PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POLLING!

Do you consider Harry S. Truman a war criminal for ordering firebombing of Tokyo and especially the dropping of the atomic bombs.
please look at this link (http://whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html)

Though some of the articles elsewhere are "dodgy" I do not doubt the truth of most of these facts.

Among the points are:
-The Japanse offered to surrender in January 1945. The offer was accepted 7 months later.
-They repeatedly ofered their surrender.
-Dwight D. Eisnhower was interviewed on newsweek in the 60s, and he said: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Th U.S bomber survey came to his conclusion in 1946:

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

Personally, I consider it a terrible warcrime. Civilians play no part in warfare. Many many more lives would have been lost if the USA did invade Japan, but they would have been those of themilitary, who are legitimate targets under international law. Japan caused an almost insignificant aount of casualties on the American homeland; the USA hit them with everything they had.

Civilians die in wars. Every side killed civilians knowingly. Therefore, by such definition, it's just about impossible to conduct a war without becoming a war criminal.

If the events are to be believed as presented there, then the US reconsidered their position and accepted the presented terms. They could have pressed on for an unconditional surrender and the total removal of the royal family.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Civilians play no part in warfare.

They produce guns, ammo, food for the troops...

I think the phrase your after is 'people who do not support the war effort'. Geez, this must sound really PC, but it aint really.

Definitely not. Considering how many Asian civilians suffered at the hands of the IJA...

Tens of thousands of Chinese males of military age in Malaya and Singapore were summarily dragged off and killed. All of them civilians. My ex-housemate lost all his uncles on his mom's side - all of whom he had never seen (of course, he was born way after WW2). They were part of the 50000 or so Singaporean Chinese taken to the beaches and machine-gunned to death.

God knows how many Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos etc etc died elsewhere.

If you want to play the game dirty, others can play dirty too. It's war.

US wanted to test H- bomb... it is simple as that. "Nagasaki dolls are burning". And why on earth they dropped the second bomb... becouse they wanted to test which one is better plutonium or uranium- bomb.

"Civilians play no part in warfare." Yeah. This is really stupid comment.

If the U.S.A had an A-bomb dropped on it, say on New York, most Americans would be screaming about war crimes. Civilians, under international law, the same that at Nuremberg was used to condemn Nazis to death, and Germans to prison, are forever protected. A deliberate attempt to kill civilians is pitiful and horrendous.

Yes, he was a warcrime! Civilians as MAIN and nearly only target was a warcrime. Let it be London, Hamburg, Dresden or Nagasaki and Hiroshima. XIII, you might have reasons to dislike the Japanese especially what they did to your country. But in times of war Cicero was not right when he said: Inter arma enim silent leges. (in times of war the laws are silent). We have international law to protect the civilians since the 30 years war! And in the time until ww2 this was kept generally. But there is no excusion why using these bombs on CIVILIANS. If he dropped it on a military base I could live with it. But so- no way. He is a warcriminal like Göring or Himmler or Butcher Harris. Not in the number of the victims but they are all warcriminals.

Adler

I heard somewhere that when Japan first wanted to surrender, it would not be unconditional. If they attacked Pearl Harbor, take any steps necessary to make them cave in completely.

Japan did attempt to surrender in January, for exactly the same conditions as they did in August after the bombs were dropped.

No.

He saved lives in dropping the a bombs. US planners projected atleast 1 million US deaths alone if they invaded the home isles. And millions of Japanese Civilians.

No, it is the Janenese governments fault those things happened. (as in if you don't want us to kill you then don't attack us)

hiroshima--- HQ of the 2nd army--in charge of the defence of japan ( communication center, storage depot and assembly area for 2nd army)

nagasaki-- naval harbour & mitsubishi torpedeo plant

both had multiple munitions and war plants. if the legit targets are all surrounded by civilian s how do you not kill civilians?

Anyway, about the civilian deaths, the two cities that were bombed produced weapons, ammunition and etc for the army. The Japanese also refused uncoditional surrender until the 2 bombs fell and a coup failed.

Nonconformist, that is complete bull****. There never was an offer of surrender by Japan. That never happened. Your incredible source (which was made by the incredible commies) is clearly mistaken.

Even after the first bomb was dropped, many in Japan wished to keep fighting. The government held a vote, and it was deadlocked. Only the emperor's vote could end it. The militarists staged a faild coup to keep the emperor from voting. That was the extreme of these people. Finally, after the second bomb, a surrender was offered.

You obviously know little about Japanese culture at this time. The Japanese were well known for preferring to give their own lives than surrender to American soldiers. There are instances where where whole units simply jumped off cliffs. The Japanese mindset was filled with concepts of "honor" and "courage"--to the extreme...hence kamikaze fighters. If we had invaded Japan, the loss of life not only to American soldiers which has been estimated to have been between 100,000-1,000,000 casualties, but to Japanese civilians would have been worse than the >200,000 that lost their lives in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo. The entire island would have turned into a Stalingrad, with dangerous street fighting that would cost the lives of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians alike.

Lastly, thinking long term, if the US had invaded, that would have meant that the Soviets would have invaded as well. Not only would there be, at the conclusion of the terribly bloody struggle, a divided Japan between Communism and capitalism (because that worked so well for Korea :rolleyes: ) but the loss of lives on the Soviet captured Japanese North would be terrible. Stalin would take it like he did East Germany, and like most territories under Soviet control, we would witness lots and lots of death. That's how autocracy works, after all, especially Stalin's.

So obviously, the argument has been made that the bombings were far better than their potential (and nearly completely likely) alternatives.

Now, the question goes further, was Churchill a war criminal for the bombings of Berlin, and the firebombings of Dresden, Munich, and Hamburg? Was Stalin a war criminal for killing millions of his own soldiers and commanders, rounding up of Axis POWs and leaving them all to starve and die, as well as displacing hundreds of thousands of Germans that had lived in Eastern Europe (think old East Prussia) and the rape of innocent German women at the hands of the Red Army?

Truman, like Churchill, is no war criminal. He is a war here, and does not deserve your libellous slander.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
US wanted to test H- bomb... it is simple as that. "Nagasaki dolls are burning". And why on earth they dropped the second bomb... becouse they wanted to test which one is better plutonium or uranium- bomb.


The hydrogen bomb wasn't invented until 1951, if I'm not mistaken. That is the most ignorant comment I've heard in a while, outside of nonconformist's.

Truman did what he felt he had to do, and you must remember that it was Japan, not the US that started this war. If they did not want their cities destroyed than they should not have attacked Pearl Harbor.

Could their have been other outcomes possible, yes. But was this the quickest and best for American citizens, yes.

Ok, I'll repeat what I said. Firstly, I would suggest though dragging up the sources for the facts you throw around so that they can be verified and shown in their correct context rather than merely offer the words of someone that is, to say the least biased about Trueman and FDR. The guy hates both of them and offers precious little sources for his information, further study would be better to determine if he has the correct information.

On the main topic though

Firstly, the targets were NOT chosen willy nilly or as demonstrations against civilians. What is important to understand when judging the decisions of the various bomber commands in the war is that targets could not and would never be chosen purely on a military basis. Whatever the rhetoric of Geneva and likewise, the reality was targets were chosen for their ability to weaken the enemies ability to continue the war. It is in this context should the targets that the comittee chose should be judged, not some hindsight driven fantasy world that often gets suggested such as uninhabited islands or "shows" for the Japanese (one wonders how they intend to expect that Tojo would accept an invitation to see the effects).

On the initial targets chosen:

(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)
(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)
(3) Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target)
(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)
(5) Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)
(6) The possibility of bombing the Emperor's palace was discussed. It was agreed that we should not recommend it but that any action for this bombing should come from authorities on military policy. It was agreed that we should obtain information from which we could determine the effectiveness of our weapon against this target.

(Note, either Nagasaki was under a name above that I don't recognise or isn't listed, I don't know why, perhaps Nagasaki wasn't supposed to be a target, but they had to change after take off due to weather?)

Secondly, Japan's surrender terms discussed prior to the bombs were both Lukewarm and seen from the point of view of the US at the time would probably be viewed with caution anyway. Japan made such advances to Russia, a country that the US was soon to fall out with and a country that was eager to prolong the war itself in order to overun Manchuria. At the same time, no official approach was made to either Western power, nor was any official approach made by the two main bodies of political power in Japan, the "big 6" or the cabinet, both of whom were deadlocked over the issue of surrender. Yes you could roundly criticise Trueman for not pursuing the efforts of Japan to Russia, or not offering further efforts directly, the question would be what would Japan accept?

I find it interesting about the whole "The terms were the same point" (IE the emperor stayed in power which most agree was the main sticking point) however, I see it as thus. Japan was not in the position to, nor should she have been given the right to dictate the terms of a surrender in advance. The choice that allowed in the end the Japanese to retain the emperor in his position was an American one, a ratification by the US that they agreed with it. Not a demand by the Japanese that they could enforce by their political position. What the bomb did was to pull the rug from under Japan in terms of who dictated the terms of the surrender.

Also, again the terms issue is complicated, different powerful factions inside Japan's government were in disagreement as to what was acceptable, whilst the faction that went to Moscow agreed to the eventual terms, the main political powers did not, and whilst as a figurehead the emperor was important, real power also lay outside of his hands. The emperor held the moral autority of the country, but not the total power to decide it's future. It was Japan's responsibility also to ensure that once the allies laid out their intentions, that Japan came and suggested peace properly, not underhanded and uncertainly with part of the government deadlocked on the issue.

We have international law to protect the civilians since the 30 years war! And in the time until ww2 this was kept generally.

I'm thinking that the 30 years war was sometime in the 16th century right? I don't know which history books you read, but civilians have died in wars, and deliberately too for that entire period. Quite frequently too, the point though would be it occurred so often in WWII because the world faced an alliance of nations capable of terrible evil. Lesser evils had to be comitted to counter it.

