Hiroshima and Nagasaki... warcrimes?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

#61

Post by Xanthro » 14 Oct 2002, 23:30

charlie don't surf wrote:Hi Xanthro! It seems that we look at the incidents from different angles, you seem to argue if the only way to have an unconditional surrender was to bomb the cities. I try to ask 'does the goal justify the means' and 'is it right to commit warcrimes to end a war'. We have different angles of approaching this subject which makes it complicated.

regards
I didn't initially want to respond to this, because it's a non-question. You are mixing up phrases into a loaded question. It's like asking, "Yes or No, did you stop beating your wife" If you say no, it indicates you still beat your wife, if you answer yes, it indicates you did beat you wife. Nowhere in the reply is the ability to state that no beatings took place. Such queries are invalid.

Here, you are in essence asking me, "Yes or no, do you think it's ok to commit war crimes by using the a-bombs to justify an end?"

My contention is that there is no war crime. That's something you are trying to prove.

First, in the Postdam Declaration the United States dropped the unconditional surrender and changed it to the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces.

Second, any method used to compel Japan into accepting the Postdam Declaration would have equal hundreds of thousands of civilian causalties.

This isn't a question of chosing from good choices. Using the A-Bomb meant many Japanese civilians would die. It was hoped that this would provide cover for the Japanese to surrender, thus sparing them further deaths, and the Chinese further deaths. This is what happened.

Any other course of actions, whether a city bombing campaign or not, equals far more civilian deaths.

If the choice is 200,000 civilian deaths or 500,000 civilian deaths and 500,000 military deaths, you chose the former.

Xanthro

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9122
Joined: 07 Sep 2002, 01:46
Location: Sweden

#62

Post by Daniel L » 14 Oct 2002, 23:41

If the choice is 200,000 civilian deaths or 500,000 civilian deaths and 500,000 military deaths, you chose the former.
I agree. Do you agree with me on my argument that one had to break some war rules in order to do this?

regards


Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

#63

Post by Xanthro » 15 Oct 2002, 01:28

charlie don't surf wrote:
If the choice is 200,000 civilian deaths or 500,000 civilian deaths and 500,000 military deaths, you chose the former.
I agree. Do you agree with me on my argument that one had to break some war rules in order to do this?

regards
No I do not.

The rules of war are designed to lessen the impact upon the non-fighting population, and reduce the horror of war. Actions which do this by definition are not act that break the rules of war.

All laws, rules and regulations have in implict understanding that they are not perfect and even if something is explicitly listed as illegal, if circumstances demand that be broken, they they legally can be.

There was no legal prohibition against attacking cities, and even if there were, the circumstances would negate that.

Take for instance an endangered species of bear. A law is passed protecting the bear. It is illegal to harrass, harm, or in any way hinder the bear. A person is camping, and a bear of this species attacks, the camper kills the bear. The camper has broken no laws, because circumstance forced the action that would otherwise be illegal.

Had the US bombed cities after the war was over, that would be a war crime.

What the United States did is compell an enemy to surrender, then treated that former enemy as a friend and helped it rebuild and become a powerful nation. That is not a warcrime.

Xanthro

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9122
Joined: 07 Sep 2002, 01:46
Location: Sweden

#64

Post by Daniel L » 15 Oct 2002, 02:02

Were the population a threat to to the allies? No- they were only considered means to end the war. I can't see this discussion go any much further, let's write the round off of this.

regards

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

How many Japs can we kill in 0.1 seconds? That'll show 'em!

#65

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Oct 2002, 04:31

Xanthro wrote:First, in the Postdam Declaration the United States dropped the unconditional surrender and changed it to the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces.
This amounts to the same thing. It is akin to calling for the end to a labor strike that cannot be continued in order to come to a settlement that is going to be in the greater interest of the company anyway, but then when the strike is over, having the union arrested to have an "agreement" dictated unilaterally.

In order to come to a bilateral agreement, the Japanese would have at least had to retain control of their armies, with perhaps a phased-withdrawal, and the threat of ending the cease-fire would have at least theoretically been possible if negotiations deadlocked. All the cards were in the American hands in any case. The Allies could have resumed hostilities through bombings, and even halted food shipments and used the Soviet threat to their advantage--and they even had several atomic bombs! The only urgency with these talks is imaginary. The U.S. would have gotten everything that was important, and the Japanese would have saved face without the U.S. resorting to a crass terrorist attack.

