After the war, the US launched the Strategic Bombing Survey to determine how effective the various tactics used in both theatres were at achieving their objectives - everything from attacks against oil infrastructure to the atomic bombs. It made use of vast numbers of interviews and the huge troves of documents captured after the war to be able to get a comprehensive view. The report indicated that the atomic bombs had no impact on the voting of Japan's war council
Maybe they didn't... So what? Did Truman (who made the ultimate decision to use them) know this in July 1945?
It doesn't matter what was known in 1947, or 2015, only what was known in 1945.
Another point worth considering is that everyone was tired of the war and wanted to end it, and few people felt really sorry for the Japs, who had started the whole thing.
Let me put this another way... Had we used 1,000 B-29 bombers and conventional bombs and killed the same number of people, would anyone be talking about it today? No, they would not.
Similar things were done in Europe, even up to the last few months of the war, when it was clearly over, and we still sent a 1,000 bomber raid against Berlin on Hitler's Birthday, the final thousand bomber raid of the war. What was the point of that? But no one talks about it.
The nuclear weapons used against Japan are talked about because, "oh my God the Nuclears!" People have an irrational fear of nuclear weapons, as if they are some doom force that will destroy the world. Tactical nuclear weapons, which is what Fat Man and Little Boy were, are not such weapons, they did destroy those two cities, but both were rebuilt and life carries on. 200,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo via firebombing from thousands of B-29s. Why does no one have such heated conversations about that?
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
It's quite easy to make grand-sounding statements like this. It also marks you as someone who should never be trusted with the command of any military unit, ever.
Ahh, so you have never heard of General George S. Patton then?
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
The reason Vietnam lasted for nearly a decade, longer than WWII, is we had politicians trying what you're describing... "limited war, don't kill the enemy too much, try to avoid killing too many civilians, don't carpet bomb cities, hit this target, but that one is off limits".
It is a bunch of crap. Look at the 1st Gulf War. We hit the Iraqi military with everything we had, the ground war lasted less than 100 hours as a result, we were slaughtering them and they gave up en mass.
Desert Storm is a text book example of how to fight a war. It is one of the most lopsided military victories in history and if done right, is irresistible.
"In August 1990, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait. Five short months later, a powerful coalition led by the United States would launch Operation Desert Storm, one of the most rapid, decisive, and bloodless victories of all time. In just over four days of combat, the Coalition would liberate Kuwait, demolish the Iraqi army, and take hordes of Iraqi prisoners, all at a minimal cost in casualties. Iraqi losses in the course of this brief âoe100-hours warâ were massiveâ"some 20,000 killed and 60,000 wounded or captured. US forces, by contrast, suffered just 148 battle deaths, alongside another ninety-nine suffered by their coalition partners, one of the most lopsided results in military history."
In just under 100 hours of ground fighting, we crushed the enemy, we hit them with everything, and they surrendered. What YOU propose is a crime, because it will cause wars to go on for years. Like they are today.
"There are really no rules in war" - there are "The Hague laws and Geneva Conventions are some of the most widely applied of these international agreements."
You're welcome to apply them... if you win...
Those are agreements, but you have to keep in mind there is a reason we call them "sovereign nations". No one can really tell a sovereign nation what to do, unless defeated in war.
As time passes, the history of events gets updated and corrected and the next generation reap the guilt of their forefathers actions.
No one should feel the guilt of their forefathers actions. Japan right now is trying to deny a lot of what they did during WWII, to avoid guilt and shame.
This is stupid, they should not feel shame for what other people did in another time. A better choice would be to admit what was done, say they are sorry that it happened, vow that they will never do it, and move on.
My forefathers owned slaves. Was that wrong? Yes. Am I responsible? No. Do I feel guilt or shame? No. Do I promise to never own a slave? Yes.
To all who descend from slavery, I'm sorry that it happened, I agree that it was wrong, I have no doubt that it sucked... But please don't blame me for it, I didn't do it. Lets just all agree to not do it again and move forward...
It is impossible to judge people after talking to vets on either side, you think the common soldier had the option of clicking Axis or Allies and fight their favorite nemesis?