I personally think that the situation is nowhere near as clear cut as our present view of the period allows us to think it is. What we know now about what information may have been available is not necessarily what Trueman had at hand with which to make a decision. I agree that the second bomb was both unessecary and that the first could and should have been preceeded with a severe attempt to negotiate peace. However so could Japan have stepped up her efforts. If Trueman is guilty of not persuing the case of diplomacy, so must be the Japanese government for not making their case clearer, concentrating their efforts were they were both obvious and more likely to suceed. The country was dead in the water to use a naval phrase, they permitted to the end ideas of ideology and pride/honour to get in the way of the well being of their country and people. They paid the price, and they hold part of the blame.

The first bomb was IMO justified, perhaps a little rash, but not a warcrime. The second was less justified and a candidate for a crime, but given the nature of the war, some you just have to say were part and parcel of what needed to be done. Not pleasant, but tough really.

I haven't read too much into he Japenese offering to surrender prior to our bombs dropping. I thought they were still willing to fight even after the first one dropped, but after the second they were done.

Originally posted by privatehudson
I'm thinking that the 30 years war was sometime in the 16th century right?


Close, actually the 17th century, 1618-1648. Nevertheless, he is incorrect in his assertion anyway, and no "international" agreements were made regarding "civilian" casualties (since civilians were all peasants, the conditions are drastically dissimilar and irrelevent).

Originally posted by CIVPhilzilla
I haven't read too much into he Japenese offering to surrender prior to our bombs dropping. I thought they were still willing to fight even after the first one dropped, but after the second they were done.

Correct...see my earlier post.

Benderino: EEK! Typo, I should have put 17th, I recall it being erly to mid 1600's, but was dredging up some pretty old knowledge :D

What is a war criminal in the first place ?

According to my definition, it's a guy who's been in the wrong side during a war and who had done awful things during it. So no, Harry Truman doesn't fit to such a definition since he was in the right side of the war. :p

Well more honnestly speaking. I have a lot of respect about Harry Truman since he restored freedom, prosperity and hope to Western Europe. Eastern Europe have been a lot less lucky. So no, I won't consider him as a war criminal.

However, if we want to be objective. The US Air Force have commited the most murderous bombings of the war. It's a fact to admit that Americans considered the life of their soldiers as above the life of foreign citizens. If it's unnecessary to talk about it, it's once again because it's a small damage compared to Hitler, Stalin or even Hirohito if we consider what had been done in Korea.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
It's a fact to admit that Americans considered the life of their soldiers as above the life of foreign citizens.

Right, and the French considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The British considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Russians considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Italians considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Germans considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Japanese considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

And if I were fighting for my country, I'd want it to value my life more than that of a foreign citizen too.
...so I guess we're in agreement then. :p

No. Never have, never will. Truman was a great man, both at home and abroad.

@Benderino :

No. I'm sorry but you can't say so. You obviously ignore the violence of the US bombings. German bombings were made at a low altitude to have better chance to hit their targets. American bombings were made at a high altitude for more safety, no matter if we had to drop 20 times more bombs since at least one would hit the target anyway. Those bombings were totally blind in the middle of a city. Another issue which didn't bother Americans was the fact that when a bomb is dropped from a higher altitude, it destroys building untill their basement and even the canalisation.

US bombings have been the most murderous of all. That wasn't necessary. Millions of civilians have been killed by the US army during World War 2. There's no excuse for such a behaviour which is criminal. However, those crimes are small compared to those of the Germans, Russians and Japanese, and I'm very glad that my country had been freed by Americans and not by the Russians for obvious reasons.

If Truman really wanted to nuke the Japs, he woulda had it dropped on downtown Tokyo. Hiroshima was and is a relatively unimportant city.

No. If he had really bombed Tokyo, the Japanese would never have surrendered without invasion. Even if there was a 2nd or 3rd nuking. Kyoto was similar. The Japanese think it is a kind of holy city. So They might have surrendered, but they would never have forgiven. So it was only the weather which should doom one of the cities on the target list.
I know the US see this too patriotical, sometime too much to argue with them, but Truman was a warcriminal. So again: What are the reasons for nuking civilians?
1. The Japanese didn´t want to surrender. This is a lie. And there is nothing communistical within this FACT. I´m not a communist! Japan wanted to surrender. The US didn´t want to accept because they wanted to test their new "toy".
2. Japan attacked the US without warning. Well the US provoked the attack. And they were warned. However the US were attacked and the Japanese started the war. But revenge can not excuse the death of 200.000 civilians. If revenge is the only motive, it is murder! But there might be other reasons which could excuse it at least.
3. It was necessary to bomb Japan to surrender them. Without that an invasion would have costed millions of soldiers and civilians the life. No. The same goal would have been achieved by nuking a small uninhabitant island. Even IF we could agree the first nuke was okay, which is not right, the second was useless. It was only a test. So the surrender of Japan and to show the Soviets the power of the US could have achieved with nuking a small island.
4. The Soviets would have invaded Japan. Never. The Soviets wouldn´t have the üpossibility to do so. There were Japanese troops in Manchuria. They would have been beaten first. Then an invasion fleet would have to be used. Which ships? The few remaining Soviet ships were either based in Europe or too few to make an invasion possible of Japan. Although beaten the Japanese were able to beat the Soviets on the sea, at least on the beaches. No, the Soviets were not a danger for the Japanese to take them serious.
5. Even if something is the best and might be the only way to solve a problem it can´t be used if it is disproportional. This means the way has to be a resonable mean to use, which is very questionable, it must be the best way to achieve the aim, which is much more questionable, and the consequences of the way must be proportional to the goal. This is in this case very questionable to affirm this.
So nothing can justify or excuse the use of the nukes.
I said something about the protection of the civilians. I was a bit unprecise. Since the 30 years war there was a big movement to protect civilians. Pacts are not neccessary to make something a part of the international law. But in the time of ww2 there were pacts to protect civilians. NO side followed them. But is that an excusion to kill innocent people? No. The morale was on the western allied side. So they were oblieged to keep this morale. But they lost it in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Königsberg,...
All warcrimes. A president is only a human being with errors. So they can do something criminal. And Truman was a weak and stupid president. But also this can´t excuse his crimes of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Adler

They were testing their toy. I still ask why second bomb?

I believe these dudes are no "commies", (nice short article)
http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html


You, our American friends, should really admit that when it comes to bombing US has been the worst criminal.

By the way, BORODINO, it was US planes who destroyed Dresden. British planes just did some "warm up", the "ugly work" was done mainly by US planes.

US always says that it is defending humanity and all that bull****.
You really sdont see through US propaganda. Learn to question things.

US "democracy" is no real democracy. So dont send your "freedom bombers" and "democracy fighters" around the world to spread your only freedom, freedom to DIE!

1 party democracy, hey its just like in Soviet Union!

Originally posted by Adler17
And Truman was a weak and stupid president. But also this can´t excuse his crimes of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Adler

Still, I'd rather have Truman running the country than Hitler.
The only moral high ground German and Japanese people can take is that their civilian poplulation was murdered by mass bombing. Fair enough.
The fact remains however that they both started a war which cost approximately 50 million lives. A figure many times greater than all those killed by Allied bombings.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. No sympathy.

Sure I also would have Truman as my president rather than Hitler. But again Murder is murder. The counting of dead civilians is questionable. Each one is one too much. And not the German or Japanese people started the war but their governments. You can´t blame a total nation for the deeds of some of them. It isn´t fair to say murdering innocent people is right. I must misunderstand you rilnator! That can´t be your opinion. Each one is a murderer who gives the order to kill innocent people willingly without any need (collateral damages excluded; but NO city bombed by the Allies in Japan or Germany except Essen was bombed because of the industrial/ military targets) is a warcriminal and murderer. So ALL leaders of the 40s of the big powers are warcriminals!

Adler

Originally posted by Moss321
Truman did what he felt he had to do, and you must remember that it was Japan, not the US that started this war. If they did not want their cities destroyed than they should not have attacked Pearl Harbor.

Could their have been other outcomes possible, yes. But was this the quickest and best for American citizens, yes.

Who attacked Peal Harbor? The citizen of Hiroshima? Don´t think so. The government did. The dropping of the two nukes was a warcrime IMO. The targets were not somekind of a massive tank fabric and they USA only wanted to show the soviets how damn cool they were.

Btw could we pleace get some trustworthy sources? I don´t believe anything in internet ;).

Originally posted by Adler17
Yes, he was a warcrime! Civilians as MAIN and nearly only target was a warcrime. Let it be London, Hamburg, Dresden or Nagasaki and Hiroshima. XIII, you might have reasons to dislike the Japanese especially what they did to your country. But in times of war Cicero was not right when he said: Inter arma enim silent leges. (in times of war the laws are silent). We have international law to protect the civilians since the 30 years war! And in the time until ww2 this was kept generally. But there is no excusion why using these bombs on CIVILIANS. If he dropped it on a military base I could live with it. But so- no way. He is a warcriminal like Göring or Himmler or Butcher Harris. Not in the number of the victims but they are all warcriminals.

Adler The Japanese themselves didn't pay any darn heed to these laws. Shld they then expect others to pay the same heed, when their turn come? Sounds like a double-standard to me...

You reap what you sow.

It's all very easy for you to accuse the Americans of war-crimes fr the safety of hindsight and times, but remember they started this. Had they gotten the A-bomb, I doubt they would hesitate at all, on using it on the Chinese, or the Allies, at all.

And they still hadn't acknowledged their atrocities up till this day; with all their covering up, self-delusion and misleading highschool textbooks. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by nonconformist
Japan did attempt to surrender in January, for exactly the same conditions as they did in August after the bombs were dropped. By beginning to arm the civilians with bamboo spears and telling them to fight the American devils to the death? Sure......

Had the emperor not gone on the air to declare the war over, most Japanese units would have continued fighting. IMO even after 2 A-bombs, it's hard to say if the Japanese would surrender, had it not been for the emperor's intervention (at great danger to himself).

