I can’t really claim to be expert on rules of war and international laws during the 1940s, but if they were unnecessary as they appear to have been, the bombings of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Tokyo would seem to fall under “Class C” war crimes (Crimes against Humanity).
Either way, maybe “atrocities” is a better word to use here.
They did that? First time I hear about this (not to say that there weren’t any rape of French women by GIs, I would expect this to happen anywhere by any army. But I never heard it had been a significant issue in general).
Cite, please? I’m aware of a lot of rapes taking place in occupied Germany, not liberated France.
I don’t necessarily disagree (see my first post in the thread, #9), but a few posters took it a step too far.
Also note that I was using “army” in the specific sense, referring to ground troops and not the military as a whole, because obviously the question gets rather murkier if you include the actions of the American air force in Europe. (Though, if you want to get really technical, the U.S. air force in WWII was actually part of the army and not it’s own separate branch, but…)
I suppose you could argue that it speaks to people’s abstract willingness or propensity to go down the same road at a later date. I don’t know that I agree with that, but it is an argument one can make.
True, but the regular army assisted these special units to varying degrees, and even if one would argue that all they were guilty of is turning a blind a eye (which would be false), that’s *still *worse behavior than anything done by the Wehrmacht in WWI, given the enormity of the crime in question.
“Unnecessary” gets decided with hindsight. Given that all five cities concerned included important industrial, military, governmental and communications centers, and given that the governments of those countries (who had, after all, launched a destructive war of aggression) were refusing to surrender, I don’t see why they would be considered unnecessary when viewed at the time of their planning. They didn’t (all) have the desired effect (though Nagasaki apparently did), but military operations don’t always work out as planned.
It is. They weren’t atrocities either, I would argue, but I think it is pretty definite they weren’t war crimes.
Normandy mostly. I think for the few months the Allies stayed there, there were more than two thousand reports of rape. Triffle when you compare it to what happened in Berlin, kind of weird when it’s while “liberating” an ally. Most of the soldiers convicted were blacks (which would point to a whitewash of the real culprits, as several hundreds black babies births would have been noticed in the Normandy of that time).
“Unnecessary” isn’t only decided in hindsight. It’s the job those giving the order to decide if it’s necessary. And I don’t agree that Nagasaki had the desired effect. That may have been part of it, but it would have likely happened either way after the Soviets declared war on Japan. Something the Americans were well aware was going to happen.
I say atrocities is a better word because it leaves out the whole lawyering aspect of it. Still, large scale atrocities would seem to be almost by definition war crimes, as crimes against humanity.
War crimes are for losers. Has there ever been a war in which the winning country had its leaders tried for war crimes?
In the movie Fog of War, Robert McNamara (sp?) clearly states that US officials would have been tried and convicted of war crimes if we had lost WWII. Assuming such a thing was possible in such a world.
True. Those existed. But were not what was targeted, least not in the cases of Dresden and Berlin - instead the bombers focused almost exclusively on the town centers, where the civilian population and cultural landmarks could be found.
I would also note that the people making tank parts and cannon shells or stamping MP-40s in German factories were for the most part POWs, Jews and imported slave labour who had very little say in the matter - precious few volunteers. So bombing the shit out of *these *particular civilians would have been all the more atrocious.
So what are you, and others making similar posts trying to say?
Is it:
a) Trying the the opposing leaders for war crimes is just something you do when you win a war, and the Japanese really didn’t commit any crimes?
Or:
b) Everyone was committing war crimes. Bringing up the war crimes of the Allies in a discussion of Japanese war crimes help put things in perspective.
Because both of those are bullshit.
Even if an argument can be made that some of the actions by the Allies should be considered war crimes, there is absolutely no equivalence between those actions and the mass murder, slavery, human experimentation, and institutionalized rape committed by the Japanese during World War II and the Second Sino-Japanese War.
War crimes are war crimes, regardless of your motivation or who started it. This is not a defense, it’s an excuse.
I challenge anyone to read about Unit 731 and still think that what America did is “just as bad” as what Japan did.
Probably unnecessary according the the 2nd round of revisionism. Then again, revisionism != historical consensus.
The Japanese military was hoping to cut a deal with Stalin: after all, the guy had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler. The US was demanding unconditional surrender: maybe Japan and the Soviets could negotiate a mutually favorable real estate deal.
Let’s review the timeline:
August 6: Hiroshima bomb dropped.
August 8: Soviet Union declares war on Japan and invades Manchuria.
August 9: Nagasaki bomb dropped.
August 10: Emperor Hirohito breaks the cabinet deadlock and decides that Japan must surrender.
According to the revisionist view, while the Japanese authorities were juggling a lot of balls, it was the Aug 8 Soviet invasion of Manchuria that shut down their pre-existing strategy. Faced with a possible Soviet invasion of their homeland, they wisely surrendered to the Americans. After Aug 8, it was the better deal. Before that, they could engage in wishful thinking.
It’s an interesting theory, one which I lack the expertise to evaluate.
Oh yeah. I’ve seen no evidence that the Allies were cognizant of any of the preceding.
Yep. Everybody learns about the Holocaust and Mengele in school, but how many learned about what the Japanese did during WWII? It was pretty much the same as the Nazis, only on a smaller scale. shudder
I didn’t even learn about it until I was in my twenties.
And let’s not forget the Rape of Nanking. I don’t recall us invading Canada and raping every Canadian in sight.
I’m pretty sure Unit 731 was on a larger scale than the “scientific” experiments the Nazis did.
Well, speaking for myself, I’m trying to say that it doesn’t matter one bit if the Japanese, or the Russian, or the Germans, or America, or Swaziland say they were cool as ice during WW2. For one thing, we have the logs. Negationists and revisionists will never make any headway.
For another thing, it was over 60 years ago, everybody involved is dead or has cancer, nobody should care about that any more. And nobody is hurt by what the new PM of Japan thinks, either. It’s just not important. Wake me up when he invades Truk or something.
The Japanese PM’s behavior is abominable.
Getting a lecture from Qin Shi Huangdi on war crimes, however, is like getting a lecture on property rights from a cat burglar.
Japanese “peace efforts” weren’t really taken seriously by either the Soviets or by the Japanese themselves. Japan still had it in their head that they call a time out and get back to business as normal in a few years. They didn’t so much want an end to the war as they wanted half-time.
The Japanese declaration of surrender was almost defeated by a military coup. More than a few folks in the high ranks were not keen on any such actions.
If you look at Germany in their last few days you saw a lot of similar attempts at trying to negotiate “surrenders”. None of them were taken seriously but they don’t get much attention from ‘revisionists’.
Japan was doing little more than planning for the invasion of their mainland, their entire philosophy was to sell their end dearly.
In addition, you must also consider the perspective of the Western allies. Their was a genuine belief among many circles that the Japanese were racially insane. Kamakazi attacks, Banzai charges, intense cruelty to prisoners, and a host of other things soldiers, sailors, and marines encountered contributed to this. Most of the accounts of people doing the grunt fighting were that the bombs saved their lives.
I don’t consider event-hunting ‘revisionists’ in their comfy armchairs passing judgement on the people making decisions in fighting the war to be of much consideration.
Look, just because he’s a Hitlet doesn’t mean he’s already committed war crimes. We should just be patient and wait for the 2047 Katmandu Genocide of Japan Trial.
We all know he’s not going to bother to revisit this thread, now or in 2047. I plan to be doing other stuff in 2047, so might as well get the condemnations out of the way now.