I agree with you, which is why I find the Germany chase of "Nazi War Criminals" in 2015 so sad...
That recent prosecution of the SS man who cataloged Jewish belongings is a travesty... He didn't kill anyone and had no ability to stop it... Yes, he was there, but what was he supposed to do about it? Protest? The environment would not have allowed that.
We preach that you can't use the excuse "just following orders", but that is applying Western viewpoints to other people. When the option is, "follow the order or get shot yourself", what do we honestly expect? That you'll take the bullet? That is absurd.
We tried and convicted a whole lot of people who didn't have any choice or say in what they did and had they refused, they would have been killed themselves.
Doenitz was found guilty of other things, which I believe he was guilty of.
The irony is that if Hitler had provided for the U-Boat force that he had asked for at the start of the war, the outcome might have been quite different.
Winston Churchill once wrote that, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. In saying this, he correctly identified the importance of the threat posed during World War Two by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') to the Atlantic lifeline. This lifeline was Britain's 'centre of gravity' - the loss of which would probably have led to wholesale defeat in the war.
Karl had wanted 300 U-Boats, and had he started the war with them, Great Britain would likely not have survived. As it was, Germany came very close on two occasions to cutting the lifeline and forcing their surrender.
Worth reading, even the British admit that the Americans were declaring neutrality, while behaving anything but... However since we won the war, it doesn't matter. Had we lost, Germany likely would have come after us for that the same way we came after them.
So as in all things, the rules, laws, and history is written by the victor, but in this case, we actually know the real history, if we bother to look.
Who says that solar must replace everything electrical in the house. I live in Montreal, with more severe cold days than are found in the North East. I would use solar to extract the heat for my 60 gallon hot water tank, and in winter, to produce hot water for the radiators. (The heating is done by circulating hot water).
Again, how does that work when you have 2 feet of snow on your roof? For a month...
Sinking neutral ships without warning. Big difference. Plus there were all the other charges against him.
1. When those neutral ships were taking supplies to the British, are they really neutral? Even the USA, when declaring they were "neutral", were escorting British merchant ships half way across the Atlantic. Germany protested and the USA ignored them.
2. The other charges? You mean, like helping Hitler plan the war? What the heck is an ADMIRAL supposed to do??? That is his JOB!
Lets be honest, the charges against him were absurd, over 100 Allied senior people came to his defense, it was absurd. He didn't deserve to go to prison, that was a crime.
Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima at the beginning of the battle, only 216 were taken prisoner, some of whom were captured because they had been knocked unconscious or otherwise disabled.
There were over 100 million people in Japan in 1945, clearly a large number of them willing to fight to the death.
At some point, facing such people with such a believe system, the only way to get them to see sense is to hit them so unbelievably hard, that they accept a new reality.
Kinda like people on Slashdot who just won't listen to sense.:)
Chemical weapons were used by Japan... Germany didn't use them for a simple reason... Hitler had been subject to a Mustard Gas attack in WWI and had been temporary blinded. So he knew the effects first hand and how much trouble they were.
He also knew how easy it was for your own chemical weapons to drift with the wind right back onto you.
With the speed of blitzkrieg, there really wasn't a need for them, Panzars could do the job more effectively.
Re:Far Beyond America.... The A-Bomb has Saved Liv
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Every time they get used, there's even a chance of them bringing absolute peace to the world, for a few million years at least.
Cute, and lots of young people have been brought up to think that, but it isn't true.
All the nukes of the world wouldn't wipe us out, the idea that we can destroy the world several times over is just propaganda.
Re:Far Beyond America.... The A-Bomb has Saved Liv
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
You can't hide nuclear tests all that well. Where and when should this test have taken place?
In 2015, you're right...
In 1945, you're wrong...
However, the OP is mistaken, Germany was on their way to developing a nuke, but frankly were 2-3 years away. Japan wasn't even close and frankly wasn't even sure what it was when it hit them.
In general, you have to commit some pretty barbaric atrocities above and beyond the normal scope of the term "war crime" to receive more than a slap on the wrist from your own country. The US is no exception.
You can even be oblivious to what I think, but you cannot do anything about it...
You're quite right, there are plenty of people who believe in rainbows and unicorns in this world... I can't do anything about that either...