But the atomic bombs brought the boys home by Christmas! It was unneeded and excessive and was used without diplomatic-demonstration; that's why it was a Warcrime (for lack of a better word, since the idea itself is an oxymoron in such context).
:wink:

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

#66

Post by Xanthro » 15 Oct 2002, 05:08

charlie don't surf wrote:Were the population a threat to to the allies? No- they were only considered means to end the war. I can't see this discussion go any much further, let's write the round off of this.

regards
Also known as, I can't support my claims, so I'm going to quit.

What does the population being a threat have to do with anything? It's doesn't. It's a baseless attack trying to potray them as victims.

I don't see you shedding any tears for the 100,000 chinese civilians being murdered monthly.

I haven't seen you present a shred of evidence that there was a better way to end the war.

All you present is your inane unsupported opinions.

Xanthro

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002, 01:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: How many Japs can we kill in 0.1 seconds? That'll show '

#67

Post by Xanthro » 15 Oct 2002, 05:10

Scott Smith wrote:
Xanthro wrote:First, in the Postdam Declaration the United States dropped the unconditional surrender and changed it to the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces.
This amounts to the same thing. It is akin to calling for the end to a labor strike that cannot be continued in order to come to a settlement that is going to be in the greater interest of the company anyway, but then when the strike is over, having the union arrested to have an "agreement" dictated unilaterally.

In order to come to a bilateral agreement, the Japanese would have at least had to retain control of their armies, with perhaps a phased-withdrawal, and the threat of ending the cease-fire would have at least theoretically been possible if negotiations deadlocked. All the cards were in the American hands in any case. The Allies could have resumed hostilities through bombings, and even halted food shipments and used the Soviet threat to their advantage--and they even had several atomic bombs! The only urgency with these talks is imaginary. The U.S. would have gotten everything that was important, and the Japanese would have saved face without the U.S. resorting to a crass terrorist attack.

But the atomic bombs brought the boys home by Christmas! It was unneeded and excessive and was used without diplomatic-demonstration; that's why it was a Warcrime (for lack of a better word, since the idea itself is an oxymoron in such context).
:wink:
What a bizarre comparasion.

How do you have any surrender that doesn't include the surrender of enemy forces?

You can't. Otherwise it's not a surrender.

Xanthro

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: How many Japs can we kill in 0.1 seconds? That'll show '

#68

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Oct 2002, 06:04

Xanthro wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Xanthro wrote:First, in the Postdam Declaration the United States dropped the unconditional surrender and changed it to the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces.
This amounts to the same thing. It is akin to calling for the end to a labor strike that cannot be continued in order to come to a settlement that is going to be in the greater interest of the company anyway, but then when the strike is over, having the union arrested to have an "agreement" dictated unilaterally.

In order to come to a bilateral agreement, the Japanese would have at least had to retain control of their armies, with perhaps a phased-withdrawal, and the threat of ending the cease-fire would have at least theoretically been possible if negotiations deadlocked. All the cards were in the American hands in any case. The Allies could have resumed hostilities through bombings, and even halted food shipments and used the Soviet threat to their advantage--and they even had several atomic bombs! The only urgency with these talks is imaginary. The U.S. would have gotten everything that was important, and the Japanese would have saved face without the U.S. resorting to a crass terrorist attack.

But the atomic bombs brought the boys home by Christmas! It was unneeded and excessive and was used without diplomatic-demonstration; that's why it was a Warcrime (for lack of a better word, since the idea itself is an oxymoron in such context).
:wink:
What a bizarre comparasion.

How do you have any surrender that doesn't include the surrender of enemy forces?

You can't. Otherwise it's not a surrender.
Try to think outside of the box for a moment. It's no surpirse that you don't understand even the basics of diplomacy, since the enemy is necessarily Evil in the American mentality and you can't talk with the devil without becoming seduced yourself.
:mrgreen:

It's called a peace agreement, Xanthro.

And peace agreements, to the extend that they ARE agreements, are stronger than even the surrender of enemy forces, because you have a settling of conflict itself, since you cannot reasonably continue hostilities; it is just not worth it.

Besides, there will likely be a provision to demobilize enemy forces in the agreement, assuming the issue is still germane by then, and that requires no "surrender" at all, but still leaving no doubt who won, which is another American insecurity. Neutrals can greatly facilitate this process.

Remember, the United States had all the leverage. They are basically going to walk away fromthe table with whatever they need, and most of what they want, but if they are clever they will end the conflict on upbeat terms. MacArthur, for all his faults, at least understood some of these time-honored principles as Imperator of defeated Japan.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: How many Japs can we kill in 0.1 seconds? That'll show '

#69

Post by Roberto » 15 Oct 2002, 10:26

Scott Smith wrote:
Xanthro wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Xanthro wrote:First, in the Postdam Declaration the United States dropped the unconditional surrender and changed it to the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces.
This amounts to the same thing. It is akin to calling for the end to a labor strike that cannot be continued in order to come to a settlement that is going to be in the greater interest of the company anyway, but then when the strike is over, having the union arrested to have an "agreement" dictated unilaterally.

