How was Hiroshima and Nagasaki not a War Crime?

Started by TempAccount7 pages

How was Hiroshima and Nagasaki not a War Crime?

The phrase "Winners get to write history" couldn't be more accurate when it comes to the many shady things the United States has done over the centuries. One of the worst atrocities it has committed, in my mind, was the dropping of nukes on Japan:

‘A crime against humanity’

In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second on Aug. 6. Some 13 square kilometers of the city were obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries. Three days later, on Aug. 9, the U.S. dropped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out. About 10 percent of the casualties were Koreans forced to work in Japan at the time.

Source

When we put our objective thinking caps on, it is hard to see just how this act could not be considered a crime against humanity / war crime / genocidal act.

Harry Truman was a war criminal no better than Hitler. He was a racist against Japanese:

We'll never know if Truman's attitudes toward minorities -- including his comment in 1911 to Bess that he hated "Japs" -- influenced his decision to drop two atomic bombs at a point when the Japanese were already militarily devastated and seeking acceptable surrender terms. Truman understood that he was embarking on a course that could ultimately bring the extinction of mankind.

Truman always insisted that he felt "no remorse" over that decision, about which, he commented, he "never lost a minute's sleep." Condoleezza Rice picked Truman as man of the last century in an interview with Time magazine, but he was no hero to most of his contemporaries. Those who subsequently orchestrated his historical revitalization have often used his refurbished image to justify a conservative political agenda.

Source

Arguments for this being classified as war crimes:

Kuznick and Selden put most of the blame on Truman. “He knew he was begin ning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Kuznick, “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

Bolton continued: “The definition of ‘war crimes’ includes, for example: ‘intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.’”

Bolton wrote that under the ICC rules, U.S. leaders could have been found guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and for all the aerial bombardments of German and Japanese civilian areas.

The A-bombs were not the only crimes. U.S. nighttime raids using conventional bombs against residential areas of Tokyo, Osaka and other industrial cities caused hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian deaths, and Dresden, Germany, was obliterated in early 1945, killing mainly refugees. But Truman’s decision opened the door to massive use of these new terror bombs.

Source

TL;DR

- Truman was noted to be a racist against the Japanese (also black people too, fun fact)
- The bombs were dropped purely for political purposes against the USSR
- Truman was ready to annihilate Japan (genocidal) if two nukes didn't do it
- Japan was already blockaded, being invaded by USSR. They would have surrendered very soon without the nukes being dropped.
- The United States gets away with war crimes all the damn time.

Don't start none, won't be none.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Don't start none, won't be none.

This, all day and every day.

How many innocent people were murdered at Pearl Harbor?

Originally posted by Impediment
This, all day and every day.

How many innocent people were murdered at Pearl Harbor?

Absolutely no comparison. Pearl harbor had 68 civilian deaths. Only 2500 total including military casualties. Dropping a WMD on urban cities is a whole other level.

Plus the it was the US Imperialists who were provoking the Japanese with embargos and occupations of South-east Asia.

"Only 2500".

Where does one draw the line on innocent deaths?

Rape of Nanking

KMC is so slow that people are arguing with overt trolls.

War is War. If you want to discuss morality, I believe it was the morally correct thing for the U.S. to end the war as quickly and as totally as possible. Nagasaki and Hiroshima made it very clear.

Do not f*ck with the U.S. There has yet to be a hot World War since. Compared to the preceding....well everything of human history, that's a goddamn miracle.

Also this:

Originally posted by Silent Master
Don't start none, won't be none.

Talk shit get hit. The only war crime was dropping just two.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Talk shit get hit. The only war crime was dropping just two.
👆

This is laughable. Guess what? What about all the crimes Japan committed throughout their history? Have we called them out on it?

I so hate when Westerns who lives cushy lives, especially in the United States jump on their soapbox and preach idiocy and how evil the United States is/are.

Don’t get me wrong, we can always open dialogues of the past. Just know if you come in with a I am superior to you attitude, you will be called out.

My uncle died in his 50's in 1978 because of the way he was treated as a POW by Japan. I have Japanese friends, it's the past, long ago. Dropping the bombs saved allied lives, and in a war which had gone on too long and seen too many allies die, it needed to happen.

Originally posted by SquallX
This is laughable. Guess what? What about all the crimes Japan committed throughout their history? Have we called them out on it?

I so hate when Westerns who lives cushy lives, especially in the United States jump on their soapbox and preach idiocy and how evil the United States is/are.

Don’t get me wrong, we can always open dialogues of the past. Just know if you come in with a I am superior to you attitude, you will be called out.

Nobody is forbidding you for making a thread about japanese crimes. Go bonkers

to my mind it was war crime.

This was a War Crime, yes. "B-but Pearl Harbour" isn't a good defense, since it had far, far fewer deaths and was specifically targetting millitary bases. Nearby hospitals and civilians points were untouched. Plus it wasn't used as a testing grounds for radioactive properties.

This isn't to say the Japanese were exactly innocent. They also committed a lot War Crimes themselves, so I guess you could say they had it coming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Some people may not like it, but I don't believe it's ever been ruled a war crime.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Don't start none, won't be none.

Sometimes when you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

So American troops invading Japan and beginning what could have been the bloodiest battle ever is a better option?

Originally posted by TempAccount
The phrase "Winners get to write history" couldn't be more accurate when it comes to the many shady things the United States has done over the centuries. One of the worst atrocities it has committed, in my mind, was the dropping of nukes on Japan:

Source

When we put our objective thinking caps on, it is hard to see just how this act could not be considered a crime against humanity / war crime / genocidal act.

Harry Truman was a war criminal no better than Hitler. He was a racist against Japanese:

Source

Arguments for this being classified as war crimes:

Source

TL;DR

- Truman was noted to be a racist against the Japanese (also black people too, fun fact)
- The bombs were dropped purely for political purposes against the USSR
- Truman was ready to annihilate Japan (genocidal) if two nukes didn't do it
- Japan was already blockaded, being invaded by USSR. They would have surrendered very soon without the nukes being dropped.
- The United States gets away with war crimes all the damn time.

Should have surrendered as soon as Hitler was defeated, but you guys didn't.