People say two bombs were necessary to stop the war... Really? How could Japan possibly surrender with just one bomb if they had no time to think and blam!...there comes the second one.
That reply indicates that you actually don't know what you're talking about. You of course will dismiss me and claim that you do, but that doesn't make it so.
If you think this is just "dreaming", maybe you forgot your obligation to pass this onto the next generations. That sucks...
Yes, it sucks that you're judging actions taken 70 years ago with your limited viewpoint in 2015, when you weren't there and don't know what happened.
It is a shame that so many people like you exist in the world, humanity has little future when people like you learn nothing from history except what didn't happen other than what you imagine.
the firebombing of Dresden and other European cities and the nukes on Japan were truly barbaric acts, purposefully designed to kill large numbers of civilians, each of these events slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in a very short time.
Perhaps, but you weren't fighting in 1941... you didn't see and experience Germany on the rise, sweeping over most of Europe, seemingly unstoppable...
The West at that time was quite frightened of Germany and was willing to do whatever it took to stop them, including firebombing cities.
Even in 1944 when it appeared we were winning, there were small signs that Germany might have an edge and make a comeback... The V1 and V2, the ME-262, the ME-163, and other weapons that were way beyond anything we had.
It is so easy, in 2015, to judge what was done 70 year ago, but since you didn't live through it, you really have no idea what it was like... My Grandfather fought for Canada in WWII and he has shared many stories with me, and I've talked to other vets over the years who also served... their viewpoint is worth far more than your Monday Morning Quarterback take on it...
A demonstration of the bomb, with Japanese military officials invited to see it, was considered by the US. It's hard to justify why that was not even tried first, before moving directly to the bombing of civilians.
Of course it is hard, because you weren't there, living through it at the time...
You're playing Monday morning quarterback, which is why the whole thing looks crazy to you 70 years later...
But if you bothered to learn your history you'd understand why it was used...
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Incorrect. They did 'quit'. Immediately.
You need to go back to school and learn some history, that isn't what happened at all.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
It was wrong. Get over it.
You're welcome to your opinion... That doesn't make you right...
So, for the sake of argument, I concede Hiroshima. And now... what of Nagasaki? Three fucking days later?
You seem to be under the impression that everyone knew in 1945 what a nuclear bomb was.
We bombed a city, then bombed another one... a nuke from a single plane or a hundred thousand bombs from a thousand bombers, what's the difference?
And WWII was a good war even if we were clearly, at times, more ruthless than we had to be.
And that attitude is why we lost in Vietnam... we weren't ruthless ENOUGH...
War is not a vocation for the weak at heart, which you appear to be... You hit the enemy with everything, 100% of the available force, hold nothing back, obliterate them...
The fastest way to stop the killing is to win as fast as possible, that means crushing the enemy so hard that he surrenders as fast as possible and everyone else gets the message that you're not to be messed with...
no different than the stubborn Japanese refusals to fully acknowledge their atrocities in China.
That would ONLY be true if we were refusing to acknowledge that we nuked Japan at all. We aren't denying that, Japan is starting to openly deny that they did what they did.
Those aren't remotely the same and if you think they are you have no idea what you're talking about.
Feynman, who worked on the Bomb, suffered psychological problems after the bomb was dropped
I don't doubt it, I would too...
If I was responsible for that, I think it would haunt me for the rest of my days...
Sometimes you have to do things that are terrible, that will break you as a person... and you have to do them anyway...
---
Ok, it is fiction, but it is a good example of the issue and it is what Star Trek was famous for before it went off the rails...
"In the Pale Moonlight"
With mounting losses in the Federation-Dominion war, and the specter of defeat, Captain Sisko enlists Garak's help to "persuade" the Romulans to join the Federation/Klingon alliance to win the war. Sisko unwittingly learns that to save the Federation, he may have to sell his soul and the values Starfleet stands for.
A few choice quotes:
"My father used to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I laid the first stone right there. I'd committed myself. I'd pay any price, go to any lengths, because my cause was righteous. My... intentions were good. In the beginning, that seemed like enough."
