None of those were war crimes- but only just barely. All had military significance, none were undefended. Legally the Allies had every right. Morally and ethically?- well we *were *in a war for our very survival.
At that time, the A Bomb was “just another weapon”. No qualms at all. It was only later, after the whole world realized that all human civilization could be wiped out by a nuclear war that using Nukes became unthinkable. And, that’s a Good Thing.
But at the time, it was justified.
Which would have killed millions and millions more Japanese and pretty much all our POW’s over there. A far worse choice.
Yes, I agree.
All the cities had military targets and were defended. Thus, they were legally legit, as was London.
AFAIK, no Nazis were executed for the Blitz.
*"Göring was the second-highest-ranking Nazi official tried at Nuremberg, behind Reich President (former Admiral) Karl Dönitz. The prosecution levelled an indictment of four charges, including a charge of conspiracy; waging a war of aggression; war crimes, including the plundering and removal to Germany of works of art and other property; and crimes against humanity, including the disappearance of political and other opponents under the Nacht und Nebel (Night and Fog) decree; the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war; and the murder and enslavement of civilians, including what was at the time estimated to be 5,700,000 Jews. "
In the Milch trial, former Field Marshal of the Luftwaffe Erhard Milch was accused of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The indictment was presented on November 14, 1946.[1] The charges against Milch were summarized by Michael A. Musmanno (one of the tribunal judges) as follows:[2]
*
Erhard Milch is charged with having knowingly committed war crimes as principal and accessory in enterprises involving slave labor and having also willingly and knowingly participated in enterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war operations contrary to international convention and the laws and customs of war.
The defendant is accused of having knowingly and willfully participated in enterprises involving fatal medical experiments upon subjects without their consent.
In the third count the defendant is charged with responsibility for slave labor and fatal medical experiments, in the same manner as indicated in the first two counts, except that here the alleged victims are declared to be German nationals and nationals of other countries.
If bombing was a “War Crime” surely we’d have accused the heads of the Luftwaffe for bombing London.
Potentially, yes. The conventional thinking is that showing the ability to absolutely destory a city with a single bomb. However, it was also necessary to demonstrate this capability to the rest of the world, e.g. Stalin and the Soviet Union, who Churchill and Truman were aware would be an opposing force in the post-war world. At the end of the day, there weren’t many good choices, but the spectre of nuclear warfare and the long term consequences and potential apocalypic conflict of global nuclear exchange has been with us ever since. It may not have been avoidable regardless (the Soviets were already well aware of the potential destructiveness of nuclear weapons thanks to spies within the Manhattan Project and elsewhere in the War Department) but it set the stage for conflict for the next fifty years.
And again, while the military government of Japan perpetrated horrors on not only China but a large portion of East and Southeast Asia, most of the people killed or maimed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and the firebombing campaigns preceeding them) had absolutely no control or influence over the goverment. We can recognize that the bombings were the expedient and perhaps best course of action while still regretting the consequences on a human scale.
Stranger
A scholarly book about the science and tactics behind the Allied bombing campaign. They intentionally went after civilians. The different bombs had to be dropped in a particular order so the firebombs could burn most effectively.
Even if they did, so what?
Let’s use the US as an example. If we were (hypothetically) conventionally invaded, why wouldn’t our civilians be fair game? As a practical matter, we are an armed nation, and as such we would resist an invasion at great cost to both our civilians defending our homes and the invaders. It would make sense, were I the invader, to minimize my casualties by destroying everything, striking a blow to both armed resistance and morale.
In Japan’s case, they fought tenaciously for every single island we invaded, and those were simply islands, not their homes. By most accounts there were enough weapons distributed to the citizens of the Home Islands to give one to every man, woman, and child. Now maybe it’s just me, but if I’m walking into something worse than Okinawa, knowing everybody I see is going to be actively trying to kill me under the divine order of the Emperor of Japan, I’m not seeing them as noncombatants, I’m seeing them as targets and not bothering to make any distinction between the two. That’s not even to mention the 4 years of dehumanization of the Japanese that the US military and citizenry was subjected to.