Some few of those Japanese soldiers continued to fight in the jungles of SE Asia for decades, after the end of the war; believing the surrender to be American propoganda.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
No. I'm sorry but you can't say so. You obviously ignore the violence of the US bombings. German bombings were made at a low altitude to have better chance to hit their targets. American bombings were made at a high altitude for more safety, no matter if we had to drop 20 times more bombs since at least one would hit the target anyway. Those bombings were totally blind in the middle of a city. Another issue which didn't bother Americans was the fact that when a bomb is dropped from a higher altitude, it destroys building untill their basement and even the canalisation. If they want to save the lives of as many of their pilots as possible by playing it safe, it's hard to see what wrong they're doing with it... It's war, for goodness' sake. Remember, it's the Germans who started the darn war in Europe.

As a non-American, I'm very glad and grateful for the great effort Americans put into WW2, and help to roll back the militarists of Japan, and Nazis of Germany. :goodjob:

Alot of you seem to be utterly unaware of the importance of civilians to the war effort of any army.

The performance of any national army depends largely on the economic performance of their country, and the economy of any country is dependant on the performance of its workers. Every army needs equipment to do their job. They need food, uniforms, guns, ammo, trucks, etc. All of these things are provided by the economy, the state of which is determined by the performance of the workers. Therefore, the army and its performance in combat is linked to the average joe back home.

You have claimed that civilians are not a legitimate target during war becuase they have nothing to do with the fighting. This is utterly untrue.

You are about to claim that many workers do not want to work and are therefore not a valid target, right? Well then, what about conscripts that have been forced to fight? According to you lot they are a legitimate target simply becuase they are wearing an army uniform. Both are linked to the performance of their army, and both do not nesseserily support the war effort, yet one is a valid target and the other is not? Seems like a double standard to me. And how exactly do you plan on solving this little problem? Asking soldiers on the battlefield if they support the war or not?

Originally posted by Adler17
1. The Japanese didn´t want to surrender. This is a lie. And there is nothing communistical within this FACT. I´m not a communist! Japan wanted to surrender. The US didn´t want to accept because they wanted to test their new "toy". The Japanese didn't want to surrender - they didn't expect any mercy fr the Americans upon surrender. Some few would continue fighting for decades, after the end of the war, though the Japanese troops by and large were brought home.

2. Japan attacked the US without warning. Well the US provoked the attack. And they were warned. However the US were attacked and the Japanese started the war. But revenge can not excuse the death of 200.000 civilians. If revenge is the only motive, it is murder! But there might be other reasons which could excuse it at least. Provoked? Provoked?

Yeah sure, the IJA were angels. Tell that to the millions of Chinese and Koreans who had already perished prior to 1941.

Tell me, ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing?

3. It was necessary to bomb Japan to surrender them. Without that an invasion would have costed millions of soldiers and civilians the life. No. The same goal would have been achieved by nuking a small uninhabitant island. Even IF we could agree the first nuke was okay, which is not right, the second was useless. It was only a test. So the surrender of Japan and to show the Soviets the power of the US could have achieved with nuking a small island. How could you tell? Were you part of the Japanese general staff during WW2? Would you know that the Japanese would be terrified by a weopan used on some out-of-the-way island? Would the Japanese even bother to observe what happened on the said island? :rolleyes:

4. The Soviets would have invaded Japan. Never. The Soviets wouldn´t have the üpossibility to do so. There were Japanese troops in Manchuria. They would have been beaten first. The Japanese were already in full rout and retreat fr Manchuria - they had no armor to meet the Soviet tanks. The battle-hardened and blitzkering Red Army swept in and chased the Japanese Kwantung Army southwards in the last days of the war.

Their defeats in Manchuria were as much a shock as the A-bombs.

Then an invasion fleet would have to be used. Which ships? The few remaining Soviet ships were either based in Europe or too few to make an invasion possible of Japan. Although beaten the Japanese were able to beat the Soviets on the sea, at least on the beaches. No, the Soviets were not a danger for the Japanese to take them serious. As Allies, I think the Americans, British and Canadians would only be too happy to lend a few ships to ship the Soviet troops over, to help with the fighting... :rolleyes:

5. Even if something is the best and might be the only way to solve a problem it can´t be used if it is disproportional. This means the way has to be a resonable mean to use, which is very questionable, it must be the best way to achieve the aim, which is much more questionable, and the consequences of the way must be proportional to the goal. This is in this case very questionable to affirm this.
So nothing can justify or excuse the use of the nukes. And who are you, dear sir, that you might make a judgement like that?

But in the time of ww2 there were pacts to protect civilians. NO side followed them. But is that an excusion to kill innocent people? No. The morale was on the western allied side. So they were oblieged to keep this morale. But they lost it in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Königsberg,...
All warcrimes. A president is only a human being with errors. So they can do something criminal. And Truman was a weak and stupid president. But also this can´t excuse his crimes of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, and it would have nice too if the angelic Nazis and Japanese militarists had won the war, and now ruled over the rest of us subspecimens of the human race? :rolleyes:

On the subject of Truman and the nukes; I think that the attack was worth it. In the long run many lives were saved due to the avoidance of a continued war against Japan.

Continuing the war against Japan would mean an invasion of Japan would be needed at some point, it has been predicted that this would result in over a million casulties.

Less than 200,000 people died as a result of the nuclear bombs (85,000 at Nakasaki and 75,000 at Hiroshima).

Both scenarios have the same outcome (peace), but one costs much, much more in terms of lives lost.

It is very sad that such a thing (the nukes) became nessessary in achieving peace, but sometimes thats just how things work out. Ideally situations like that would never come about in the first place.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
They were testing their toy. I still ask why second bomb?

I believe these dudes are no "commies", (nice short article)
http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html


You, our American friends, should really admit that when it comes to bombing US has been the worst criminal.

By the way, BORODINO, it was US planes who destroyed Dresden. British planes just did some "warm up", the "ugly work" was done mainly by US planes.

US always says that it is defending humanity and all that bull****.
You really sdont see through US propaganda. Learn to question things.

US "democracy" is no real democracy. So dont send your "freedom bombers" and "democracy fighters" around the world to spread your only freedom, freedom to DIE!

1 party democracy, hey its just like in Soviet Union!

Do you have some massive inferiority complex, or what?

Originally posted by rilnator
Still, I'd rather have Truman running the country than Hitler.
The only moral high ground German and Japanese people can take is that their civilian poplulation was murdered by mass bombing. Fair enough.
The fact remains however that they both started a war which cost approximately 50 million lives. A figure many times greater than all those killed by Allied bombings.The 50 million casualties of ww2 includes the victims of the Allied Bombings. You thought it was only the germans who did that alone ?

Another paradox, when we talk about ww2, germans are responsible of everything, even the nuking of Japan. When we talk about ww1, the same germans also declared the war and started the invasion, but then it's outrageous to consider them as fully responsible of the war at the Versailles Treaty. Why what is acceptable in one case isn't in the other ? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by rilnator
If they want to save the lives of as many of their pilots as possible by playing it safe, it's hard to see what wrong they're doing with it... It's war, for goodness' sake. Remember, it's the Germans who started the darn war in Europe.No, it isn't. Since when there's nothing wrong in killing freely civilians ? Do you think it was right to reduce Dresden into ashes... including the people ? They were all naughty nazis who declared the war ?

Listen to me Rilnator. We must learn to grow up, of course the good side has won the war. I can't stop to repeat that in this thread. But that doesn't mean that Americans did nothing wrong during that conflict. People always talk about the naughty bombings of the Germans on Britain, but those bombings have killed 150,000 people. The US bombings on France have killed 400,000 civilians, of course that's not really important because, once again, the good side has won but it's just to make you realize things. And finally, almost 4 million german civilians have been killed in bombings. You should realize that it's still a lot. No matter how evil they were.

World War 2 was ugly. If the Good side has won, that doesn't mean it hasn't done ugly things too. If I'm saying so, it's because I'm realizing more and more that Americans haven't already learnt yet why that world war was horribly wrong.

Originally posted by Adler17
So ALL leaders of the 40s of the big powers are warcriminals!
Adler

Winston Churchill is a great man!
We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this so its pointless arguing. To think a war like WW2 can be conducted without civilian casualties accidentalor otherwise is pure fantasy.
I think it is terrible the devestation in such cities as Cologne and Dresden.
Len Deighton wrote a book called 'Bomber'. It gives an accountof British bomber pilots, Germans civilians, Fighter pilots and radar operators during a misdirected raid in 1944. Good book!

Interesting to see. Most US guys here have no doubts to say: everything all right. Most Europeans say: Warcrime!
And IMO the US side does not argue very well. XIII is also because of historical reasons a strong supporter.
But first of all try to find a way out of your superpatriotic sight to a neutral one: What if Germany and Japan didn´t commit those attrocities in the war? Would you say then it was justified to kill innocent people willingly?
But before you tell me the answer on this question back to the reality.
Yes XIII, I heard abot Nangking. Yes I heard about the death of million of Chinese and Koreans. But is this a justification or excusion to kill millions of people? Innocent people in the air war? Darth Pugwash, you said civilians are a good target. Now you are back in the barbary of medievel times! When civilians could be attacked for nothing. This time is over! Civilians are not combattants and must be safed and not be slaughtered. Only if it is unavoidable, like collateral damages. But not as main target.
XIII, I meant the US rebased their fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbour. That´s the same for Japan as it is for Germany 200.000 Polish troops at the border. Or for the Vietnamese Chinese troops. Roosevelt wanted to provoke this attack. Not perhaps this attack, but Japanese hostilities. And he didn´t do that for China. That´s why it was provoked.
XIII, my next anwer. I can not remember to be part of the Japanese General staff in 1945. Is 34 years before me. But what do you think? An explosion of a nuke on an uninhabitant island in the Japanese Empire would have had no effect? If they had witnesses and could sent scientist to the island? So they would have surrendered also! IF you said they didn´t want to surrender. Taht some Japanese troops fought the war for decades after the end of the war is also no reason. There will be such kind of people for ever.
Your next argument about the Russians: The Japanese troops in Manchuria were still a danger to attack or only as troops in being. They would have to be beaten first. After that they had to land on the islands. With what? Do you really think the other allies would have given them ships? No way. They were not longer real allies. Many US and British generals said it was an error to stop in Germany. So they would have done everything to avoid a landing. And without help, they would have waited until this day for this help, the Russians were not able to invade Japan.
The next word, "dear sir", I tell you I´m studying law. And this is in international law, also war law, a base. There are no discussions about that. Killing so many innocent people is disproportional to the goal achieved. They were innocent and it was not the ultima ratio to nuke them. Also it is very questionable that these nukes really made the Japanese to surrender.
Do you really believe that killing innocent people by these terror bombings was a way to stop the war :lol:. Sorry I can only lough. It is too sad, but I can only lough. Not a single allied bomb made the war a single day shorter. The main target were civilians. As for Germany the biggest output of military equipment was in 1944 despite the bombings. The civilians were hit, but not the industry (almost). Until the very last weeks the US didn´t bomb refineries and transport stations. But not before. And what excusion do you have for Dresden, a city full of art and refugees from the East, where not a single military or industrial target was? I can not see any. Perhaps you know some. Tell me please.
Perhaps this is written too harsh. The I excuse me. But the ideas in some posts are unbelievable to hear from people from democratic and enlighted states.

