Let's put Truman on Trial

[PoliticalNick]

70,000 people died the day the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, another 70,000 were injured. That is quite a bit fewer than the estimated one million who would have died on both sides if the war hadn't ended when it did.

It was more like 80-100,000 from the initial explosion and resulting fires and another 75-100,000 from the radiation effects felt over the victims and their offspring, sometimes even affecting the next generation also. That was only for Hiroshima. Nagasaki casualties were similar in number and distribution. The end result was a total of somewhere between 300-400,000 total deaths (only half of which were initial, the rest suffered slowly) with about the same amount injured. There was also complete destruction to about 70% of the buildings and infrastructure in both cities.

Do not ever downplay these 2 events or try to justify them in terms of casualties, especially when you use such ludicrously low numbers. The 'estimate' of 1 million dying in a continued conflict is just that...a guess and we will never know how true it may have been. Given the condition of the Japanese military and their equipment odds are they would have surrendered quickly and losses could have been as low as 100,000 and 70-90% would have been military, not the half a million civilians that were targeted by the 2 bombs.

 

[L Gilbert]

And they should have been the targets. Not civilians.

But gov'ts killing regular civilians is ok "for the right reasons". And nowadays it doesn't even need to have those "right reasons": dead regular civilians being relegated to the collateral damage category and all that.

 

[Colpy]

And they should have been the targets. Not civilians.



They had the ability to make more. And they did. Way more than they needed.

They did. And it would take time. While mass air raids continued over Japan, killing tens of thousands anyway, and nasty, toe to toe, no mercy infantry warfare continued unabated.

Considering the way the war was fought, the bomb was absolutely the correct way to go.

 

[Goober]

It was more like 80-100,000 from the initial explosion and resulting fires and another 75-100,000 from the radiation effects felt over the victims and their offspring, sometimes even affecting the next generation also. That was only for Hiroshima. Nagasaki casualties were similar in number and distribution. The end result was a total of somewhere between 300-400,000 total deaths (only half of which were initial, the rest suffered slowly) with about the same amount injured. There was also complete destruction to about 70% of the buildings and infrastructure in both cities.

Do not ever downplay these 2 events or try to justify them in terms of casualties, especially when you use such ludicrously low numbers. The 'estimate' of 1 million dying in a continued conflict is just that...a guess and we will never know how true it may have been. Given the condition of the Japanese military and their equipment odds are they would have surrendered quickly and losses could have been as low as 100,000 and 70-90% would have been military, not the half a million civilians that were targeted by the 2 bombs.

The Japanese soldiers for the most part, did not surrender.
Look at the causality rates from Guadalcanal to Tarawa to Okinawa and look at the number of prisoners captured.
Then look at the total forces Japan had on that particular island.
Surrender was not common, it was rare.

 

[JLM]

They did. And it would take time. While mass air raids continued over Japan, killing tens of thousands anyway, and nasty, toe to toe, no mercy infantry warfare continued unabated.

Considering the way the war was fought, the bomb was absolutely the correct way to go.

You got that right Colpy, anyone who feels sorry for the Japs should talk to a survivor of their camps.

 

[#juan]

They did. And it would take time. While mass air raids continued over Japan, killing tens of thousands anyway, and nasty, toe to toe, no mercy infantry warfare continued unabated.

Considering the way the war was fought, the bomb was absolutely the correct way to go.

I have mixed feelings about the atomic bomb being used on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were saved for the a-bomb. The Americans were bombing the rest of Japan on a daily basis and Japan had no defense against them. The B-29s were making daily conventional bombing raids on Japan without opposition. Either of these cities could have been destroyed by conventional bombs. There are stories of American bombers removing their defensive weapons so they could carry more bombs.

Roosevelt was partly to blame because he had demanded unconditional surrender. As it turned out Japan had a few conditions.

 

[PoliticalNick]

They did. And it would take time. While mass air raids continued over Japan, killing tens of thousands anyway, and nasty, toe to toe, no mercy infantry warfare continued unabated.

Considering the way the war was fought, the bomb was absolutely the correct way to go.

So let's get back to where the debate started and the original question/idea....