In order to come to a bilateral agreement, the Japanese would have at least had to retain control of their armies, with perhaps a phased-withdrawal, and the threat of ending the cease-fire would have at least theoretically been possible if negotiations deadlocked. All the cards were in the American hands in any case. The Allies could have resumed hostilities through bombings, and even halted food shipments and used the Soviet threat to their advantage--and they even had several atomic bombs! The only urgency with these talks is imaginary. The U.S. would have gotten everything that was important, and the Japanese would have saved face without the U.S. resorting to a crass terrorist attack.

But the atomic bombs brought the boys home by Christmas! It was unneeded and excessive and was used without diplomatic-demonstration; that's why it was a Warcrime (for lack of a better word, since the idea itself is an oxymoron in such context).
:wink:
What a bizarre comparasion.

How do you have any surrender that doesn't include the surrender of enemy forces?

You can't. Otherwise it's not a surrender.
Scott Smith wrote:Try to think outside of the box for a moment.
Ever managed to do that yourself, Smith?

Or is that statement modeled on the good old Communist principle "do like I say, not like I do"?
Scott Smith wrote:It's no surpirse that you don't understand even the basics of diplomacy, since the enemy is necessarily Evil in the American mentality and you can't talk with the devil without becoming seduced yourself.
:mrgreen:

It's called a peace agreement, Xanthro.

And peace agreements, to the extend that they ARE agreements, are stronger than even the surrender of enemy forces, because you have a settling of conflict itself, since you cannot reasonably continue hostilities; it is just not worth it.

Besides, there will likely be a provision to demobilize enemy forces in the agreement, assuming the issue is still germane by then, and that requires no "surrender" at all, but still leaving no doubt who won, which is another American insecurity. Neutrals can greatly facilitate this process.
What's this guy talking about?

A peace agreement with Japan not preceded by surrender of its government and enemy forces?

After the Japanese aggression and their horrendous crimes in China and Southeast Asia, was the approach supposed to be "Well, dear folks, some unfortunate things happened, but let's forget about it and make peace", thus allowing Japan to emerge from the war as a political victor, be rewarded for its aggression and atrocities and kindle a "never defeated on the battlefield" legend, with dire consequences for the future?

Smith again is as demanding on governments he doesn't like in terms of humanity and benevolence as he is condescending in regard to the same issues towards those he likes.

Fortunately the policy-makers of the time were smart enough to realize that lasting peace with Japan must be preceded by the Japanese nation's consciousness that, for the first time in its history, it had been utterly defeated.

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9122
Joined: 07 Sep 2002, 01:46
Location: Sweden

#70

Post by Daniel L » 15 Oct 2002, 10:42

What does the population being a threat have to do with anything? It's doesn't. It's a baseless attack trying to potray them as victims.
They were victims, what would you call them? And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it you (or was it caldric) that said that the whole japanese adult population was a treat due to their fanatism and that they were drafted into the armed forces, this was a main argument.
I don't see you shedding any tears for the 100,000 chinese civilians being murdered monthly.
They've got my sympathy as well.
I haven't seen you present a shred of evidence that there was a better way to end the war.


as I said, we have different angles in viewing the topic, this is your main line while mine is that one should respect civilians and laws.

regards

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: How many Japs can we kill in 0.1 seconds? That'll show '

#71

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Oct 2002, 11:27

Roberto wrote:What's this guy talking about?

A peace agreement with Japan not preceded by surrender of its government and enemy forces?
You mean like the Communists in Korea and Vietnam? We beat Japan so we could have gotten most of the terms that we wanted.
After the Japanese aggression and their horrendous crimes in China and Southeast Asia, was the approach supposed to be "Well, dear folks, some unfortunate things happened, but let's forget about it and make peace", thus allowing Japan to emerge from the war as a political victor, be rewarded for its aggression and atrocities and kindle a "never defeated on the battlefield" legend, with dire consequences for the future?
Rewarded? I just said we would have gotten what we needed--even the hanging of symbolic villains if that's what we wanted. That's why Milosevic is being tried for Warcrimes by nominally neutral courts; that was part of the peace deal made at Dayton in 1994.
Smith again is as demanding on governments he doesn't like in terms of humanity and benevolence as he is condescending in regard to the same issues towards those he likes.
Smith isn't demanding anything--just offering analysis. He just got through critiquing Hitler's handling of strategy in another thread, albeit more fair to Hitler than is usually the case from most analysts.
Fortunately the policy-makers of the time were smart enough to realize that lasting peace with Japan must be preceded by the Japanese nation's consciousness that, for the first time in its history, it had been utterly defeated.
Truman was totally out of his depth and Churchill wasn't much better. Guys like Stalin could eat them for lunch. And Hitler too, were it not for his occasional naïvete regarding Anglo-Saxons, which Churchill had carefully studied and often exploited.

