Support NeoGAF

[IFireflyl]

Nobody is saying that japan was innocent, that would be a spin.

Saying that it is a war crime using the most barbaric weapon in human history without even knowing well the long lasting effects of this weapon, it is not.

You don't respond to normal bombs with nuclear bombs, and i'm sure that american was never in short supply of normal bombs during war.

Again, nobody knew the long-term fallout, and it was thought that the nuclear bomb was just a bigger bomb. You say ignorance is no excuse, but that is absolutely wrong. We didn't imprison people for making lead-based paint or using asbestos for insulation. Coca-Cola didn't go under for their using of cocaine in their beverages. There are so many new findings that allow us to re-calibrate going forward that we don't punish for retroactively. If we punished retroactively people would be far less likely to invent new things for fear of a study a decade or two in the future that would put them in jail or put them to death (I think some states still have the death penalty).

It has been discussed a few pages back, by a few people, so I won't repeat all again.
But it was the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, that was signed by the USA. And it already had provisions for attacks on civilians.

But then again, is it really necessary a international conventional on war laws, to understand that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is a crime?
If there were no prior conventions on war, to the Geneva convention of 1949, would we let all those Nazis go free?

And again, I proved that the Hague Conventions didn't apply.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-hiroshima-a-war-crime.1638610/page-4#post-266344322

Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military targets. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 did not prevent attacks on military targets even if there would be civilian casualties.

And again, Japan and their citizens were warned of bombings prior to them occurring. Japan's leadership failed to evacuate their citizens. The U.S. did what they could to mitigate civilian casualties. Japan didn't surrender before the bombings. Japan did not evacuate their citizens. Japan was the aggressor. In every way this is the fault of the Japanese military and leadership. I can't fathom why people are trying to spin the narrative that the defender went too far when there were no laws/conventions/treaties against the actions they took.

And no, we wouldn't let all those Nazi's go free even without previous laws/treaties/conventions. What I am saying is that you can't retroactively hold people accountable for crimes that weren't crimes at the time they were committed. Imagine if someone littered before there was a law against littering and a police officer saw it, and the next day a law went into effect that made littering illegal and the person was fined or jailed for it. That's ridiculous. Without the laws/treaties/conventions we could still punish those who attacked us, but without those laws/treaties/conventions you can't say the U.S. is guilty of a war crime. And the fact is that there was no actual law/treaty/convention violated, so there was no war crime.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a terrible thing. That doesn't mean we don't have to learn from it. Lessons were learned from this on a global scale. It just means that you can't call it a crime if it wasn't actually a crime at the time. Germany and Japan were guilty of war crimes that were actually international crimes at the time they committed the acts. That is the difference.

 

[Methos#1975]

I mean if we want to discuss a actual war crime committed by the allies I would choose the firebombing of Dresden. It had absolutely no military infrastructure in place and was a purely civilian target with no strategic value. The war was already pretty much over and we knew it but we killed over 120,000 for really no other reason than revenge.

 

[Robot Carnival]

as someone who was born in China but lives in the US and also a huge weeb before weeb was even a thing, I would say yes it's a war crime, but it's a necessary evil.

 

[GymWolf]

Again, nobody knew the long-term fallout, and it was thought that the nuclear bomb was just a bigger bomb. You say ignorance is no excuse, but that is absolutely wrong. We didn't imprison people for making lead-based paint or using asbestos for insulation. Coca-Cola didn't go under for their using of cocaine in their beverages. There are so many new findings that allow us to re-calibrate going forward that we don't punish for retroactively. If we punished retroactively people would be far less likely to invent new things for fear of a study a decade or two in the future that would put them in jail or put them to death (I think some states still have the death penalty).



And again, I proved that the Hague Conventions didn't apply.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-hiroshima-a-war-crime.1638610/page-4#post-266344322

Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military targets. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 did not prevent attacks on military targets even if there would be civilian casualties.

And again, Japan and their citizens were warned of bombings prior to them occurring. Japan's leadership failed to evacuate their citizens. The U.S. did what they could to mitigate civilian casualties. Japan didn't surrender before the bombings. Japan did not evacuate their citizens. Japan was the aggressor. In every way this is the fault of the Japanese military and leadership. I can't fathom why people are trying to spin the narrative that the defender went too far when there were no laws/conventions/treaties against the actions they took.