Adler

rilnator, Churchill is a very ambivalent man so this topic I want not to argue here. This topic is hot enough.

Adler

Originally posted by Darth_Pugwash
Alot of you seem to be utterly unaware of the importance of civilians to the war effort of any army.

The performance of any national army depends largely on the economic performance of their country, and the economy of any country is dependant on the performance of its workers. Every army needs equipment to do their job. They need food, uniforms, guns, ammo, trucks, etc. All of these things are provided by the economy, the state of which is determined by the performance of the workers. Therefore, the army and its performance in combat is linked to the average joe back home.

You have claimed that civilians are not a legitimate target during war becuase they have nothing to do with the fighting. This is utterly untrue.

You are about to claim that many workers do not want to work and are therefore not a valid target, right? Well then, what about conscripts that have been forced to fight? According to you lot they are a legitimate target simply becuase they are wearing an army uniform. Both are linked to the performance of their army, and both do not nesseserily support the war effort, yet one is a valid target and the other is not? Seems like a double standard to me. And how exactly do you plan on solving this little problem? Asking soldiers on the battlefield if they support the war or not?

Obviously you have never read the Hague and Geneva conventions, and have no idea about the various clauses. Civilians (i.e people that are not recruited in an army, are not spies and are not bearing arms) are illegitimate targets. As are surrendered soldiers.

Also, a lot of you forget WHY the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbou, because the Americans cut off the Oil to the Japanese, and they needed oil, or their country would grind to a halt.

A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

This needs to be placed in context. If a nuke was dropped on New York as part of a plan to achieve peace and save millions of lives, then no, I would not consider him a war criminal.

I guess Japan shouldn't have attacked us. They must not have cared much about their civilian population.

Originally posted by nonconformist
A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

Not if we attacked them first and behaved as badly as they did throughout the war.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Obviously you have never read the Hague and Geneva conventions, and have no idea about the various clauses. Civilians (i.e people that are not recruited in an army, are not spies and are not bearing arms) are illegitimate targets. As are surrendered soldiers.



Okay...first of all, you stated that you do not consider civilians a valid target becuase they have no effect on the combat , and that is the point I refuted. They do have an effect on combat.

Secondly, I never attempted to claim that attacking civilians was defined as legal by the Hague and Geneva conventions.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Also, a lot of you forget WHY the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbou, because the Americans cut off the Oil to the Japanese, and they needed oil, or their country would grind to a halt. Right. Now are you going to mention why the US cut off the oil supply?

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I guess Japan shouldn't have attacked us. They must not have cared much about their civilian population. That's not an excuse. In this case, France shouldn't be blamed to have invaded Europe since all other powers unified to declare war to France in 1794. So they shouldn't have declared war then.

That's totaly stupid. We can't excuse the massacres of civilians I'm sorry.

Obviously you have never read the Hague and Geneva conventions, and have no idea about the various clauses. Civilians (i.e people that are not recruited in an army, are not spies and are not bearing arms) are illegitimate targets. As are surrendered soldiers.
The various treaties only forbid the deliberate killing of civillians, civillians killed during the bombardment of legitimate military tagets are not protected.

Yes, Crazy Eddie, but the target must be a military one. And in the bombings of the allies in ww2 only Essen was bombed because of a military target. Harrs himself admitted without Essen industrial/ military targets were only "cakes". Main target were civilians to "break the morale". And also Hiroshima and nagasaki were primary civilian targets. Other targets were only secondary. So the treateis do not justify the nuking of the two cities!

Adler

Apart from XIII, many of you seem to be unaware of the nature of the Japanese state in this period.

This is a state which brutally attacked China, seized its northern province of Manchuria and installed a puppet governor. Subsequently, they continued that war in the face of overwhelming international condemnation and seized the coastal provinces by force of arms. The basis for the war was trumped up charges of attacks by Chinese troops against Japan ala Hitler in 1938.

Japan continually refused to participate in arms negotiations in the interim between the wars and walked out of the League of Nations.

This is a state which was ruled by one party, the militarists, who regularly employed assassination and intimidation to stay in power and advocate its positions.

In addition to the attack on Pearl Harbor (which was of course justified, after all, the US had cut off it ability to wage aggressive war against the Chinese through the oil and scrap steel embargo) the Japanese proceeded to attack all of its perceived enemies with the same regard for the conventions of war. The Japanese attacked without provocation, British Commonwealth forces and territories, Dutch territories, and associated territories of other minor powers.

During the course of the war the Japanese committed numerous atrocities against civilians of all nationalities. Their actions against the Chinese deserve the same label as that given to the actions of the Germans against European Jews.

Just some highlights.

The well documented Rape of Nanking

The actions of Unit 731 in Harbin in testing plague on Chinese civilians, attempting to spread plague through the Chinese countryside, the vivisection and experimentation on live Chinese civilians and Allied POWs. The attempt to weaponize plague for balloon based attacks on the US.

The attempt to firebomb the American northwest forested areas by way of long range balloons.

The Bataan Death March.

The burning alive of American POWS in the Philippines in the Palawan massacre. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bataan/peopleevents/e_atrocities.html

The murder of Chinese civilians in retaliation for the Doolitle Raid in operation Sei-Go, estimated at between 100-250K civilians.

The systematic degradation, starvation, murder and torture of Chinese and interned Allied civilians and Allied POWS. Japanese POW and internee camps had a death rate of 38%.

The forced prostitution of Korean and Chinese girls in Japanese army brothels.

The murder of Allied forces attempting to surrender.

The United States was not under a obligation to observe the rules of war when the Japanese had already defecated all over those rules. This was a brutal, totalitarian, aggressive racist government which had to be defeated in the most expeditious manner possible.

Allegations that they Japanese were willing to surrender prior to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not correct. Japan was attempting to come to a negotiated settlement with the United States which would leave its government intact and its country unoccupied, in other words a conditional surrender. The United Nations had agreed to not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from both the Japanese and the German Reich.

In fact, the Japanese final surrender was still "conditional" as regards the emperor. There was a tacit understanding between that the emperor would remain in place and no action would be taken against him by the Allies.

That may be Joycem, but in that case why nopt drop an atomic bomb on Moscow? The Russians were just as, if not more brutal than the Japanese. And Berlin, that might save some Allied lives. Or Normandy, it would save thousands of Allied troops! The "we saved our own military's lives by using one of the most horrible and fearsome weapons ever on a town full of civilians living their lives" is complete rubbish.

And to come onto Adler's point about the Europeans being the ones most concerned about these war crimes, it may be that America has never experinced total war. Britain, France and Germany all have.

Originally posted by joycem10
Apart from XIII, many of you seem to be unaware of the nature of the Japanese state in this period.No, obviously, it's you who doesn't understand an obvious thing : It's not because they've done even worse in front that our crimes are more just. That's the only thing I've said in this thread. And that's something obviously you don't get. More than 4 million civilians have been killed during the American bombings. You can't justify that because Hitler was doing the holocaust.

God damn'it, is this so hard for you to understand that world war 2 was just the ugliest era of the Humanity ?

The US was not at war with the Soviet Union. The Nazis surrendered before the bombs were available.

"The "we saved our own military's lives by using one of the most horrible and fearsome weapons ever on a town full of civilians living their lives" is complete rubbish.:"

I never made that argument, I merely stated that the Japanese conduct of the war, specifically, thier actions towards civilians and POWS, evidences the fact that they had urinated on the "rules of war" and were treated accordingly.

As fo German claims that Britain's bombing of German cities was criminal, please remember that the Germans were the ones who invented terror bombing, specifically German attacks on Coventry, Rotterdam and Warsaw.

@Adler17:
Breaking the morale of the enemy is a legitimate aim of war really, the only things that are specificly banned are weapons specificly designed to cause unnecessary suffering - gas, chemical, dum-dums, "dirty" nuclear bombs etc.
The target in Hiroshima was the 2nd army headquarters and the military supplies in the city (it was one of the biggest embarkation ports for Japanese overseas operations), in Nagasaki it was the large Mitsubushi weapons factories.

Incidently, British bombing policy was based on a study of the effects of a German bombing raid on a British city in 40/41 or thereabouts. The study reported that deaths had less effect on morale than was thought, but the disruption caused by de-housing industrial workers caused a lot of problems both in loss of morale and reduced production. Given that the bombers of the time had problems even hitting the correct city let alone a specific factory, the "area bombing" tactic was adopted. Civilian deaths were not the objective; as the study had shown, they didn't cause sufficiant disruption to production.

edit: Checking the above story in more detail it seems that the study was "re-interpreted" by Cherwell to some degree.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
No, obviously, it's you who doesn't understand an obvious thing : It's not because they've done even worse in front that our crimes are more just. That's the only thing I've said in this thread. And that's something obviously you don't get. More than 4 million civilians have been killed during the American bombings. You can't justify that because Hitler was doing the holocaust.

God damn'it, is this so hard for you to understand that world war 2 was just the ugliest era of the Humanity ?

you dont seem to understand, I made no argument about morality. I stated that the Japanese had not conducted the war in accordance with international law regarding the treatment of civilians and that, therefore, the americans were under no such obligation as regards the Japanese.

