speed to a close this war. ... It frightens me to think of what might happen should a madman get a hold of it. ... I hope that all these new devices scare the people of the world so much that anyone will be afraid to start a war."
-2

YuriOtaniAug. 08, 2011 - 01:26AM JST

salarymanblues, sir you are defending the actions of barbarians. Killing the civilians to force someone to surrender. The bombs were war crimes and nothing you will write will change my mind. If they would of had a forth bomb available it would of been dropped too. The only reason they stopped was because they ran out of bombs. Again look at the pictures and you tell me the virtue of these attacks.
0

steve@CPFCAug. 08, 2011 - 01:35AM JST

YuriOtani; kindly look at survival rates for Allied POW's in Japanese hands compared to japanese POW's in Allied hands, then state who were the barbarians.

Thwe attacks stopped the war and most probably saved my relatives life who was a POW at the time. Japan still occupied large amounts of Asia without sigh of surrendering.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 08, 2011 - 03:42AM JST

steve@CPFC, your argument is a poor one. The civilians men, women and children had nothing to do with the running of the camps. When the nukes went off schoolchildren were standing in formations and suffered so much. No the allies were suppose to be the "good guys". Using the actions of a group of thugs to justly your actions does not work. A nations action has to stand on its own. If something is wrong it is wrong. Killing so many civilians is wrong if by using the sword or flipping a switch. I do not defend Japans actions in the war but the allies were just as bad in many ways.
-1

VanwagtendonkAug. 08, 2011 - 03:44AM JST

The A-bombs saved many military and civilian their lives on both sides. It forced the Emperor, against the will of the war cabinet, to capitulate on 15th August 1945. Thus ending World War Two, including in the Asian theatre. The actual war crime was, if one can define it as such, the insistence by the Japanese military to continue fighting, whilst Japan had already lost the war. The actual war crimes were conducted in the name of the Emperor by the Japanese military ignoring the The Hague convention of 1907, which the Japanese Emporer signed and the Diet passed. The Japanese military colonized South East Asia brutally for their own benefit. The A-bombs are in itself horrible instruments and should never be used again. For those who survived the Japanese military terror and deliberate muder, rape, torture and plunder still praise the day that those bombs ended the war. Japan must accept moral responsibility for the conduct of its military against civilians and stop playing victim. It must come forward with an honarable settlement of its war debts to the victims, as it did with the Comfort Women. Janf.
-1

steve@CPFCAug. 08, 2011 - 03:49AM JST

YuriOtani; it wasn't my actions in my name. It happened. I didn't elect the US government at the time. Ia m not American. "Supposed" to be. So who were the good guys then.

Women and school children in countries invaded by Japan were still being murdr\ered and used as sex slaves daily. The allies did not kill 30 million people or commit live dissections and experiments on people, nor did they use bilogical weapons liek Japan did in China. The invasion of Japan would not have stopped the innocents being killed in countries til occupied by Japan. It is tragic that the innocents were killed it is also tragic that people like Yuri have not realised that the bombs were caused by Japanese actions.
-3
Spidapig24Aug. 08, 2011 - 07:46AM JST

YuriOtani

sir you are defending the actions of barbarians.

As are you by constantly downplaying and refusing to acknowledge Japanese atrocities and blaming the US for Japans actions.

Killing the civilians to force someone to surrender.

Funny but wasnt that the Japanese strategy throughout the war>but you conveniently forget that. Oh and l know you will come back with two wrongs dont make a right. Yeah Yeah. Remember when an enemy (and thats what the Japanese where) wage a war in a particularly nasty way then you have to expect response in kind. To get upset that you get treatment in kind is very weak indeed. Your country (hence your relatives) treated the people of other countries in a certain deplorable way yet when you are attacked in kind you want to be viewed as the victims. The Japanese people where not victims in this war they where the perpetrators.

The bombs were war crimes and nothing you will write will change my mind.

Because you have shown time and again that you are blind to the truth and only want to continue in your victim mentality and forget the horrors your country caused. And l know your Okinawan, guess what that means nothing more than your Japanese.

When the nukes went off schoolchildren were standing in formations and suffered so much.

Wow where did you get that fact from. Guess you have never been to Hiroshima then? May l suggest you go to the peace museum or even visit the online site. The school children you refer to in formation, yes they where school aged kids. Where they at school? No they had all been evacuated or the ones that remained pressed into military service. Yes thats right it was your government that put them at risk by using the kids in military training, military communications roles and in work parties clearing fire lanes in the city. This is well documented and if you actually read it you will see these where not kids going to school being bombed but kids that your government was using in military roles.

Using the actions of a group of thugs to justly your actions does not work. A nations action has to stand on its own. If something is wrong it is wrong. Killing so many civilians is wrong if by using the sword or flipping a switch. I do not defend Japans actions in the war but the allies were just as bad in many ways.