And no, we wouldn't let all those Nazi's go free even without previous laws/treaties/conventions. What I am saying is that you can't retroactively hold people accountable for crimes that weren't crimes at the time they were committed. Imagine if someone littered before there was a law against littering and a police officer saw it, and the next day a law went into effect that made littering illegal and the person was fined or jailed for it. That's ridiculous. Without the laws/treaties/conventions we could still punish those who attacked us, but without those laws/treaties/conventions you can't say the U.S. is guilty of a war crime. And the fact is that there was no actual law/treaty/convention violated, so there was no war crime.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a terrible thing. That doesn't mean we don't have to learn from it. Lessons were learned from this on a global scale. It just means that you can't call it a crime if it wasn't actually a crime at the time. Germany and Japan were guilty of war crimes that were actually international crimes at the time they committed the acts. That is the difference.

It is extremely hard to believe for me that no scientits had any clue about the long lasting effects, it sound absurd for such a particular type of weapon.

And let's be honest, if they knew, sure as hell they are not gonna tell you that to save the face.

 

[Methos#1975]

It is extremely hard to believe for me that no scientits had any clue about the long lasting effects, it sound absurd for such a particular type of weapon.

And let's be honest, if they knew, sure as hell they not gonna tell you that to save the face.

It's possible. I mean hell, they thought at first that the explosion would ignite the atmosphere and burn the entire earth. They really has no clear understanding of what it was they were creating.

 

[GymWolf]

It's possible. I mean hell, they thought at first that the explosion would ignite the atmosphere and burn the entire earth. They really has no clear understanding of what it was they were creating.

Both way are terrible, knowing the effects and doing iit anyway or not knowing the effect and give 2 fucks about it because it's not your land that is gonna suffer for the next 50 years or so.

 

[Methos#1975]

Both way are terrible, knowing the effects and doing iit anyway or not knowing the effect and give 2 fucks about it because it's not your land that is gonna suffer for the next 50 years or so.

To be fair, they also dropped them on US lands and had our own troops do war games in Fallout conditions exposing them, they thought differently back then I guess about the repurcussions

 

[Methos#1975]

This to me is the craziest shit ever

 

[winjer]

And again, I proved that the Hague Conventions didn't apply.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-hiroshima-a-war-crime.1638610/page-4#post-266344322

Hiroshima and Nagasaki where military targets. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 did not prevent attacks on military targets even if there would be civilian casualties.

And again, Japan and their citizens were warned of bombings prior to them occurring. Japan's leadership failed to evacuate their citizens. The U.S. did what they could to mitigate civilian casualties. Japan didn't surrender before the bombings. Japan did not evacuate their citizens. Japan was the aggressor. In every way this is the fault of the Japanese military and leadership. I can't fathom why people are trying to spin the narrative that the defender went too far when there were no laws/conventions/treaties against the actions they took.

And no, we wouldn't let all those Nazi's go free even without previous laws/treaties/conventions. What I am saying is that you can't retroactively hold people accountable for crimes that weren't crimes at the time they were committed. Imagine if someone littered before there was a law against littering and a police officer saw it, and the next day a law went into effect that made littering illegal and the person was fined or jailed for it. That's ridiculous. Without the laws/treaties/conventions we could still punish those who attacked us, but without those laws/treaties/conventions you can't say the U.S. is guilty of a war crime. And the fact is that there was no actual law/treaty/convention violated, so there was no war crime.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a terrible thing. That doesn't mean we don't have to learn from it. Lessons were learned from this on a global scale. It just means that you can't call it a crime if it wasn't actually a crime at the time. Germany and Japan were guilty of war crimes that were actually international crimes at the time they committed the acts. That is the difference.

Just because a town has a military base nearby, does not mean is fair game to nuke it.
The number of civilians killed was overwhelmingly more than combatants. This was a clear attack on civilians.

If the USA really wanted to just take out a military target, they didn't need to use nukes.
Not only they had plenty of conventional bombs, but also precision bombing sights that would allowed them to do it.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-hiroshima-a-war-crime.1638610/page-4#post-266344396

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[IFireflyl]

It is extremely hard to believe for me that no scientits had any clue about the long lasting effects, it sound absurd for such a particular type of weapon.

And let's be honest, if they knew, sure as hell they not gonna tell you that to save the face.