"That was my first moment of real doubt, when I started to wonder if the whole thing was a mistake. So I went back to my office. And there was a new casualty list waiting for me. People are dying out there every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom! And here I am still worrying about the finer points of morality! No, I had to keep my eye on the ball! Winning the war, stopping the bloodshed, those were the priorities! So I pushed on. And every time another doubt appeared before me, I just found another way to shove it aside."
"At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing â" a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer â" erase that entire personal log."
---
What Ben Sisco did was "illegal, against the law, and wrong". But in all likelihood, there wouldn't have been a Federation left to debate it had he not.
That is a moral argument to be sure, which was the point of the show, to ask the question of the viewer, "are there times when the ends justify the means, when any price is acceptable to obtain the outcome desired?" Is the freedom and safety of a trillion people worth that?
You might say no, and that is fine, it is your right to believe and feel that way... but I think you'll always find someone who feels that the answer is yes, and because of that, we must and will always have nuclear weapons in this world.
And to be honest, I find that a little sad, because I would love nothing more than to move on from war and the pointless killing of our fellow humans... it is such a waste...
The question isn't what some random people in Japan consider to be a war crime, the question is what is the law, and was it violated? If it was violated, were there mitigating circumstances?
At this level, what is "the law" doesn't seem to amount to a whole lot...
Look at modern times... Between the NSA spying on our allies (Germany for example) and spying on our own citizens, it doesn't appear that modern governments care too much about this either...
How about Bashar al-Assad of Syria? The evidence is amazingly clear that he used chemical weapons against civilians, crossing what Obama called "a clear redline". Yet what has anyone really done about it?
Nothing... or nothing that has had any real effect...
The law works best when you have a larger force that you can call, such as the police, when someone is breaking it. When nations do it, there is no such entity.
The Allies had fewer people deserving punishment because they weren't engaging in the sort of wholesale barbarism that were part of the Aixs nation's practices.
Perhaps, but we still sentenced people to prison for doing the exact same thing that we did.
Karl DÃnitz was sent to prison for sinking allied ships without warning, yet even at his trial, Admiral Chester Nimitz, wartime commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated the U.S. Navy had waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from the day the U.S. entered the war.
Threat of retaliation is a recognized means of encouraging compliance with the law of war by the enemy.
The enemy can't retaliate if they lose, now can they?
I'm quite sure some people in Japan consider the fire bombing of Tokyo a war crime, but they haven't been able to do anything about it, now have they?
I don't say that casually... we won, they lost... we executed many of their officers for various war crimes... yes, we did a few of ours as well, but no one major... a few token gestures to get people to say what you said...
Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.
To follow up on this point... lets say, for the sake of discussion, that we all agree that it is a crime...
Ok, fair enough... all that means is that you don't do it... unless you really, really have to...
The ends do not justify the means, the vast majority of the time... but sometimes, in rare cases, they do... when anything becomes acceptable, when you must win...
In WWII, that was one of those times... we had to win that war, at any cost... which is why we carpet bombed cites. The nukes were just an easier way to do it, but our fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than each nuke did (200,000 to 80,000).
Should we, as a matter of course, carpet bomb cities? No, we should not. But in that case, we had to, the Nazis and Imperial Japan had to be stopped, no matter the cost. Had we failed, the forces of evil would have marched all over the face of the Earth and we'd have entered another dark ages for humanity.
Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.
It is only a crime if you lose...
No, that isn't sarcasm... it is the truth... what is a "crime" is determined by the winner...
There are really no rules in war, either you win, in which case anything you did is ok, or you lose, in which case it doesn't matter how nice you were about it...
Slashdot Mirror
After the war, the US launched the Strategic Bombing Survey to determine how effective the various tactics used in both theatres were at achieving their objectives - everything from attacks against oil infrastructure to the atomic bombs. It made use of vast numbers of interviews and the huge troves of documents captured after the war to be able to get a comprehensive view. The report indicated that the atomic bombs had no impact on the voting of Japan's war council
Maybe they didn't... So what? Did Truman (who made the ultimate decision to use them) know this in July 1945?
It doesn't matter what was known in 1947, or 2015, only what was known in 1945.