War is never simple. It has to be looked at as things were. We now have the luxury of having a force so overwhelmingly strong that we simply cannot be beaten in a conventional war, making things like war crimes easier to identify, but in 1945 looking a million casualties in the face if we invade, dropping the bomb or torching Tokyo are easy choices. Edna Smith in East Podunk, Iowa and hundreds of thousands like her certainly thought that was a better choice than the War Department sending her a letter of regret. 71 years later, so do I.
Somber fact: So many Purple Hearts were produced in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands that in all the wars since we haven’t even come close to depleting them. Someone above said the invasion was never seriously considered. The only reason it didn’t happen was because of the bomb. If Japan hadn’t surrendered it was absolutely on. What was never seriously considered was a blockade, starving them out. We hadn’t fought them across the Pacific to let them pretend they could get away without facing the end of a gun. The goal of the war was total destruction of whatever ideas they had that caused them to think they could attack us and win. No more stab-in-the-back legends, not in Europe and not in Japan. It wasn’t going to be over until they came to the table on their knees and attested to their total defeat, which is precisely what happened.
Fuck Japan. And I say that despite the country being just about my favorite place on Earth. The firebombing and atomic bombs were right and proper. They’d sure as shootin’ have done it to us if they’d had half a chance. I’m just sorry the bat bomb was never perfected for actual use.
This is an argument against an expansive interpretation of the second amendment I had never thought of.
The cost to the invader will only be great if they forgo widespread use of weapons of mass destruction, as we do in Afghanistan. If the invaders of the US were unambiguous war criminals, as I think would be the case, they would win by, to coin a phrase, bombing us back to the stone age.
To be fair, that is exactly the purpose of the 2nd.
No standing army, just local militias for defence.
What do you mean, “especially after the Russians finally declared on them”? The Russians only declared because they saw that Japan would be defeated very soon, and they only saw that Japan would be defeated very soon because we nuked them. If we hadn’t, they would have waited even longer, until some other circumstance caused Japan to be on the verge of surrender.
The Soviets declared war on Japan because they had agreed to at an earlier conference.
The Tehran Conference in November, 1943.
Indeed they did agree to declare war. And indeed they did actually declare war. After the US had all but finished the fighting.
Stalin, ever the opportunist, waited until he didn’t have to do anything but move in after the job was done.
As much as I am not a fan of Stalin, he held up his end of the agreement to the letter. That is impressive considering his armies had just bashed themselves blunt fighting a little thing called Nazi Germany.
Again, he didn’t have to do anything but move some men in, which was ideal precisely because he had broken the Red Army against Germany. He got his Far East influence at no cost. It was a great deal for him.
Well… not really.
The Soviets had no impact on the Pacific War and, as far as I can tell, no intention of ever doing anything about it. They may have considered lending airpower later, but even that’s hardly certain. Russia had effectively no seapower and couldn’t even move troops to Japan. In addition, While Japanese forces still held part of China, they were clearly on the defensive and weakening with no hope of resupply whatsoever. Whether Stalin even wanted to do anything beyond publicly declare war is unclear, but in practice it’s hard to see how he could have had a role. Just redeploying forces would have eaten months and more, and even the Red Army was exhausted by the final battles in the West and needed time to recover anyway.
Does the 1.5 million men in the multiple Army’s on three fronts who invaded Manchuria count as “move some men in”?
Yes.
The Russians lost 12,000 men in the invasion of Manchuria. In the context of the 20 million men they lost in total and Stalin’s utter disregard for his people, that’s nothing. Given their influence over the region in the time since, it constitutes the cheapest victory of the war.
So starving out the whole population of Japan, with the vast number of deaths attending, is somehow morally superior to dropping the A-bomb on two Japanese cities? How do you figure that one out?