Obviously you haven't seen this:



The U.S. subjected their own soldiers to the test area for this. There is no way they would cripple their own military knowingly. Additionally, U.S. military units wondered around the charred remains of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the fact.

Just because a town has a military base nearby, does not mean is fair game to nuke it.

It absolutely did at the time.

The number of civilians killed was overwhelmingly more than combatants. This was a clear attack on civilians.

It wasn't about killing combatants. It was about taking out the military bases located there. Did you even read what my original post said? Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters which commanded the defense for all of Southern Japan. Anyone in war would take that out if given the opportunity.

If the USA really wanted to just take out a military target, they didn't need to use nukes.

That is your opinion.

Not only they had plenty of conventional bombs, but also precision bombing sights that would allowed them to do it.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-hiroshima-a-war-crime.1638610/page-4#post-266344396

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary

www.lawfareblog.com

I don't know what you're expecting me to read there that hasn't already been addressed. Again, the effects of radiation were not known to anyone at the time, and you can't blame the U.S. for war crimes after the fact for what they thought was simply a bigger bomb.

 

[winjer]

It absolutely did at the time.

It wasn't about killing combatants. It was about taking out the military bases located there. Did you even read what my original post said? Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters which commanded the defense for all of Southern Japan. Anyone in war would take that out if given the opportunity.

No it didn't, what Hiroshima and Nagasaki had was small stuff in the grand scheme of things. The military assets and personnel in those areas were insignificant.
And these bombings were done at a time when Japan and the USA were already discussing the surrender. And it was a matter of days until they would find a diplomatic agreement.
Nothing in these towns would ever justify using nuclear weapons. We are talking about killing nearly 400.000 civilians, while killing 30.00 combatants.
Those bombings probably killed more children than combatants.
Not to speak about the centuries of radiation that will cause untold disease.

That is your opinion.

No it's not. The USA had complete air superiority. And they had tons and tons of conventional bombs. And they had the precision bombing sights to do it without murdering hundreds of thousands of people.
But you know what is the telling sign that this was not a military target, is that it was a Presidential order. Done without any military advisory. Even MacArthur only found out about it after the order was given.

I don't know what you're expecting me to read there that hasn't already been addressed. Again, the effects of radiation were not known to anyone at the time, and you can't blame the U.S. for war crimes after the fact for what they thought was simply a bigger bomb.

It was not just a bigger bomb. Just take a look at the cold war, to understand that nuclear weapons are not just a bigger bomb.

 

[zcaa0g]

Good decisions, bad decisions. They bombed Pearl and Japan got exactly what they deserved. Nukes are the greatest deterrent in history.

 

[IFireflyl]

No it didn't, what Hiroshima and Nagasaki had was small stuff in the grand scheme of things. The military assets and personnel in those areas were insignificant.

I'm so glad that you refuted my source with just your own words. I super believe you.

When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, most of the military units, logistical arms, and command staff of the Second General Army were killed. Together with the Fifth Division, Fifty-Ninth Army, and other combat divisions in the city who were also hit, an estimated 20,000 Japanese combatants were killed.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_General_Army_(Japan)#History

And these bombings were done at a time when Japan and the USA were already discussing the surrender. And it was a matter of days until they would find a diplomatic agreement.

Prove it. Not with websites with no evidence who are just speculating. Provide actual evidence that Japan was actively engaged in discussions of surrender with the U.S.

Nothing in these towns would ever justify using nuclear weapons. We are talking about killing nearly 400.000 civilians, while killing 30.00 combatants.
Those bombings probably killed more children than combatants.

That is your opinion.

Not to speak about the centuries of radiation that will cause untold disease.

Nobody knew about this at the time. Not just people in America: nobody in the world knew the long-term effects of this when it was done.

No it's not. The USA had complete air superiority. And they had tons and tons of conventional bombs. And they had the precision bombing sights to do it without murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

With no prove that any traditional bombing would have done anything more to force a surrender. The 64 bombing targets prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't force a surrender.

But you know what is the telling sign that this was not a military target, is that it was a Presidential order. Done without any military advisory. Even MacArthur only found out about it after the order was given.

Speculation.

It was not just a bigger bomb. Just take a look at the cold war, to understand that nuclear weapons are not just a bigger bomb.

The Cold War was well after the fact. Again, we know NOW. You can't use hindsight to blame everyone for everything.