Opposition to use of atomic bombs

The Manhattan Project had originally been conceived as a counter to Nazi Germany's atomic bomb program, and with the defeat of Germany, several scientists working on the project felt that the United States should not be the first to use such weapons. One of the prominent critics of the bombings was Albert Einstein. Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

So would you agree that if the roles were reversed and either Japan or Germany had dropped the bomb then the USA would have been bleating on about it being a war crime and a crime against humanity for decades and would have tried and hung anyone connected with ordering it?

 

[Sons of Liberty]

The battle of Okinawa, which took place only a few weeks before the bombings, with it's massive U.S. casualties, kamikaze attacks and widespread suicides by civilians is a critical phase in which can justify the use of the atomic bomb to achieve military victory. This is an episode either ignored or downplayed in most revisionist writings, and obviously constitutes a gaping hole in their arguments.

The peace feelers sent out by the Japanese, which are usually inflated and put on the same level as a waving white flag, are really half-hearted attempts by largely impotent civilian leaders to negotiate favorable terms that were thoroughly opposed by the military who fully controlled the country.

Let us not forget the fog of war and it's meaning, war is so complex that it is incomprehensible for the human mind to account for all the variables. In every application of war, people (both military and civilians) die unnecessarily. This has been true throughout the history of warfare.

But, even if the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to bring about "unconditional" Japanese surrender, does this mean that the bombings were morally justified? A fundamental principle of morality is that even noble goals do not justify evil means. Had the allies lost the war, he would have surely been declared a war criminal. Morality cannot be reduced to a game of numbers and statistics. Killing 70,000 people with one bomb does not make him more of a war criminal than killing 10,000 seven times over.

Morality is the nemesis of the first law of nature: Self-Preservation.

 

[Nuggler]

Thank God for Harry !!!

Seriously.

The Japanese had no intention of surrender. Never had before.

It was gonna cost the Allies another several million men to invade.

The Japanese were dirty, brutal, bastards in WW 2, and I've always supported the decision of the American President.

Anyway, nowadays they make great cars.

Yeah, Brits are a bit odd in the head like that. I'm pretty sure Cromwell didn't give a hoot after he died.

They did that ??!! Really ?? How did they keep him together whilst hoisting him up??

Now I'm beginning to understand Blackleaf.

+:lol:

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I have a better idea. Let's put the Emperor of Japan on Trial for being such an idiot and fostering extremism in Japan, which ultimately lead to the bombing of Japan. While we are at it we may also want to revisit the atrocities, committed by Japan and forgotten by so may today, that occurred in the Philippines.

Japanese war crimes occurred in many Asian countries during the period of Japanese imperialism, primarily during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. Some of the incidents have also been described as an Asian Holocaust[1] and Japanese war atrocities.[2][3] Some war crimes were committed by military personnel from the Empire of Japan in the late 19th century, although most took place during the first part of the Shōwa Era, the name given to the reign of Emperor Hirohito, until the military defeat of the Empire of Japan, in 1945.
Historians and governments of some countries hold Japanese military forces, namely the Imperial Japanese Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese family, especially Emperor Hirohito, responsible for killings and other crimes committed against millions of civilians and prisoners of war.[4][5][6][7][8] Some Japanese soldiers have admitted to committing these crimes.[9]
Since the 1950s, senior Japanese Government officials have issued numerous apologies for the country's war crimes. Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the country acknowledges its role in causing "tremendous damage and suffering" during World War II, especially in regard to the IJA entrance into Nanjing during which Japanese soldiers killed a large number of noncombatants and engaged in looting and rape.[10] However, some members of the Liberal Democratic Party in the Japanese government such as former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi and current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have prayed at the Yasukuni Shrine, which includes convicted Class A war criminals in its honored war dead. Some Japanese history textbooks only offer brief references to the various war crimes,[11] and members of the Liberal Democratic Party such as Shinzo Abe have denied some of the atrocities such as the use of comfort women.[9][12] In addition to Japanese military and civil personnel, Allied authorities found that Korean and Taiwanese serving in the forces of the Empire of Japan also committed war crimes.

 

[JLM]

So let's get back to where the debate started and the original question/idea....



So would you agree that if the roles were reversed and either Japan or Germany had dropped the bomb then the USA would have been bleating on about it being a war crime and a crime against humanity for decades and would have tried and hung anyone connected with ordering it?

What do you mean the roles were reversed?

 

[Christianna]

Do not ever downplay these 2 events or try to justify them in terms of casualties, especially when you use such ludicrously low numbers.