Another point worth considering is that everyone was tired of the war and wanted to end it, and few people felt really sorry for the Japs, who had started the whole thing.
Let me put this another way... Had we used 1,000 B-29 bombers and conventional bombs and killed the same number of people, would anyone be talking about it today? No, they would not.
Similar things were done in Europe, even up to the last few months of the war, when it was clearly over, and we still sent a 1,000 bomber raid against Berlin on Hitler's Birthday, the final thousand bomber raid of the war. What was the point of that? But no one talks about it.
The nuclear weapons used against Japan are talked about because, "oh my God the Nuclears!" People have an irrational fear of nuclear weapons, as if they are some doom force that will destroy the world. Tactical nuclear weapons, which is what Fat Man and Little Boy were, are not such weapons, they did destroy those two cities, but both were rebuilt and life carries on. 200,000 civilians were killed in Tokyo via firebombing from thousands of B-29s. Why does no one have such heated conversations about that?
It's quite easy to make grand-sounding statements like this. It also marks you as someone who should never be trusted with the command of any military unit, ever.
Ahh, so you have never heard of General George S. Patton then?
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
The reason Vietnam lasted for nearly a decade, longer than WWII, is we had politicians trying what you're describing... "limited war, don't kill the enemy too much, try to avoid killing too many civilians, don't carpet bomb cities, hit this target, but that one is off limits".
It is a bunch of crap. Look at the 1st Gulf War. We hit the Iraqi military with everything we had, the ground war lasted less than 100 hours as a result, we were slaughtering them and they gave up en mass.
Desert Storm is a text book example of how to fight a war. It is one of the most lopsided military victories in history and if done right, is irresistible.
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/h...
"In August 1990, the Iraqi army invaded Kuwait. Five short months later, a powerful coalition led by the United States would launch Operation Desert Storm, one of the most rapid, decisive, and bloodless victories of all time. In just over four days of combat, the Coalition would liberate Kuwait, demolish the Iraqi army, and take hordes of Iraqi prisoners, all at a minimal cost in casualties. Iraqi losses in the course of this brief âoe100-hours warâ were massiveâ"some 20,000 killed and 60,000 wounded or captured. US forces, by contrast, suffered just 148 battle deaths, alongside another ninety-nine suffered by their coalition partners, one of the most lopsided results in military history."
In just under 100 hours of ground fighting, we crushed the enemy, we hit them with everything, and they surrendered. What YOU propose is a crime, because it will cause wars to go on for years. Like they are today.
"There are really no rules in war" - there are "The Hague laws and Geneva Conventions are some of the most widely applied of these international agreements."
You're welcome to apply them... if you win...
Those are agreements, but you have to keep in mind there is a reason we call them "sovereign nations". No one can really tell a sovereign nation what to do, unless defeated in war.
As time passes, the history of events gets updated and corrected and the next generation reap the guilt of their forefathers actions.
No one should feel the guilt of their forefathers actions. Japan right now is trying to deny a lot of what they did during WWII, to avoid guilt and shame.
This is stupid, they should not feel shame for what other people did in another time. A better choice would be to admit what was done, say they are sorry that it happened, vow that they will never do it, and move on.
My forefathers owned slaves. Was that wrong? Yes. Am I responsible? No. Do I feel guilt or shame? No. Do I promise to never own a slave? Yes.
To all who descend from slavery, I'm sorry that it happened, I agree that it was wrong, I have no doubt that it sucked... But please don't blame me for it, I didn't do it. Lets just all agree to not do it again and move forward...
It is impossible to judge people after talking to vets on either side, you think the common soldier had the option of clicking Axis or Allies and fight their favorite nemesis?
I agree with you, which is why I find the Germany chase of "Nazi War Criminals" in 2015 so sad...
That recent prosecution of the SS man who cataloged Jewish belongings is a travesty... He didn't kill anyone and had no ability to stop it... Yes, he was there, but what was he supposed to do about it? Protest? The environment would not have allowed that.
We preach that you can't use the excuse "just following orders", but that is applying Western viewpoints to other people. When the option is, "follow the order or get shot yourself", what do we honestly expect? That you'll take the bullet? That is absurd.