 

[winjer]

I'm so glad that you refuted my source with just your own words. I super believe you.

Here is a quote, since you refuse to believe me.

The first myth was started by President Harry Truman when he announced on Aug. 9, 1945, that “the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base … because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” Truman argued, in other words, that Hiroshima was a military target. Although Hiroshima contained some military-related industrial facilities—an army headquarters and troop-loading docks—the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel.

Prove it. Not with websites with no evidence who are just speculating. Provide actual evidence that Japan was actively engaged in discussions of surrender with the U.S.

Even in December of 1944, the factions within the Japanese army, were already certain of defeat and their diplomats started to probe the US government representatives and and also to Swedish representatives.
But these were unsuccessful, in part because of the issue with the Emperor and because the US still wanted to make the Japanese pay a bit more. Also, there were those in the military leadership that wanted to fight until the end.

Here is another quote, this one from Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address on October 5, 1945:

The Japanese had, in fact, already tried to make peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima. They were speaking to the Russians about how to end the war honorably and with the Emperor on the throne. . . . "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."

That is your opinion.

Here is a quote from Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff (in his memoirs):

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .
In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

Nobody knew about this at the time. Not just people in America: nobody in the world knew the long-term effects of this when it was done.

The effects of radiation were already known at the time. But most importantly, it was known the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons.
Here a re some excerpts from a petition to President Truman from Atomic Scientists, 1945

We believe that the United States ought not to resort to the use of atomic bombs in the present phase of the war, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan after the war are publicly announced and subsequently Japan is given an opportunity to surrender…Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities…
Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness…. we, the undersigned, respectfully petition that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.

With no prove that any traditional bombing would have done anything more to force a surrender. The 64 bombing targets prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't force a surrender.

Exactly, because it was all pending on the USA accepting not to prosecute the Emperor.
It was diplomacy that ended the war. Not bombs, and most certainly, not nuclear bombs dropped in civilian towns.

Speculation.

About the existence of the nuclear bombs, Admiral Nimitz was informed on July 29, 1945. General MacArthur was informed several days later. Both men received the information from General Spaatz the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific.
The authorizations were all made in May 1945, when the Target List was prepared and the orders to "use the atomic bombs on Japan as they become available". As the Trinity Test had not yet been done, only the simpler MK-I "Little Boy" type atomic bomb was certain to work. It was unlikely that more than about 6 of these could be made before the end of 1945.
Who else do you think could give the authorization to use nuclear weapons, but the President of the US.

The Cold War was well after the fact. Again, we know NOW. You can't use hindsight to blame everyone for everything.

Just look again at the plead made by the scientist to the US President.
Everyone knew even then that nuclear weapons were very dangerous. Even at the time.
These are not some yahoos just making stuff as it goes. Everyone knew full well what they were doing. And this includes Truman, when he authorized the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[akimbo009]

Just because a town has a military base nearby, does not mean is fair game to nuke it.
The number of civilians killed was overwhelmingly more than combatants. This was a clear attack on civilians.

If the USA really wanted to just take out a military target, they didn't need to use nukes.
Not only they had plenty of conventional bombs, but also precision bombing sights that would allowed them to do it.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/was-hiroshima-a-war-crime.1638610/page-4#post-266344396

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary

www.lawfareblog.com

This is devolving fast... But regarding precision weaponry you're putting to much stock in them at this time. They were really that accurate, required day time flights, and low altitude runs. All of which put the flights at risk. Japan is also pretty unique on that it's an island with a regular marine layer and high winds making it even more difficult and often requiring flights to be scrubbed. Anyway, it generally led to indescriment bombing just like most of the war.

 

[lachesis]

This is devolving fast... But regarding precision weaponry you're putting to much stock in them at this time. They were really that accurate, required day time flights, and low altitude runs. All of which put the flights at risk. Japan is also pretty unique on that it's an island with a regular marine layer and high winds making it even more difficult and often requiring flights to be scrubbed. Anyway, it generally led to indescriment bombing just like most of the war.

The book "Unbroken" that I mentioned - really shows how the bombers worked back then. The protagonist (real-life) Louis Zamperini was bombardier and the author goes in great depth detailing how "analogue" the whole bombing was.

 

[IFireflyl]

Here is a quote, since you refuse to believe me.

And again with no source. I have no idea the context of what you're referencing, or if it's a legitimate/reputable source.