You can bleat and moan and tear your breast about the horrors of the war as much as you want and i'll agree with you, I will not agree that Truman was a war criminal for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My reasons are stated above.

Where exactly did i mention that the Japanese should have been bombed because of the German holocaust?

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
God damn'it, is this so hard for you to understand that world war 2 was just the ugliest era of the Humanity ?

WW2 was indeed humanity's ugliest era. But when you find yourself in an ugly situation, the best thing you can do is try and find the least ugly way out.

This is how the use of the nukes is justifyed. It prevented the need for an invasion of Japan, which would have cost at least a million lives. The nukes killed less than 200,000, and brought about the end to the war. It was the least ugly way out.

The Japanese didn´t want to surrender. This is a lie. And there is nothing communistical within this FACT. I´m not a communist! Japan wanted to surrender. The US didn´t want to accept because they wanted to test their new "toy".

No, it is not fact, the issue was both confused and uncertain. One faction of 3 agreed fully to pursue peace at the terms later offered by the US. Two were unable to agree on that issue. Furthermore, you place an assumption on US motives without looking further into what drove US policy. The US was also insterested in ensuring that Japan was demilitrised, became more democratic and ceased to be a threat to the area. Most of those wishing to surrender wanted none of these. Continuing to spout the same worn out information about one Japanese faction trying half-heartedly to achieve a peace that the US was unlikely to want at the time through Russia is not proof that Japan was about to surrender. Nor is the opinions of a bunch of Admirals or politicians without the backing logic as to why they came to that conclusion.

And I hate to burst the bubble of this "Japan was seeking peace" theory, but at exactly the same time, Japan was planning for a last ditch battle to force the US to negotiate peace in the event of an invasion. Japan was doing both, the question is which the allies trusted them to do more. Also I hate to be pedantic, but the efforts often came from the Emperor or linked to him. The emperor was NOT the main political power in Japan, it is doubtful whether he alone could have stood against a belligerent party of Hawks in the other two factions.

2. Japan attacked the US without warning. Well the US provoked the attack. And they were warned. However the US were attacked and the Japanese started the war. But revenge can not excuse the death of 200.000 civilians. If revenge is the only motive, it is murder! But there might be other reasons which could excuse it at least.

:rolleyes: My mistake, it's ok to persue a pre-war policy of agression followed by a war of agression if you state your intentions first... Revenge was never the highest reason for US actions. Many in the US saw the issue as either the Bomb or invasion. Common sense says which is preferable for all involved of those 2.

3. It was necessary to bomb Japan to surrender them. Without that an invasion would have costed millions of soldiers and civilians the life. No. The same goal would have been achieved by nuking a small uninhabitant island. Even IF we could agree the first nuke was okay, which is not right, the second was useless. It was only a test. So the surrender of Japan and to show the Soviets the power of the US could have achieved with nuking a small island.

What makes you imagine Japan would surrender after nuking a small island if it took some time to surrender after they nuked Hiroshima? :confused: I would deem it quite likely that Japan would presume that the US could not repeat the trick, or that the effect would be so deadly over a populated area, and fight on anyway. How do you know Japan wouldn't have rejected the reports of the bombing as propaganda?

4. The Soviets would have invaded Japan. Never. The Soviets wouldn´t have the üpossibility to do so. There were Japanese troops in Manchuria. They would have been beaten first. Then an invasion fleet would have to be used. Which ships? The few remaining Soviet ships were either based in Europe or too few to make an invasion possible of Japan. Although beaten the Japanese were able to beat the Soviets on the sea, at least on the beaches. No, the Soviets were not a danger for the Japanese to take them serious.

Uhmmm, No.

Russia was planning to leapfrog into Japan's northernmost island from the moment they finished off the Japanese forces in Manchuria. What delayed them was unexpected resistance. The distance is remarkably small (pacific wise anyway) between those two areas and much easier than you suggest to invade. As for the Japanese navy's ability, uhmm no, the most she could have mustered would have been submarines and battered cruisers and destroyers, most of her fleet had either been sunk or were severely damaged. Japan may not have taken her seriously, but Russia would have done it anyway in all likelyhood. She certainly planned to.

Besides, the point is made irrelevant in a way anyway. What land Russia did take in Manchuria had something like 3 million Japanese nationals in it (inc. army troops). Despite what was almost a walkover in the campaign leaving little casualties, well over 300,000, many of whom were civilians simply "disapeared" by the time Russia left again. Allowing Russia more time to occupy more land is to possibly condemn more civilians to death in Russian hands. Not a wise solution given your stance against waging war on civilians so far.

Even if something is the best and might be the only way to solve a problem it can´t be used if it is disproportional.

:lol: Now there's a quote from a idealist if ever I heard one.

But in the time of ww2 there were pacts to protect civilians. NO side followed them. But is that an excusion to kill innocent people? No.

As has been pointed out to you, WWII was fought (mostly) on the basis of crippling an enemy's ability to fight, be that economically or militarily. As much as you may dislike the fact, it remains that total war means precisely that, gloves off time. Japan and Germany entered the war to play for keeps, they got their fingers burnt. I have sympathy for the civilians involved, but I still would say it was the right action.

So they were oblieged to keep this morale. But they lost it in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Königsberg,...

:confused: You can't loose the moral highground when one of your opponents is gassing 6 million civilians and the other is doing similar warcrimes. Germany and Japan's actions had no motive but hatred, greed and slaughter, America's and Britain's had at least the hint of morality to them. You simply cannot compare the targetting of a military city and say that it reduces the allies to the level of a country responsible directly for attempting the anhialation of an entire race.

The targets were not somekind of a massive tank fabric and they USA only wanted to show the soviets how damn cool they were.

Ahem, I believe the targeting comittee chose Kokura arsenal as one of their choices :rolleyes:

Oh and btw, one of the reasons that the Allies did not choose Tokyo was that the orders specified a target that had not been extensively damaged before in prior raids, and would be unlikely to by attacked before the raid. Tokyo was firebombed extensively, it failed on that count, not because it would be unlikely to produce a surrender.

As Allies, I think the Americans, British and Canadians would only be too happy to lend a few ships to ship the Soviet troops over, to help with the fighting...

Hmm, most of what you say I agree with, this however I do not. The western allies mistrusted Russia and would have no desire to see her occupy 1 or two Japanese islands. This would have been very likely to have produced a similar affect as Germany in the aftermath of the war.

Interesting to see. Most US guys here have no doubts to say: everything all right. Most Europeans say: Warcrime!

Hang on a moment, last I checked the UK was attached to Europe still :D That still doesn't excuse the fact that you assume I support them for biased reasons, and yet the facts I have offered in support of my points you don't seem to recall...

What if Germany and Japan didn´t commit those attrocities in the war? Would you say then it was justified to kill innocent people willingly?

Leading question, I don't think they targeted civilians willingly, they targetted Japan's ability to fight. Secondly it would depend on the nature of Japan's will to surrender and Russia's attitudes at the time.

Darth Pugwash, you said civilians are a good target. Now you are back in the barbary of medievel times!

Again, leading the point. He was suggesting that in total war, civilians are not as innocent of involvement in it as you make out. Or if they are, so are conscripted soldiers. Or to summarise he's saying that it's more complicated than labelling every civilian innocent and every soldier a target.

But not as main target

Which is irrelavant as they were not the main reason the cities were targetted :rolleyes:

XIII, I meant the US rebased their fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbour. That´s the same for Japan as it is for Germany 200.000 Polish troops at the border. Or for the Vietnamese Chinese troops. Roosevelt wanted to provoke this attack. Not perhaps this attack, but Japanese hostilities. And he didn´t do that for China. That´s why it was provoked.

So invading your neighbours, committing gross warcrimes and threatening former european colonies isn't provoking someone? :crazyeye:

It is too sad, but I can only lough. Not a single allied bomb made the war a single day shorter. The main target were civilians. As for Germany the biggest output of military equipment was in 1944 despite the bombings.

Ooops, faulty logic, it's to be assumed that it probably would have been even greater without the bombings. Ergo, it shortened the war. Further it diverted precious fighters and resources away from the front lines assisting in gaining air superiority that was so vital to the allies form of war.

Also, a lot of you forget WHY the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbou, because the Americans cut off the Oil to the Japanese, and they needed oil, or their country would grind to a halt.

Perhaps you're forgetting WHY the US cut off the oil. :p

That may be Joycem, but in that case why nopt drop an atomic bomb on Moscow? The Russians were just as, if not more brutal than the Japanese. And Berlin, that might save some Allied lives. Or Normandy, it would save thousands of Allied troops!

As was stated, Russia was an allied nation, Germany was defeated prior to it's deployment. Also any use in europe would have been vehemently opposed by Churchill due to the effect it would have on the allied countries.

Yes, Crazy Eddie, but the target must be a military one. And in the bombings of the allies in ww2 only Essen was bombed because of a military target

Again the total idealism against the reality of the war itself. Geneva and others were bended by the allies to defeat a great evil.

And also Hiroshima and nagasaki were primary civilian targets. Other targets were only secondary

Uhmmm No. Check your facts, Hiroshima had some solid military targets in it.

A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

Again, you ask a question with set boundaries demanding the answer you want. Those boundaries though are silly, as stated, the circumstances determine the validity of the attack, not idealism.

The war itself was the ugliest of mankind. As you mention the Japanese didn´t respect the conventios you can´t blame them. Although their deeds are ugly and unmorale Japan was not member of the mentioned treaties. The US, Germany and the UK like most other states were. But this shouldn´t excuse the Japanese deeds.
Nevertheless Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nukes. And nukes are WMD like gas or biological weapons. And these weapons have human life as main target. Also nukes. So what was the main target achieved? over 200.000 killed civilians. And the industry plants or the army HQ? only minor targets. So this attack was against civilians. And such a murder can´t be excused by the facts the supporters of the nuking say.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
Darth Pugwash, you said civilians are a good target. Now you are back in the barbary of medievel times!

