Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Would you consider the atomic bombs a war crime?

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by thecanadianfool, May 5, 2012.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Do you have any sources for said propaganda? Most of what I've seen on it is actually post war, at least the propaganda part.

    It's also worth noteing since you are so technical on your proof demands elsewhere that at least as far as I've seen those claims have not been proven false. There is little or no evidence to support them but that's different from being proven false.
     
  2. Bundesluftwaffe

    Bundesluftwaffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ah I see I the usuall "Totschlag" replies comming........but yours was so fast and not even trying to be objective. Well argued....

    You don´t know what Totschlagargument means ? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totschlagargument



    @ Takao: We are talking here about the 2 atomic bombings of cities right? Or did I read the thread title wrongly ?

    @ LWD: See the "death camp" threat for the soap etc. issues..
     
  3. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    You do know that the Japanese had stationed some 40,000-45,000 troops in Hiroshima...Don't you?

    Or are you considering those troops to be "innocent" civilians too.
     
  4. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    I did. It appears I was wrong there is more than a little evidence, indeed there is pretty conclusive evidence, that soap was made from human fat. Also some evidence as to artifacts being made with tanned human skin. The lamp shades are still less than conclusive though. All of which refutes your previous statment.
     
  5. Bundesluftwaffe

    Bundesluftwaffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    22
    In a nutshell you say, as soon any military is near a mass of civilians these are legitimate targets - I disagree strongly. Case closed for me....
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    In the grand scheme of things though your opinion doesn't matter does it? By the conventions in place at the time it was a valid target, so no war crime. Your statement is also a bit of a strawman. Hiroshima wasn't just he case of "any military" being near a mass of civlians it was a large number of military as well as military industrial and logistical targets clustered in the city.
     
  7. Bundesluftwaffe

    Bundesluftwaffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    22
    Nope by that time there were laws in place which make killing of civilians in war a war crime (eg. the nazis were charged upon excactly this law which was totally correct). Only that the Allied cause was the right one DOES not negate that law.

    Also I assume you consider the 9/11 twin towers than a fair target. Because in WTC 7 were military targets ? Just asking....
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Not "near" as you so blithely put it.

    But "in".

    Your failure to grasp this concept leads you to make your latest erroneous statement.

    There may have been military targets "in" WTC 7, specifically the 25th floor. Except that WTC 7 was not struck directly by any aircraft...

    Your question might be remotely relevant if there were "military targets" within WTC 1 & 2, the targets which were hit. AFAIK, there were none in WTC 1 & 2.



    The laws pertained to bombardment by land and by sea, there were none pertaining to bombardment from the air. Rules as to aerial bombardment were occasionally discussed, but none were ever made into law. Thus, while the "spirit" of the laws may have been violated(by everyone) the "letter" of the law was obeyed.

    Further, no "Nazis" were ever charged for any war crime pertaining to aerial bombardment. Although the Germans/Nazis did try to equate the dropping of a bomb on a military target from several miles up, with putting a bullet into a Jewish head a few feet away where the only possible nearby military target was the German soldier holding the gun.

    Thus we are left with

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law
     
  9. Bundesluftwaffe

    Bundesluftwaffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    22
    @ Takao: Firstly thanks at least you reply with good arguments. And I admit 9/11 wasn´t a good example, however the terrorists were able to destroy WTC7 too which had some "military" value. So partly justified, not twin towers however. But if one goes in line with the extreme view in your link than almost everything is a legitimate target. Including the bombings done by Axis and Soviets. But it is said, that bombing of Axis = unlawful but Allied ones = in line with law. As many people stated in the now closed thread.

    Also what about civilians that are victims themselves ? That are taken "hostage" by dicators etc. ?

    "The laws pertained to bombardment by land and by sea, there were none pertaining to bombardment from the air. Rules as to aerial bombardment were occasionally discussed, but none were ever made into law. Thus, while the "spirit" of the laws may have been violated(by everyone) the "letter" of the law was obeyed."

    If this is so than I was wrong, I thought the law also included air bombardements. However air bombardement is much more dangerous for civilians as eg. from ships or arty. I don´t agree with the extreme view in the wiki article for the record. I say, London, Coventry, Helsinki, Nanking etc.. was wrong but as well Hamburg, Dresden, Tokio, Hiroshima etc.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Then please show us what they were. I.e. try listing a source. The Avalon Project has a fairly complete listing of the various conventions if you need a lead.

    A number of flaws there. For one thing no declaration of war indeed no state to do so. Then there is the primarily civilian nature of the twin towers. I.e. they was so little military nature to the target that it's clear that that was not a consideration. Then there's the lack of a legimate reason (under the conventions) for even attacking the US in the first place. Even the attack on the Pentagon would be considered a war crime under the conventions as they exist now and indeed as they existed then.
     
  11. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    575
    Except it isn't.

    Bombers in 1944 don't miraculously appear overhead. A regime which can attempt to fortify almost the entire coast of Europe, should be able to build radar, bunkers, air raid sirens, AAA, and fighter aircraft in each city.