Even in December of 1944, the factions within the Japanese army, were already certain of defeat and their diplomats started to probe the US government representatives and and also to Swedish representatives.
But these were unsuccessful, in part because of the issue with the Emperor and because the US still wanted to make the Japanese pay a bit more. Also, there were those in the military leadership that wanted to fight until the end.

Here is another quote, this one from Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address on October 5, 1945:

The party that wanted to talk peace agreements was a minority peace party that wasn't authorized to discuss terms. It would be like if America was engaged in a war and a few of our senators made the unilateral decision to go discuss the terms of our surrender. Nobody would listen to them because they wouldn't be able to uphold any terms, nor would they be the proper party to discuss the terms to the proper party in the U.S.

Additionally, Japan was facing a coup by its junior officers that it had to quell when the talks of surrender actually began.

Here is a quote from Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff (in his memoirs):

That was also his opinion. Other military leaders stated that Japan was not willing to surrender.

The effects of radiation were already known at the time. But most importantly, it was known the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons.
Here a re some excerpts from a petition to President Truman from Atomic Scientists, 1945

Radiation, sure. The problem is nuclear fallout. That's something that hadn't been measured or viewed before.

Exactly, because it was all pending on the USA accepting not to prosecute the Emperor.
It was diplomacy that ended the war. Not bombs, and most certainly, not nuclear bombs dropped in civilian towns.

You have provided no evidence to corroborate this. Everything you have provided is speculation.

About the existence of the nuclear bombs, Admiral Nimitz was informed on July 29, 1945. General MacArthur was informed several days later. Both men received the information from General Spaatz the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific.
The authorizations were all made in May 1945, when the Target List was prepared and the orders to "use the atomic bombs on Japan as they become available". As the Trinity Test had not yet been done, only the simpler MK-I "Little Boy" type atomic bomb was certain to work. It was unlikely that more than about 6 of these could be made before the end of 1945.
Who else do you think could give the authorization to use nuclear weapons, but the President of the US.

I meant speculation that this target was not a military target. I can think of many reasons why this would have been kept secret until the last possible reason. You don't go into a war and reveal your secret weapons to your enemy before you are ready to use them.

Just look again at the plead made by the scientist to the US President.
Everyone knew even then that nuclear weapons were very dangerous. Even at the time.
These are not some yahoos just making stuff as it goes. Everyone knew full well what they were doing. And this includes Truman, when he authorized the use of nuclear weapons.

Of course they knew they were dangerous. It was a bomb. In fact, it was the biggest bomb ever created up to that point.

 

[winjer]

This is devolving fast... But regarding precision weaponry you're putting to much stock in them at this time. They were really that accurate, required day time flights, and low altitude runs. All of which put the flights at risk. Japan is also pretty unique on that it's an island with a regular marine layer and high winds making it even more difficult and often requiring flights to be scrubbed. Anyway, it generally led to indescriment bombing just like most of the war.

Might I remind you that the air force would claim they could put a bomb inside a pickle barrel, thanks to the Norden sight. Of course this is exaggerated, but the fact remains that the USA already could do prevision bombing during WW2. And the US had air superiority.

 

[daffyduck]

The Japanese were on the losing team but refused to surrender, what do you do when it’s all out war and negotiations aren’t on the table?

I guess they could have nuked a non populated area and told them we will drop the next one on your head if you don’t wave the white flag.

Since they refused to surrender after the first one, that probably wouldn’t have worked anyway.

 

[winjer]

And again with no source. I have no idea the context of what you're referencing, or if it's a legitimate/reputable source.

It's from the article I posted previously.
And let's point out that you have not provided with any evidence to support your idea that Nagasaki and Hiroshima had such military instalations, that would require the use of nuclear weapons.
So Now, I ask you proof of what military installations were there in these towns, that required such extreme measures.

The party that wanted to talk peace agreements was a minority peace party that wasn't authorized to discuss terms. It would be like if America was engaged in a war and a few of our senators made the unilateral decision to go discuss the terms of our surrender. Nobody would listen to them because they wouldn't be able to uphold any terms, nor would they be the proper party to discuss the terms to the proper party in the U.S.

Additionally, Japan was facing a coup by its junior officers that it had to quell when the talks of surrender actually began.