We tried and convicted a whole lot of people who didn't have any choice or say in what they did and had they refused, they would have been killed themselves.
Japan used chemical weapons against the Chinese, who had no means of retaliation. I don't remember any use against Western forces.
Well that rather makes my point for why we are not, and should not give up our nuclear weapons.
Who is going to use them against us when we have them? If we don't, then they might.
Of course, this also explains why North Korea and Iran want them. :)
Doenitz was found guilty of other things, which I believe he was guilty of.
The irony is that if Hitler had provided for the U-Boat force that he had asked for at the start of the war, the outcome might have been quite different.
Winston Churchill once wrote that, '... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'. In saying this, he correctly identified the importance of the threat posed during World War Two by German submarines (the 'Unterseeboot') to the Atlantic lifeline. This lifeline was Britain's 'centre of gravity' - the loss of which would probably have led to wholesale defeat in the war.
Karl had wanted 300 U-Boats, and had he started the war with them, Great Britain would likely not have survived. As it was, Germany came very close on two occasions to cutting the lifeline and forcing their surrender.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/w...
Worth reading, even the British admit that the Americans were declaring neutrality, while behaving anything but... However since we won the war, it doesn't matter. Had we lost, Germany likely would have come after us for that the same way we came after them.
So as in all things, the rules, laws, and history is written by the victor, but in this case, we actually know the real history, if we bother to look.
Who says that solar must replace everything electrical in the house. I live in Montreal, with more severe cold days than are found in the North East. I would use solar to extract the heat for my 60 gallon hot water tank, and in winter, to produce hot water for the radiators. (The heating is done by circulating hot water).
Again, how does that work when you have 2 feet of snow on your roof? For a month...
Sinking neutral ships without warning. Big difference. Plus there were all the other charges against him.
1. When those neutral ships were taking supplies to the British, are they really neutral? Even the USA, when declaring they were "neutral", were escorting British merchant ships half way across the Atlantic. Germany protested and the USA ignored them.
2. The other charges? You mean, like helping Hitler plan the war? What the heck is an ADMIRAL supposed to do??? That is his JOB!
Lets be honest, the charges against him were absurd, over 100 Allied senior people came to his defense, it was absurd. He didn't deserve to go to prison, that was a crime.
Flip things around. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first and dropped one over the top of New York City would the US have surrendered?
Probably not after the first one...
But after Boston was turned to slag, then yes, probably so...
Vaporizing 40,000+ civilians is not a morally acceptable way to pressure someone re: terms of surrender.
"Morals" is just another word for "opinion"...
In fact, nuking another city is actually an excellent way to pressure someone to surrender on your terms...
If you believe that nuking a highly populated area three days later was the only choice we had... you are not thinking very hard.
And if you think anyone on the American side gave much of a damm about the Japs in Aug 1945, then YOU aren't thinking very hard...
Go read up on Iwo Jima:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima at the beginning of the battle, only 216 were taken prisoner, some of whom were captured because they had been knocked unconscious or otherwise disabled.
There were over 100 million people in Japan in 1945, clearly a large number of them willing to fight to the death.
At some point, facing such people with such a believe system, the only way to get them to see sense is to hit them so unbelievably hard, that they accept a new reality.
Kinda like people on Slashdot who just won't listen to sense. :)
Chemical weapons were used by Japan... Germany didn't use them for a simple reason... Hitler had been subject to a Mustard Gas attack in WWI and had been temporary blinded. So he knew the effects first hand and how much trouble they were.
He also knew how easy it was for your own chemical weapons to drift with the wind right back onto you.
With the speed of blitzkrieg, there really wasn't a need for them, Panzars could do the job more effectively.
Every time they get used, there's even a chance of them bringing absolute peace to the world, for a few million years at least.
Cute, and lots of young people have been brought up to think that, but it isn't true.
All the nukes of the world wouldn't wipe us out, the idea that we can destroy the world several times over is just propaganda.
You can't hide nuclear tests all that well. Where and when should this test have taken place?
In 2015, you're right...
In 1945, you're wrong...
However, the OP is mistaken, Germany was on their way to developing a nuke, but frankly were 2-3 years away. Japan wasn't even close and frankly wasn't even sure what it was when it hit them.