I take it you did not watch the documentary The Day After Hiroshima.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

So let's get back to where the debate started and the original question/idea....

So would you agree that if the roles were reversed and either Japan or Germany had dropped the bomb then the USA would have been bleating on about it being a war crime and a crime against humanity for decades and would have tried and hung anyone connected with ordering it?

The USA did not overrun Europe or the South Pacific or Asia. Nor come up with a Final Solution. The German's were the architects of World War II, the Japanese willing partners. The Second world war started officially, one could say, in September 1939, but Japan had already invaded China in 1937 The USA did not even enter the War until Late 1941, close to two years after it started and only after Japan launched the offensive in Pearl Harbor.

So yes. the answer to your question would be: If Germany or Japan had dropped an atomic bomb it would have been a crime agaainst humanity, one in a long list of crimes already committed before the United States entered the war and helped the Allies bring about an end. Thank goodness for Generals like Ike Eisenhower and US soldiers, who, unlike their British Allies learned to adapt and overcome in the face of adversity. Thank goodness for the Aussies and the Canadians.

And as a final note. Thank Goodness that the Nazi's never achieved their goal of building an A Bomb, which they were most assuredly seeking to do, because they would not have stopped after two. Even if we had surrendered.

 

[hunboldt]

I have mixed feelings about the atomic bomb being used on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were saved for the a-bomb. The Americans were bombing the rest of Japan on a daily basis and Japan had no defense against them. The B-29s were making daily conventional bombing raids on Japan without opposition. Either of these cities could have been destroyed by conventional bombs. There are stories of American bombers removing their defensive weapons so they could carry more bombs.

Roosevelt was partly to blame because he had demanded unconditional surrender. As it turned out Japan had a few conditions.

OTOH, Imperial japan had the immediate and secure services of the Swiss Embassy's radio links to negotiate. After May 7th at the latest the 'writing was on the wall'.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I'm a little surprised at that from you RCS. You cannot declare something as significant as dropping an A-bomb a war crime for one side but not the other. That is the whole point for me. The USA has a terrible habit of ignoring international law while holding other nations accountable to it. That is not right. It is no different than a cop driving drunk or robbing a liquor store and thinking it's ok because the law doesn't apply to them. A crime is a crime no matter who is commiting it. I don't get a free pass for shooting a guy who murders my child. I might get off with a sympathetic jury but I am still charged with murder and by definition I would really be guilty.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

I think the atomic bombings of japan had as much to do with making sure the Soviets were kept out of the Japanese main islands as much as saving American lives.

So it's not an easy question to answer. I do know that Curits Lemay had already stated that he would have been hung as a war criminal if the Allies lost the war for the fire bombings of Japanese cities that had been going on for months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed.

Curtis Lemay

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think this paragraph is the most telling and most relevant. It has been commonplace in the last century for the USA to ignore international laws and treaties during wars and peacetime while at the same time vilifying other nations who flout the same laws and agreements and labeling them war criminals.

I would like to see many Americans brought to The Hague and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity but I hold little hope it will ever happen.

Just out of curiosity, what international law or treaty did the atomic bombings violate?

 

[WLDB]

You got that right Colpy, anyone who feels sorry for the Japs should talk to a survivor of their camps.

I dont feel bad for the people who built them, worked in them or gave the order to put people in them. I would not blame the entire Japanese population for that anymore than I'd blame every German for the holocaust. The average civilian or child had nothing to do with it. Those are the ones Id feel sorry for.

 

[#juan]

Just out of curiosity, what international law or treaty did the atomic bombings violate?

The law of Human decency??? What other country to that point dropped a single bomb that killed 70,000 people and left another fifty thousand or so to suffer a slow death from radiation? It wasn't as if they had no idea what would happen.

 

[WLDB]

They did. And it would take time. While mass air raids continued over Japan, killing tens of thousands anyway, and nasty, toe to toe, no mercy infantry warfare continued unabated.

There would be much point in continuing bombing raids by that stage. Most of the country had already been levelled and there were very few military targets. By that time they didnt pose a threat to anyone. Same reason why they didnt have to invade. They could have set up a blockade and wait for Japan to give in. Sure, it could have taken months or years but the death toll would have been a hell of a lot smaller.