Japan still does not have the mentality of a defeated people, thanks to MacArthur, and despite being forced to "renounce war." Unlike the Germans, I'm sorry to say, for they do have the mentality of a defeated people, and I hope America never sinks so low.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: How many Japs can we kill in 0.1 seconds? That'll show '

#72

Post by Roberto » 15 Oct 2002, 13:46

Roberto wrote:What's this guy talking about?

A peace agreement with Japan not preceded by surrender of its government and enemy forces?
Scott Smith wrote:You mean like the Communists in Korea and Vietnam?
That seems to be Smith's suggestion.
Scott Smith wrote:We beat Japan so we could have gotten most of the terms that we wanted.
Due to Japan's aggression and atrocities, there was more at stake than whatever "terms" the US may have wanted.

A lasting peace, for instance, which required the aggressor nation to realize that it had been totally defeated and to accept such defeat.
Roberto wrote:After the Japanese aggression and their horrendous crimes in China and Southeast Asia, was the approach supposed to be "Well, dear folks, some unfortunate things happened, but let's forget about it and make peace", thus allowing Japan to emerge from the war as a political victor, be rewarded for its aggression and atrocities and kindle a "never defeated on the battlefield" legend, with dire consequences for the future?
Scott Smith wrote:Rewarded? I just said we would have gotten what we needed--even the hanging of symbolic villains if that's what we wanted.
Same crap.

The issue was not what anyone wanted, but what was required to prevent a repetition of brutal aggression as committed by the Japanese militarists.

And the villains were everything other than "symbolic".

They were responsible for the brutal murder of millions of people in China and Southeast Asia and on the islands of the Pacific.
Roberto wrote:Smith again is as demanding on governments he doesn't like in terms of humanity and benevolence as he is condescending in regard to the same issues towards those he likes.
Smith wrote:Smith isn't demanding anything--just offering analysis.
What Smith calls "analysis" is obviously nothing other than apology of governments he likes and condemnation of such he doesn't, each without regard for the evidence.
Smith wrote:He just got through critiquing Hitler's handling of strategy in another thread, albeit more fair to Hitler than is usually the case from most analysts.
I know what Smith's critique of his favorite warlord is about. It focuses on the political and/or military convenience of a mass murderer's policies. Big deal.
Roberto wrote:Fortunately the policy-makers of the time were smart enough to realize that lasting peace with Japan must be preceded by the Japanese nation's consciousness that, for the first time in its history, it had been utterly defeated.
Smith wrote:Truman was totally out of his depth and Churchill wasn't much better. Guys like Stalin could eat them for lunch. And Hitler too, were it not for his occasional naïvete regarding Anglo-Saxons, which Churchill had carefully studied and often exploited.
I think I'm not the only one who doesn't understand how these hollow mumblings relate to my quoted statement.
Smith wrote:Japan still does not have the mentality of a defeated people, thanks to MacArthur, and despite being forced to "renounce war." Unlike the Germans, I'm sorry to say, for they do have the mentality of a defeated people, and I hope America never sinks so low.
:)
Well, I hope it never sinks as low as Japan - murdering millions of people and then lying to its schoolchildren about the whole thing, refusing to pay compensation to the victims or even to apologize.

As to the Germans, I dare say that Smith knows as much about them as a pig knows about Sunday, which is not surprising for someone who has never been to the country and draws his "knowledge" of it from "Revisionist" comic books.

After two years on this forum, the beatings he has taken mostly from German citizens should at least have shown Smith just how little Germans suffer from "the mentality of a defeated people".

Wolffen
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: 29 Sep 2002, 12:33
Location: Eagles Nest

Picture is worth 1000 words

#73

Post by Wolffen » 18 Oct 2002, 21:02


Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#74

Post by Caldric » 19 Oct 2002, 09:06

Hmm yes pictures say a thousand words, shall we show a thousand pictures of Japanese barbarity? That would be worth what?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#75

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Oct 2002, 09:26

Caldric wrote:Hmm yes pictures say a thousand words, shall we show a thousand pictures of Japanese barbarity? That would be worth what?
A thousand more words. And when it is all over we will be speechless, but hopefully we'll have learned something.
:idea:

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”