    In other words, defended cities were fair game. Open cities were not. How many Open cities had the Germans and Japanese declared prior to April '45?
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    An interesting question in it's own right. I found one. Athens. I guess a case could be made for Paris. There seem to be a number of others but none that I've run across in Germany.
     
  13. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    What alternatives to the bombs are being suggested?
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    The only alternative mentioned in the original post is Downfall.
     
  15. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    1,785
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, first, al-Qaeda are terrorists as they are not representatives of any recognized nation. So, anything they do will be considered "terrorism" regardless of a target's legitimacy.

    Second, they used captured civilian aircraft(jetliners) and not clearly marked military aircraft that could be defended against. So, the only way you might be "partially justified", is if the Allies had bombed German using German civilian airliners...Which they didn't.

    The view in the link is not an "extreme" one, but a "logical" one. In the mid-late 20th Century, almost everything is a legitimate military target. Civilians grow the food to feed the military, they make the military's weapons, clothes, ammunition, supplies, etc. In times of war, the make up the soldiers and replacements for those killed. The young grow up to be soldiers. Young and old are pressed into military service when things go badly. The larger a civilian population a nation has, the larger said nation's military can become. It is an inescapable fact that the continuance of a military is closely intertwined with it's civilian population.

    IIRC, most of the opinions, from the now closed thread, revolved around the basic "Germany started it" argument, and not necessarily a "bad" vs "good" argument. IIRC, this also led to a "who was really first" argument, and then there was the argument over what constituted a legitimate military target...But, basically, it was the "Germany started it" argument.



    Not sure what you are asking here?

    Taken hostage, as in Hitler and Stalin type "hostage"...As in forced labor and/or extermination. Or taken hostage...for use as "human shields" type hostage. Or taken hostage, as in for use as "bargaining chips".



    No, the laws did not include aerial bombardment, as it was to "new", and later efforts were "caught up in committee." IIRC, the only time a case came to trial that involved aerial bombardment of cities, it pertained to neutral cities bombed by the Germans in World War I, and did not pertain to the aerial bombardment of belligerent's cities.

    The closest they came to Treaty Law was the never adopted 1922-23 "The Hague Rules of Air Warfare."
    http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare

    later the League of Nations would try in 1938 with the issuance of the "PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR" resolution.

    http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D
    While a draft convention was formed shortly thereafter, it accomplished little before the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, and nothing that it did accomplish was legally binding.





    I would believe that any bombardment would be inherently dangerous for anyone. The Soviet did quite a number on Berlin, with their artillery, at the end. In the end, the Soviet capture of Berlin caused more German civilian casualties than did either atomic attack on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and it rivaled the casualties caused by the fire raid on Tokyo(March 9-10, 1945).

    It is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Just remember, that other may not share the same opinion and that they believe in their own opinions just as strongly as you believe in yours.
     
  16. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,350
    Likes Received:
    1,881
    Ah, the allotment was four atomic bomb for Kyushu and six for Honshu. Tactic was to drop a bomb on a hardpoint, then wait 30 minutes and send our troops through.

    I don't see a problem with that.
     
  17. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,572
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    Perhaps flaying was too time consuming and was abandoned in favor of burning to complete the task before the Allies arrive.

    Believe me, I really want once to agree with you on anything.

    What the difference it makes what happened to the all Nazi victims after they have been murdered because living in the Nazi custody was worse than the death itself. What the difference it makes whether the baby was burnt or flayed? Killing kids is itself gruesome enough. Are you trying to tell us: they lied about the hobby of Ilse Koch then everything else is propaganda? Then there was no Hollocaust. It's just propaganda!

    We all know what really happened -- you too.
     
  18. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,572
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    No. That means that army is deliberately using civilians as a Human Shield. Finally I agree with you once: a closed case -- for me too.
     
  19. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,572
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    A couple of bombs more, perhaps.

    (I'm glad to see you back! :) )
     
  20. Bundesluftwaffe

    Bundesluftwaffe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    22
    Hello, you don´t need to agree, you have your opinion I have mine-

    What you say in the 2nd paragraph I didn´t say at all, so also no need to reply for me :) I said, certain (meanwhile proven untrue) things were said in Allied war propaganda too.

    You posted as an example of Japanese brutality:

    SUB-LIEUTENANTS IN RACE TO FELL 100 CHINESE
    RUNNING CLOSE CONTEST
    Sub-Lieutenant Mukai Toshiaki and Sub-Lieutenant
    Noda Takeshi, both of the Katagiri unit at Kuyang,
    in a friendly contest to see which of them will first
    fell 100 Chinese in individual sword combat, are
    well in the final phase of their race, running almost
    neck to neck [sic].

    I posted that Allies used (untrue) propanda too....you have a tendency to read things that aren´t written, think about it. I am not defending any atrocities by the Axis at all.
     

Share This Page