In general, you have to commit some pretty barbaric atrocities above and beyond the normal scope of the term "war crime" to receive more than a slap on the wrist from your own country. The US is no exception.
Yep, this is true of just about every nation...
You can even be oblivious to what I think, but you cannot do anything about it...
You're quite right, there are plenty of people who believe in rainbows and unicorns in this world... I can't do anything about that either...
People say two bombs were necessary to stop the war... Really? How could Japan possibly surrender with just one bomb if they had no time to think and blam! ...there comes the second one.
That reply indicates that you actually don't know what you're talking about. You of course will dismiss me and claim that you do, but that doesn't make it so.
If you think this is just "dreaming", maybe you forgot your obligation to pass this onto the next generations. That sucks...
Yes, it sucks that you're judging actions taken 70 years ago with your limited viewpoint in 2015, when you weren't there and don't know what happened.
It is a shame that so many people like you exist in the world, humanity has little future when people like you learn nothing from history except what didn't happen other than what you imagine.
the firebombing of Dresden and other European cities and the nukes on Japan were truly barbaric acts, purposefully designed to kill large numbers of civilians, each of these events slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in a very short time.
Perhaps, but you weren't fighting in 1941... you didn't see and experience Germany on the rise, sweeping over most of Europe, seemingly unstoppable...
The West at that time was quite frightened of Germany and was willing to do whatever it took to stop them, including firebombing cities.
Even in 1944 when it appeared we were winning, there were small signs that Germany might have an edge and make a comeback... The V1 and V2, the ME-262, the ME-163, and other weapons that were way beyond anything we had.
It is so easy, in 2015, to judge what was done 70 year ago, but since you didn't live through it, you really have no idea what it was like... My Grandfather fought for Canada in WWII and he has shared many stories with me, and I've talked to other vets over the years who also served... their viewpoint is worth far more than your Monday Morning Quarterback take on it...
A demonstration of the bomb, with Japanese military officials invited to see it, was considered by the US. It's hard to justify why that was not even tried first, before moving directly to the bombing of civilians.
Of course it is hard, because you weren't there, living through it at the time...
You're playing Monday morning quarterback, which is why the whole thing looks crazy to you 70 years later...
But if you bothered to learn your history you'd understand why it was used...
Incorrect. They did 'quit'. Immediately.
You need to go back to school and learn some history, that isn't what happened at all.
It was wrong. Get over it.
You're welcome to your opinion... That doesn't make you right...
So, for the sake of argument, I concede Hiroshima. And now... what of Nagasaki? Three fucking days later?
You seem to be under the impression that everyone knew in 1945 what a nuclear bomb was.
We bombed a city, then bombed another one... a nuke from a single plane or a hundred thousand bombs from a thousand bombers, what's the difference?
And WWII was a good war even if we were clearly, at times, more ruthless than we had to be.
And that attitude is why we lost in Vietnam... we weren't ruthless ENOUGH...
War is not a vocation for the weak at heart, which you appear to be... You hit the enemy with everything, 100% of the available force, hold nothing back, obliterate them...
The fastest way to stop the killing is to win as fast as possible, that means crushing the enemy so hard that he surrenders as fast as possible and everyone else gets the message that you're not to be messed with...
no different than the stubborn Japanese refusals to fully acknowledge their atrocities in China.
That would ONLY be true if we were refusing to acknowledge that we nuked Japan at all. We aren't denying that, Japan is starting to openly deny that they did what they did.
Those aren't remotely the same and if you think they are you have no idea what you're talking about.
Feynman, who worked on the Bomb, suffered psychological problems after the bomb was dropped
I don't doubt it, I would too...
If I was responsible for that, I think it would haunt me for the rest of my days...
Sometimes you have to do things that are terrible, that will break you as a person... and you have to do them anyway...
---
Ok, it is fiction, but it is a good example of the issue and it is what Star Trek was famous for before it went off the rails...
"In the Pale Moonlight"
With mounting losses in the Federation-Dominion war, and the specter of defeat, Captain Sisko enlists Garak's help to "persuade" the Romulans to join the Federation/Klingon alliance to win the war. Sisko unwittingly learns that to save the Federation, he may have to sell his soul and the values Starfleet stands for.