Originally posted by privatehudson Again, leading the point. He was suggesting that in total war, civilians are not as innocent of involvement in it as you make out. Or if they are, so are conscripted soldiers. Or to summarise he's saying that it's more complicated than labelling every civilian innocent and every soldier a target.

You hit the nail squarely on the head there Hudson, that was exactly my point. Sorry if I caused any confusion all.:)

And these weapons have human life as main target. Also nukes. So what was the main target achieved? over 200.000 killed civilians. And the industry plants or the army HQ? only minor targets. So this attack was against civilians.

So you keep stating without reference to the circumstances since they have been shown to be contary to what you believed. Targets were not the only reasoning behind dropping the bomb. The bomb garunteed peace on terms the allies could accept, the other options did not. An idealistic view is not something Trueman or the US could afford.

And such a murder can´t be excused by the facts the supporters of the nuking say.

Oh but I suggest they can. With surrender NOT certain as has been shown, it can be shown that the other options (invasion, starvation, russia overunning the country etc) would cause as many if not more casualties, in many cases MUCH more. The facts demand that the bombing was not such a clear cut idealistic case.

Originally posted by Adler17
The war itself was the ugliest of mankind. As you mention the Japanese didn´t respect the conventios you can´t blame them. Although their deeds are ugly and unmorale Japan was not member of the mentioned treaties. The US, Germany and the UK like most other states were. But this shouldn´t excuse the Japanese deeds.
Nevertheless Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nukes. And nukes are WMD like gas or biological weapons. And these weapons have human life as main target. Also nukes. So what was the main target achieved? over 200.000 killed civilians. And the industry plants or the army HQ? only minor targets. So this attack was against civilians. And such a murder can´t be excused by the facts the supporters of the nuking say.

Adler

The japanese used WMDs against the Chinese and were attempting to weaponize plague and anthrax for dispersal in the US by balloon bombs late in the war. Again, the Japanese first use justifies their usage against them.

The goal of the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to force the Japanese surrender. It worked.

Private Hudson, when it is allowed in peace to kill civilians? Never. It is only excused in cases of collateral damage. I might be an idalist but what gave the US the right to kill innocent people? The holocaust or the Japanese attrocities? Come on! You say bombing of a small island would have had no effect. Why can you be so sure? Yes the Japanese needed time after Hiroshima to surrender. But in each government you need time for such decisions. But it wasn´t tried. A first bomb on an uninhabitant island. That would have been enough. This result has the same propability than your thinking of nukiing 2 cities.
The total war was barbaric. But if one side which has the morale on her, commits attrocities you say it is justified because of the attrocities of the other side :confused: :crazyeye: . This can´t be a justification. No, because of this the side with the morale looses it partly at least.
In a war each side has to consider the rules. If one side does not play fair the other has the right also not to play fair, but only to a certain extent. There are values which are even in times of war to be protected even by the enemy. And nothing can justify not doing so.
I stay on my opinion: The bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a warcrime. I mentioned the arguments. The life of civilians has to be protected and not as main target.
What if Japan had also just finished a nuke and then retaliated with nuking LA? Then you would perhaps speak on another way. Or you would say our bomb was justified, their´s not. No. Both bombs were unjustified.

Adler

Private Hudson, when it is allowed in peace to kill civilians? Never. It is only excused in cases of collateral damage.

We are not talking about peace, we're talking about Global war facing two countries of considerable power and both containing governments of evil intent. The rules bend.

I might be an idalist but what gave the US the right to kill innocent people?

Civilians are not considered to be innocent people in such a war. Whilst I don't suggest that they become the sole or primary target, they do contribute to the war in many ways and make the war possible. You cannot avoid killing civilians in a war like WWII, you can though first try ensuring that the target is chosen for other reasons.

holocaust or the Japanese attrocities? Come on!
and:

The total war was barbaric. But if one side which has the morale on her, commits attrocities you say it is justified because of the attrocities of the other side . This can´t be a justification

Yes it can. The allies dropped the bomb to stop a war without significantly more losses. The germans/Nazis didn't gas Jews to persuade the Americans to end the war did they? The point is that the motive for the Allied action was considerably more moral than the motive for the German and Japanese actions. The Allies had reasons that were moral. It is justified for that reason amongst others. It is justified because of German actions and Japanese attitudes because it showed that the enemy would not roll over and surrender without extreme damage inflicted on her.

There are values which are even in times of war to be protected even by the enemy. And nothing can justify not doing so.

Your values are too simplistic and idealistic and pay no attention to either the situation or the enemy faced. I'm saying that for all the idealism, which I agree with, the reality is too different and makes following the rules completely impossible.

The life of civilians has to be protected and not as main target.

In total war impossible. Your version of war ended sometime in the early 20th century, and whilst I agree it would be nice to follow it, once total war begins, you loose if you play that way.

What if Japan had also just finished a nuke and then retaliated with nuking LA? Then you would perhaps speak on another way. Or you would say our bomb was justified, their´s not. No. Both bombs were unjustified.

I would firstly in that situation be against the US using the bomb as it would not have saved lives or ended the war. Secondly, I would be against the Japanese attack response as it would not do either also. Unlike you, or even what presumptions you have about me, I determine my judgement not on national bias or idealism, but rather on a judgement of the situation and what was known to the US at the time.

You say bombing of a small island would have had no effect. Why can you be so sure? Yes the Japanese needed time after Hiroshima to surrender. But in each government you need time for such decisions. But it wasn´t tried. A first bomb on an uninhabitant island. That would have been enough. This result has the same propability than your thinking of nukiing 2 cities.

I gave other reasons for it not being effective, namely that there would be no direct way of Japan knowing without observers (unlikely in time of war) or even knowing what effect it would have on a city or populated area. Truth is you cannot be sure they would have considered it enough, and truth is also, they might have said "yeah, and so what, you haven't got any more have you?" Then what? More islands until they take notice?

Oh and if Japan was so urgently seeking surrender, why did they need time? Your two statements are out of line with eachother. :confused:

There is a saying. Hindsite is always 20/20. I think this more then applies to this topic.

Suppose, back in history, we DID drop it on an island and we still needed 2 more bombs to end the war. The argument would then have become 'We should have dropped more on uninhabited areas'.

What if it DID work? The argument would then likely have been that we didnt need to poison that particular bit of land.

Total war is a terrible thing. Killing of anyone is horrible, but if doing so means it keeps 10+ of your troops/men from dying, leaders are going to do so.

(And if you really want to be childish, yes, Germany and Japan DID attack civilian targets first)

Truman isn't a war criminal since only people on the losing side of a war can be considered war criminals. If by some bizarre circumstances, Japan had managed to win the war after the atomic bombs had been dropped, they certainly would have tried Truman as a war criminal.

Although technically a war crime in hindsight from the 40's point of view no it wasn't. Dresden was the only example I would have considered a war crime. Japan was commiting murder, rape and pillaging before WW2 even broke out and the Germans targeted civilians in Spain, one again before WW2 broke out. The allies didn't start the war, the allies weren't the 1st to use such tactics. If it was a crime it was because the Axis powers had dragged conventional morality so far down the sewer, ethics and rules didn't matter anymore.

Addler I have just read a book called Berlin the Downfall 1945. It dealt with the rape of 2 million German women by the Red Army and various other crimes- looting, executions etc. However if I was a Russian soldier I probably would have done the same. If anything the USSR soldiers were lenient- I would have marched every German, soldier or not to the Elbe and shot them down. After the Holocaust and the variety of other crimes you should consider yourselves lucky theres still Germans and Germany in this world.

I may not be to rational at times. My country wasn't invaded during the war but as a child I remember my great grandfather who survived a German (Germans were the 1st to use gas as well BTW)gas attack in WW1. All I really remember is a physical wreck of a man having trouble breathing basically waiting to die. That was in the 80's. Also Sunday the 25 is ANZAC day here which is the closest thing to a national day we have- a military defeat if not massacre of our soldiers for a european war at Galipoli in WW1. Germany was primarily responsable for thousands of our relations being killed in a foreign wars which had very little to do with us. At least Germany teaches its Nazi past in school- the Japanese more or less pretend it didn't happen.

-I did a DBQ for AP History on this topic and there were several articles (memoirs). I believe in Eisenhower's, he mentions that the Japanese are on the verge of surrender. The American Air Force commander (in charge of the bombings of Japan) said something similar. The Americans had pounded them with the firebombing and it appeared the Japanese would surrender shortly.

-I dont know if anybody brought up the point about intimidating the Soviets. Some historians suggest that the greater motive was to demonstrate the American power to the Soviets (who had declared war on Japan just weeks before and invaded Manchuria). The United States hoped to make the Soviet Union easier to deal with in postwar Europe if they knew of America's potential.

-As for war crimes. Aren't war criminals the leaders of the losing side? Isn't that the reason most top Nazis were accused of war crimes and several executed. It wasn't like any of the Soviet generals in charge of the looting and pillaging of Germany were ever going to be charged. If the Axis won, then Truman, Stalin and most top officials in the Allied governments would be accused of war crimes and be dealt with.

-The Japanese perhaps commited more war crimes/atrocities than the Nazis and Soviets (not sure). As its been stated, the massacred Manchurians over the 30s and then began the invasion of mainland China in 37 with the "rape of Nanking".

I have slightly more personal connections to the incident at Singapore. My grandfather was an officer in the British-Indian army and was being moved to Singapore. It was a massive fort and the British believed it was invincible. They had several huge battleships stationed there. During the night a new mission was assigned to some units and my grandfather was instead moved to North Africa. Some troops went on to Singapore and days later the city fell and most, if not all were captured. Many were my grandfather's friends. One of his first cousins was captured but managed to survive the war (but returned with serious mental and physical wounds). Surpisingly my grandfather's other cousin, who was captured by the Nazis in France (early in the war) did not have as awful of an experience (even though he was Indian being held by Nazis).
I included this because many people of that generation (atleast in India) were embittered with the Japanese. Looking back we wonder how the "good guys" did such horrid crimes but it was totally different living through that era.