This is the most offensive statement l have ever read. How dare you even compare the allies to the murdering, raping, pillaging scum that was the Japanese military and people during WW2. Oh the innocent civilians crap, look at the pictures of the people of Japan celebrating the news of the Nanking massacre. Look at the treatment that captured people received at the hands of the Japanese. You dare even compare the allies to the filth that was Japan, the only down side of the A bombs was more werent dropped on Japan and a stronger lesson taught to the Japanese because they obviously didnt learn. And the biggest mistake the allies made was not trying your glorious emperor as the war criminal he was. Yet you have the nerve to complain about your country being attacked your people being killed maybe that should have been thought of when you started your attempt at domination of the region.
- ModeratorAug. 08, 2011 - 08:28AM JST
  
  Readers, please stop sniping at each other. If you are not willing to be tolerant of opposing views without being impolite to one another, then please don't post here.
2

YuriOtaniAug. 08, 2011 - 08:23AM JST

Spidapig24, no I blame Japan for Japans actions and America for America's actions. The Japanese Imperial Army was lots of thing and it does not include being innocent. The country and people were under their thumb and could not make the do anything. That is why it is called a dictatorship. The people of Japan were as much victims of Japan as they were America. Again the use of atomic devices is war crime.
2

Sawada2Aug. 08, 2011 - 11:00AM JST

When I was a teenager back in the 1960's and early 1970's I would walk with my Father and GranFather over by the church that was left standing in Hiroshima and in the courtyard was a large brick that had been effected by the heat given off from the blast, on one of the corners it appeared that the stone itself had literly melted and pooled on its self this stone was an intense reminder of the pain and sarrow that was left for us to never forget, it is like a tear that will at first be hard to forget and forgive but after a while with prayer and forgiveness to all this pain will give way to love. I blame no one but myself even if I was not alive in WWII would I have taken a stand to do what was right or wrong. I love Japan and I regret what my country did in the past.
2

YuriOtaniAug. 08, 2011 - 11:42AM JST

Sawada2, none of us were alive back then. The country was very different back then. The Americans were different back then as well. All we can do is learn from their mistakes and vow not to repeat them. We need to move forward and forgive each other. We can not change the past but we can make the future. Lets make it a good future learning from our pasts.
0

PotsandpansAug. 08, 2011 - 12:04PM JST

As are you by constantly downplaying and refusing to acknowledge Japanese atrocities and blaming the US for Japans actions.

Actually its you saying its fair to murder unrelated civilians for the atrocities of the military just so long as mutter something about collateral damage.

Yet, if Iraqis angry over the war crimes commited in Fallujah detonated a nuke in Norfolk with all the military targets there, we know we would never hear the end of your complaining about all the innocent civilans that died, no matter how much they pleaded collateral damage.
1

iphonesurferAug. 08, 2011 - 01:41PM JST

If the US would have lost WW2 it would have been a war crime for sure. Testing new Tech, knowing the consequences on the civilian population, and doing so in an already won war? I think its a war crime for sure.
1

Howdy DoodyAug. 11, 2011 - 06:01PM JST

If Japan had not been bombed, we wouldn't be able to be living in the peaceful and prosperous nation we call Japan now. As cruel as the bombing was, it was necessary. There are now a lot of other nations in the world facing brutal wars, riots, murder and mayhem, and have people who have no concept of humility, who could probably use a "swift kick up the @$%"
0

ensnaturae2Aug. 13, 2011 - 08:08PM JST

They didnt have to drop the bombs on cities for a show of power. They could have dropped one in Tokyo Bay or somewhere that could have allowed everyone the opportunity, even if only for a day, to measure their chances against such immense destructive force, & act accordingly. It makes no sense at all to attempt to measure the A-Bomb attacks as war crimes, or not, by comparing them with atrocities committed by the Japanese. Attacks on innocent civilians are war crimes, whoever commits them, no matter why ot how or when or where. Anyone who makes comparisons of that kind, reveals the original motivation, in my view, of revenge. Never a reason to justify any act of aggression.
-1

ChopriCanaAug. 16, 2011 - 01:46AM JST

Each Nation including the US, Japan, UK, Soviet Union, Italy, and Germany had ignored the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbIUsg4B7RA

The United States still insists that they "never" intended to drop the bombs to wooden houses of civilians; they asserted that they targeted on arsenals to destroy weapons for the air attack to stop Militarism Power. If they still insist that "quibbling" they cannot explain the reason to drop the "E46集束焼夷弾 (E46 Incendiary Bombs)" which is invented by the US to efficiently burn as many civilians' wooden houses as possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbIUsg4B7RA

After the E46 Incendiary Bombs all over the Major Urban & Suburban Cities in Japan they dropped the 2 A-Bombs (actually the US wanted to drop 3 as total, did you know that?) in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Also Kyoto (京都) and Niigata (新潟) was actually selected as one of the place [Cities] proposed for the A-Bomb Project. They really wanted to destroy the all World Cultural Heritages in Kyoto (京都).

What do you guys who still thinks & believes that the A-Bomb was the best solution to finish the war?

What will Americans think if Vietnamese people would drop a nuclear weapon to the United States as the "PayPack" from the "Agent Blues" in 1960'? Do all Americans accept their propaganda for the "Remember the Agent Blue?"
0

Harry_GattoAug. 29, 2011 - 03:57PM JST

Of course the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings, the Tokyo fire-bombings too, were war crimes - they were directed against the civilian population and not at military targets. At least the Pearl Harbour attack was against a military target.
1

marmillDec. 10, 2011 - 02:41AM JST

Yes, the Japanese people are victims of WWII -victims of the policies of their own government.