A few choice quotes:
"My father used to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I laid the first stone right there. I'd committed myself. I'd pay any price, go to any lengths, because my cause was righteous. My... intentions were good. In the beginning, that seemed like enough."
"That was my first moment of real doubt, when I started to wonder if the whole thing was a mistake. So I went back to my office. And there was a new casualty list waiting for me. People are dying out there every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom! And here I am still worrying about the finer points of morality! No, I had to keep my eye on the ball! Winning the war, stopping the bloodshed, those were the priorities! So I pushed on. And every time another doubt appeared before me, I just found another way to shove it aside."
"At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing â" a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer â" erase that entire personal log."
---
What Ben Sisco did was "illegal, against the law, and wrong". But in all likelihood, there wouldn't have been a Federation left to debate it had he not.
That is a moral argument to be sure, which was the point of the show, to ask the question of the viewer, "are there times when the ends justify the means, when any price is acceptable to obtain the outcome desired?" Is the freedom and safety of a trillion people worth that?
You might say no, and that is fine, it is your right to believe and feel that way... but I think you'll always find someone who feels that the answer is yes, and because of that, we must and will always have nuclear weapons in this world.
And to be honest, I find that a little sad, because I would love nothing more than to move on from war and the pointless killing of our fellow humans... it is such a waste...
The question isn't what some random people in Japan consider to be a war crime, the question is what is the law, and was it violated? If it was violated, were there mitigating circumstances?
At this level, what is "the law" doesn't seem to amount to a whole lot...
Look at modern times... Between the NSA spying on our allies (Germany for example) and spying on our own citizens, it doesn't appear that modern governments care too much about this either...
How about Bashar al-Assad of Syria? The evidence is amazingly clear that he used chemical weapons against civilians, crossing what Obama called "a clear redline". Yet what has anyone really done about it?
Nothing... or nothing that has had any real effect...
The law works best when you have a larger force that you can call, such as the police, when someone is breaking it. When nations do it, there is no such entity.
The Allies had fewer people deserving punishment because they weren't engaging in the sort of wholesale barbarism that were part of the Aixs nation's practices.
Perhaps, but we still sentenced people to prison for doing the exact same thing that we did.
Karl DÃnitz was sent to prison for sinking allied ships without warning, yet even at his trial, Admiral Chester Nimitz, wartime commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated the U.S. Navy had waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from the day the U.S. entered the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So we sent someone to prison for 10 years for doing the exact same thing that we were doing.
What we did we do to Nimitz? We named a line of carriers after him and called him a war hero.
There are other similar examples... Did we send anyone to prison for fire bombing German cities for example?
Threat of retaliation is a recognized means of encouraging compliance with the law of war by the enemy.
The enemy can't retaliate if they lose, now can they?
I'm quite sure some people in Japan consider the fire bombing of Tokyo a war crime, but they haven't been able to do anything about it, now have they?
I don't say that casually... we won, they lost... we executed many of their officers for various war crimes... yes, we did a few of ours as well, but no one major... a few token gestures to get people to say what you said...
Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.
To follow up on this point... lets say, for the sake of discussion, that we all agree that it is a crime...
Ok, fair enough... all that means is that you don't do it... unless you really, really have to...
The ends do not justify the means, the vast majority of the time... but sometimes, in rare cases, they do... when anything becomes acceptable, when you must win...
In WWII, that was one of those times... we had to win that war, at any cost... which is why we carpet bombed cites. The nukes were just an easier way to do it, but our fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than each nuke did (200,000 to 80,000).
Should we, as a matter of course, carpet bomb cities? No, we should not. But in that case, we had to, the Nazis and Imperial Japan had to be stopped, no matter the cost. Had we failed, the forces of evil would have marched all over the face of the Earth and we'd have entered another dark ages for humanity.
Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.
It is only a crime if you lose...
No, that isn't sarcasm... it is the truth... what is a "crime" is determined by the winner...
There are really no rules in war, either you win, in which case anything you did is ok, or you lose, in which case it doesn't matter how nice you were about it...