:)

I did that DBQ last year. Yes, there's the intimidation factor, but the Japanese were not ready to surrender.

First it is said that if one side kills civilians the other side is allowed to do the same. That´s buls**t. And a big one. No side has the right to kill civilians unless it is unavoidable. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were avoidable. You always say this wouldn´t have been successful nuking a small island. They didn´t try it. That´s the error. The US didn´t try it. That´s the crime. They had to bomb a small island at first. If Japan didn´t surrender then within 2 or 3 month, then it might be so that the destruction of a city would have been unavoidable. But so? Never.
Then you said Germany and Japan commited attrocites and that´s why the allied crimes are justified. That´s also bull*hi*. This argumentation would allow me to kill your children if mine are killed by you. That´s barbary. Since the days of the Roman law no civilized nation does this. Attrocities commited by one side do never lead to a justifiacation of the other side to do the same.
It is said the Germans used gas at first. That´s true, but who was the target in ww1? Soldiers. Combatants. And not civilians. And IIRC Japan didn´t use gas against US forces. But the US wanted to use gas in Italy. Only because the ship transporting the gas was sunk in Bari after a german air strike, they didn´t use it. And that was also against conventions the US and the UK signed. So to your argumentation if the US did do so Germany was allowed to retaliate. Yes but only against military targets. Not civilians. That the whole war was barbaric and lead by barbars partially can´t excuse anything.
Then to Rotterdam and Warsaw. Yes Germany bombed at first these cities. But they were exceptions and Rotterdam was more an "accident" because the Dutch were warned and surrendered shortly before. Unfortuantely only half of the bombers got the order to return home... Nevertheless German bombings had generally military targets, British and US not. They had Civilians as major target, despite any conventions signed and despite any other internationaly law.
The side attacking innocent civilians loose the morale they had. So both sides fought the war without any morale. And Private Hudson civilians as main target were not in ww1, but only in ww2. And a war fought is everytime total. A kind of war between is not thinkable. So ww2 is the only big war of that kind.
At last I repeat my opinion: NOTHING CAN EXCUSE OR EVENJUSTIFY THE NUKES: Taht´s why Truman was a warcriminal.

Adler

I think the nukes sent on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are put forwards also to hide the massive amount of civilians killed during "regular" high altitude bombings.

About 100,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe a top figure of 200,000 if we also counts those who died later because of the irradiations and burns. Indeed, the "wounded" people there were blind for life and develloped later skin cancers if they survived of the burns.

Anyway, such a figure is ridiculous compared to the one of civilian casualties during allied bombings. Since yesterday, I'm looking for a source on the internet giving the official figure and it's obviously well hidden. However, we can decently say that this figure is between 3 million people and 5 million people. I haven't found a better approximation.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
I think the nukes sent on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are put forwards also to hide the massive amount of civilians killed during "regular" high altitude bombings.

About 100,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe a top figure of 200,000 if we also counts those who died later because of the irradiations and burns. Indeed, the "wounded" people there were blind for life and develloped later skin cancers if they survived of the burns.

Anyway, such a figure is ridiculous compared to the one of civilian casualties during allied bombings. Since yesterday, I'm looking for a source on the internet giving the official figure and it's obviously well hidden. However, we can decently say that this figure is between 3 million people and 5 million people. I haven't found a better approximation.

Yet, no one had any idea of the after-effects at the time.

Yes, the mass bombings I mentioned were also warcrimes! But this wasn´t the debate so I left them a bit out. Nevertheless thestonesfan a new weapon with such an ability of destruction has to be used at first at an uninhabitant island before on a city.
That such weapons have unpredictable effects had to be clear.

Adler

I belong to the Col. Kurtz school of warfare, and as a side point if you have never watched 'Apocalypse Now' I recommend you hurry down to your video store and grab a copy.

The Geneva Convention is a lie. When you fight a war you do whatever it takes to win. If civilians are making guns, providing food, training troops, etc. and so forth they are not 'civilians', and thats the simple, honest, truth. Killing these 'civilians' weakens the enemy and gives you the advantage. If you wish to continue to pretend otherwise we may as well go back to the days of 'honorable' fighting and line our troops up in pretty rows and volley at each other.

Before you accuse me of being 'insane', let me go on to say that the above is precisely why it is IMMORAL to war except in the most extreme of circumstances. As examples of such circumstance I would offer self defense, or REAL and imminent danger of a genocide. Yes, the Iraq war is immoral.

People like to avoid responsibility but the fact is that everyone of us is responsible for the people who 'represent' us in positions of power no matter whether those individuals are 'democratically' elected or not.

How can Germans, or Japanese for that matter wail about the destruction of their people when it was their support of the militaristic governments that was responsible for starting the war. The only tragedy in Dresden or Hiroshima was if any people were killed who were ACTIVELY fighting against the government.
How many people of the tens of thousands killed do you think fell into this category? Not many, I'm sure.

Trying to sit on the fence and say that you didn't vote for someone so you are an 'innocent civilian' is bull****, if that person is committing crimes against humanity, it is your MORAL OBLIGATION to fight and I mean FIGHT them, running a half ass blog about how so and so is evil is not fighting them. I would of course exclude children who are too young to understand from this, but again their parents are responsible for them by their actions.

On topic, I'm not one to believe everything I see posted on the internet, but if that quote from Eisenhower is correct, and I have more respect for Eisenhower than Truman, and the facts are that they would of surrendered earlier on the same terms, then yes Truman was a war criminal.

Originally posted by Adler17
Yes, the mass bombings I mentioned were also warcrimes! But this wasn´t the debate so I left them a bit out. Nevertheless thestonesfan a new weapon with such an ability of destruction has to be used at first at an uninhabitant island before on a city.
That such weapons have unpredictable effects had to be clear.

Adler

Everything done in war is a crime to someone. The goal is to make sure that someone is not you.

The Germans and Japanese deserved everything they got, on the sole grounds that they started it. No bombs at all would have been dropped if not for their aggression.

Would I have dropped the bombs? I can't honestly say. I wasn't there, none of us were. History is history. If you want to call Truman a war criminal, there's no one stopping you.

First it is said that if one side kills civilians the other side is allowed to do the same. That´s buls**t. And a big one. No side has the right to kill civilians unless it is unavoidable

Uhmm, if referring to me, I don't recall saying that. Please cease to put your innacurate judgements onto my post in order to reply to what I say. I said targets could include civilians because they contributed to the war effort. I have no intention of suggesting that they should ONLY include targets based on civilian merit. It has nothing to do with who did it first, and everything to do with recognising that the treaties you quote and refer to were written for a perfect world and a war totally unlike the reality of WWII

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were avoidable

That is entirely your opinion, in the opinion of Trueman and many in the US government they were not, or at least Hiroshima was not.

You always say this wouldn´t have been successful nuking a small island. They didn´t try it.

Nuclear weapons are a precious commodity, firstly using them against an uninhabited island would prove nothing, and secondly they had limited stocks, it's plausible to assume the US did not wish to waste them on persuading an imovable object by asking nicely. I wish he had done it, however I can understand why he didn't. Leading a country in a global total war isn't child's play, if he erred it was a mistake, the result was that the world did not fall under the heel of the axis powers, and however that came about, I'm glad.

Then you said Germany and Japan commited attrocites and that´s why the allied crimes are justified. That´s also bull*hi*.

Again, no. I said that the German warcrimes were committed solely out of hatred and greed, and had nothing to do with the German war effort other than to limit it severely. It had no way of ending the war, no way of bringing the enemy to their knees. What I said, which is totally unlike (again) what you read into my words was that the Allies may have done something dreadful, but part of their motive was a sound moral one. The Japanese/German crimes were above the allied ones because they had no reasoning that might end the war sooner or with less cost in lives. Please pay attention a little more and swear a little less. Either that or learn to specify who you are referring to more.

The side attacking innocent civilians loose the morale they had. So both sides fought the war without any morale

Uhhmmm lets see here:

Germans: Slaughtered 6 million (roughly) people in death camps for no reason other than blind hatred, pseudo-science and greed. Assisted in the salughter of millions more civilians in the eastern front
Allies: Killed civilians (in the main) in attempts to bring the war closer to an end. Civilians who were fighting against them in the main in terms of adding to the war effort.

Try to spot the difference :rolleyes: It's not rocket science....

Clue: Motive is important, people who do a "at first glance" bad thing for a good reason are WAY above scum that do blatantly evil things for blatantly evil reasons. Don't put Churchill and Trueman on the same level as Himmler and Hitler, it's an insult to the intelligence. Yes they did bad things, and I guess you'll say that you put them above Hitler and Himmler, but the continued reference to them as nothing but warcriminals is unfair. They did what they did out of an attempt to preserve democracy in the face of a great evil. If they made mistakes and killed civilians they were just that, mistakes. Hitler and co made no mistake with their actions.

At last I repeat my opinion: NOTHING CAN EXCUSE OR EVENJUSTIFY THE NUKES: Taht´s why Truman was a warcriminal.

That's just in your very idealistic opinion. However an idealistic attitude would have had you destroyed as a world power and country in WWII. Take CIV3 for example. I'm going to assume you when playing never, ever use any form of bombarding cities lest you may kill civilians...

As for Warsaw, yeah, and I recall it being flattened block by block in 1944 by German units so barbaric that even the SS commanders above them were horrified. Generally millitary targets? :lol: I live in a highly civilian area that had no airfield nearby but ports and an industrial area, tell me then why the Germans bombed it extensively under your analysis of a warcrime related to A-Bomb targets? :rolleyes: Why did they launch the blitz? Why bomb coventry? The fact is the Luftwaffe didn't mostly because it couldn't not because it wouldn't. The Luftwaffe simply wasn't cut out for massed bombing of cities. It still attacked built up areas though, and lets face it, bombing in those days was hardly precise enough. A raid targetting a port in a city would be as likely to kill civilians more than it did hit the port. By that rationale, WWII should have been fought without ANY bombing raids :rolleyes:

Attrocities commited by one side do never lead to a justifiacation of the other side to do the same.

Perfectly agree, however, I did not say this, I said that the allied "attrocities" were committed in the greater sphere of bringing WWII closer to the end. German ones such as the holocaust were not. Big difference, you can pretend they are the same if it makes your argument easier, but they're not.

If you say these conventions are lies or the death of civilians are okay you have nothing learned and you should read a good book about philosophy and war. There are rules; there must be rules unless you want to find yourself in a barbaric world. It is easy to say we defend freedom. But if you do so you have to use your own high values. I personally think Hitler and Himmler are the most evil category. Stalin also. Pol pot and Mao too. But Truman is steps away. But only steps. Yes he was a warcriminal. The way to hell is full of good thoughts. And so he fell. You should go into the next college and hear about law and philosophy. Perhaps you will see then your error.

Adler

The Irony of the story would be that Privatehudson and Civvin would finish their lives getting killed as collateral damages during World War 3.

By the way, your idea that all civilians are necessarily good targets because they can't be "innocent" is simply disgusting. 360,000 french civilians have been killed during the liberation... I guess they were all supporting Hitler. :rolleyes:

First of all, nowhere did I say 'all civilians are good targets' or even imply it. You make a good map Marla but please refrain from misquoting me.

The fact is you aren't innocent, though you like to think you are.

George Bush has started a war in Iraq, which is stirring up opposition, call them what you will, freedom fighters or terrorists, dosen't matter.

Now, I need not work in a weapons manufactory or be a member of the military to be supporting this war, assuming I pay my taxes, I pay for the bombs and bullets being used in Iraq.

How can I cry 'innocent civilian' when some crazed iraqi, enraged his family has been killed comes to America and kills me in some 'terrorist' act.

If I am not fighting George Bush (and don't ask cause my answer will be no comment, so you won't have anything to email John Ashcroft), if I am paying my taxes, I am supporting what my government does, regardless of my personal beliefs.

You CANNOT escape your responsibility save in your own mind.

I think you MISSED my entire point, which was more than just the simple fact that war is horrible and to win quickly you must do horrible things. The fact that war is so awful means you DONT go to war save in the most dire circumstances.

EDIT: and I am not sure exactly what your figure of Frenchmen represents, ones killed during Allied retaking of France? If those French were fighting Hitler, they died heroes, as HUMAN BEINGS fighting for the right, if they weren't fighting Hitler then the fact that they died for nothing is tragic and their own responsibility.

If you say these conventions are lies or the death of civilians are okay you have nothing learned and you should read a good book about philosophy and war.

I see nothing wrong with a philosophy that states that in a total war, if it will be brought to a quicker and less violent end through one terrible act than it would by others then that terrible act, then that act should be committed. I have repeatedly stated that civilians should never be the main or sole target, but targets cannot simply be discounted on the basis that a civilian population surrounds it. I presume this philosophy you talk of requires a perfect world of clear cut situations were everthng is clear beforehand. WWII was not, I recognise that, you apprently do not.

There are rules; there must be rules unless you want to find yourself in a barbaric world

Again, I believe I have agreed with this before. However I differ in what I believe those rules to be when compared to you. I say that the rules should allow for targets that are in civilian areas to be attacked presuming that there is some military benefit, or that it can be shown that the war is likely to end sooner and less bloodily by doing so. Trueman and others in the US IMO believed this to be the case with Hiroshima. I don't see how wishing the war to end sooner and to his eyes less bloodily suddenly equates to being barbaric.

It is easy to say we defend freedom. But if you do so you have to use your own high values.

Which I believe the allies to have mostly stuck to. The Axis powers never usually rose above extremely low values as states.

But Truman is steps away. But only steps.

So by extension I presume you never allow such a difficult thing as motive to cloud your judgment of the past leaders. Trueman's motives for Hiroshima (whether they were based on accurate information or not) removes him a long way from the others, not IMO steps.

You should go into the next college and hear about law and philosophy. Perhaps you will see then your error.

Philosophy is many and varied. Perhaps for a moment you should consider that motive is as important as act. A person who kills another in self defence is not the same as a mass murderer. I find it impossible to think otherwise except perhaps in the extreme philosophy of the bible or similar taken literally.

By the way, your idea that all civilians are necessarily good targets because they can't be "innocent" is simply disgusting.

Perhaps before judging you'd like to re-read why I said that? Or maybe I'll repeat. I have not intended to say civilians should be the main or sole target. I do recognise though that in any situation where an army or country faces a choice where they believe the war will end sooner and with less civilian and military casualties by targetting something with civilians nearby, it is ridiculous to rule out targetting that completely. I don't advocate targetting civilians willy-nilly, I advocate that targets cannot be ruled out because of civilians. All attempts should be made to avoid civilian losses, but in a highly urbanised country like Japan or Western Europe this is all but impossible when attacking an enemy defending such an area.

360,000 french civilians have been killed during the liberation... I guess they were all supporting Hitler.

Very sorry for every last one of them, however since they died in the process of being freed from the tyranny of German rule and people from my country died to do this, I'm afraid that it is just part of war sorry. Again, I would not have advocated the decimating of a city or town full of civilians just to make the allied job slightly easier. I would suggest though that the allies were in the process of liberating the entire country of millions, and in that process, 360,000 is an unfortunate consequence that was mostly unavoidable. The greater good was served X million Frenchmen were liberated, if I was french, I would rather have risked being one of the 360,000 than spend the rest of my life under Nazi German rule.

What most people here do not seem to understand is that yes, possibly dropping bombs saved lives. However these were the lives of soldiers, legitimate targets under all of the conventions, against that of civilians, illegitimate targets. But again we come around to victor's justice. The irony is that Erich Raeder and Karl Doenitz were convicted to life and twenty years respectively for breaching the same international law as Truman.

Thestonesfan, the "they attacked us first" excuse is one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. But then, the Iraqi people would be justified in dropping an atomic bomb on New York.

What most people here do not seem to understand is that yes, possibly dropping bombs saved lives. However these were the lives of soldiers, legitimate targets under all of the conventions, against that of civilians, illegitimate targets.

Uhmm, not really. In either invasion or starvation, or even under Russian control, a lot of estimates I've seen of the civilian losses under those scenarios are either equal to or higher than those that died in the atom bomb attacks. Okinawa showed this in a way, civilians died there in droves, and militia, ie until very recently civilians would have died also in the event of invasion. It did save American and Japanese military lives, but to say it ONLY saved military lives is a fallacy.

Originally posted by nonconformist
[B]What most people here do not seem to understand is that yes, possibly dropping bombs saved lives. However these were the lives of soldiers, legitimate targets under all of the conventions, against that of civilians, illegitimate targets.

Alot of civilians would have died in an invasion of Japan. Probably more than died due to the nukes.

It MIGHT saved lives. The main question was and is: was it neccessary? No. They should have at least tried to bomb an uninhabitant island and then wait a few month. Only after then a city was allowed to be nuked. But only then. And that´s the point why Truman is also a warcriminal. Might he be lightyears ahead of such scum like Hitler or Stalin he was a warcriminal.

Adler

It's your opinion that it wasn't necessary, it's not necessarily the only opinion, so it's hard to say that either way.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Thestonesfan, the "they attacked us first" excuse is one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. But then, the Iraqi people would be justified in dropping an atomic bomb on New York.

Why wouldn't they be justified in doing that?

Anyway, what I said is undeniably true. Their irrational belligerance directly caused them to be bombed.

Every civilian who doesn't fight the enemy, aids the enemy. A woman who works in a tank factory helps the enemy as much as a soldier. They are legitimate targets, they always have been, and they always will be.

It's brutal. That's what war is. Every single damned thing about it.

All the morality in the world doesn't matter if you are conquered and enslaved.

Yes he is definately a war criminal in my book, and one of the worst, but that article was tripe.

Care to explicate your views? How about you read through all the pages of this thread, and perhaps you'll be pleasantly enlightened.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Japan caused an almost insignificant aount of casualties on the American homeland; the USA hit them with everything they had.


Noncon, you have said many times that the actions of one side cannot justify the actions of another. This sentance implies the opposite. It implies that if Japan had dropped a nuke on America, then America could drop a nuke on Japan, and, in your eyes, justify it.

Originally posted by nonconformist
the "they attacked us first" excuse is one of the most idiotic I have ever heard.


Oh really? In the example above you seem to be saying exactly the opposite.

:rolleyes:

Edit: Sorry if this seems like unessesary nitpicking, but this mistake just jumped right at me.

Originally posted by thestonesfan

It's brutal. That's what war is. Every single damned thing about it.

All the morality in the world doesn't matter if you are conquered and enslaved.

My views exactly.

If you play by the 'rules' in total war, then you, and everything you stand for and protect, will go down in flames. As much as you may not like it, sometimes you gotta play dirty. Keep your eyes on the prize...

Originally posted by Civvin
EDIT: and I am not sure exactly what your figure of Frenchmen represents, ones killed during Allied retaking of France? If those French were fighting Hitler, they died heroes, as HUMAN BEINGS fighting for the right, if they weren't fighting Hitler then the fact that they died for nothing is tragic and their own responsibility. It's truely hard to get detailed figures about World War 2 civilian casualties. I'm doing as much as I can to find them, but it's seriously very hard.

300,000 French soldiers have been killed during that war. Most of them have been killed during the German invasion. About the other, I guess it's about North Africa and the liberation. The French soldiers who joined Germany was very few, The Division Charlemagne had about 7,000 soldiers maximum, and they didn't all die during the war. If I say so, it's simply to prove how marginal that kind of soldiers could be in the figure of 300,000 soldiers casualties, it can't be more than 1%.

360,000 French civilians died during World War 2. Most of them died during the allied bombings on Normandy and Flanders. The German Invasion had been a military disaster, but not a civilian one. However, once again I repeat it, I don't put in question the part of the United States during World War 2. Once again, we've been freed from Hitler, but also from Stalin's threat, this is huge. So you won't find in me someone against America. However, I can't help to wonder whether the allied really needed to reduce in ashes so many cities in Europe. That's all. Of course, it's the past and we can't do anything anymore, but that still makes us think about what a war is about.