It were several diplomats already initiating negotiations with the Allies. As stated by Admiral Nimitz in that quote.
Even when I provide you with quotes from the US officers in the fight at the time, you always try to make it seem as it's nothing.

Have you heard of Super Sunrise?
In early 1945 Japanese navy circles in Berlin tried to begin peace negotiations with the United States. Using their contacts with the arms trader Friedrich Wilhelm Hack, they sent Commander Fujimura Yoshikazu to Switzerland, where he opened talks with Allen W. Dulles of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services. Though the Japanese navy and Foreign Ministry showed some interest, the peace attempts finally failed since neither side took the initiative to an official level. Fujimura confused his government by claiming that the Americans had made the first step, while the U.S. side waited for proof that the administration in Tokyo was backing the navy officer's initiative.

That was also his opinion. Other military leaders stated that Japan was not willing to surrender.

It's the President's Chief of Staff.
And then there is also the quote I made from Nimitz, and the previous from MacArthur.
I'm quoting some of the biggest names of the war, and you still claim they are all wrong.

Radiation, sure. The problem is nuclear fallout. That's something that hadn't been measured or viewed before.

Now you are being fallacious.

You have provided no evidence to corroborate this. Everything you have provided is speculation.

You say that, even after quotes from MacArthur, clearly stating that the issue with the Emperor would stall the negotiations.

So here is another quote and another article.

Pacific War - Japanese Surrender, WWII, Allies

Pacific War - Japanese Surrender, WWII, Allies: The Allies’ reply to the Japanese offer of August 10, 1945, agreed to respect the sovereign status of the Japanese emperor on condition that he should be subject to the directives of the supreme commander of the Allied Powers. On August 14 the...

www.britannica.com

The Allies’ reply to the Japanese offer of August 10, 1945, agreed to respect the sovereign status of the Japanese emperor on condition that he should be subject to the directives of the supreme commander of the Allied Powers. On August 14 the Japanese in their turn agreed to this proviso. President Truman then announced Japan’s readiness to surrender, and elaborate plans were made to bring the war to an end.

I meant speculation that this target was not a military target. I can think of many reasons why this would have been kept secret until the last possible reason. You don't go into a war and reveal your secret weapons to your enemy before you are ready to use them.

400k civilians dead, to 30k combatants dead, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Once again, you are free to provide evidence of such amazing military installation in these cities, that would require a nuclear attack.

Of course they knew they were dangerous. It was a bomb. In fact, it was the biggest bomb ever created up to that point.

Then stop pretending that no one knew what would happen.

 

[akimbo009]

Might I remind you that the air force would claim they could put a bomb inside a pickle barrel, thanks to the Norden sight. Of course this is exaggerated, but the fact remains that the USA already could do prevision bombing during WW2. And the US had air superiority.

Well, that's not just an exaggeration but through evidence wrong. Japan had different weather conditions making it even less useful.

Besides that, Japanese manufacturing was often interspersed within their cities. In fact, a lot of bullet and gun assembly took place in converted shops and homes within the "cottage industry" infrastructure that was used in Pre-War Japan. This did mean targets where all over the place. Couples with the fact that most Japanese cities are the time were built of wood would have just resulted in fire storms - even with precision bombing. (Never mind fire storms were sometimes the point)

Again, in context of the time and limitations, it's easy to understand what happened and why the decisions were made. You don't seem to accept that it's a complex set of conditions - and seem hellbent convince others of some weird sin America has done to invalidate or undermine it's position or decisions today. It's really odd, and not even sure you know why you're so adamant to force others to draw the same conclusion.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Where does the 400k deaths for the bombing keep coming from? By now, everyone present at Pearl Harbor has died as well, do we count them too? Surely some of the survivors had their lifespans shortened because of injuries as well as all the people traumatized by the attack.

 

[iamblades]

Here is a quote, since you refuse to believe me.




Even in December of 1944, the factions within the Japanese army, were already certain of defeat and their diplomats started to probe the US government representatives and and also to Swedish representatives.
But these were unsuccessful, in part because of the issue with the Emperor and because the US still wanted to make the Japanese pay a bit more. Also, there were those in the military leadership that wanted to fight until the end.

Here is another quote, this one from Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address on October 5, 1945:






Here is a quote from Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff (in his memoirs):




The effects of radiation were already known at the time. But most importantly, it was known the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons.
Here a re some excerpts from a petition to President Truman from Atomic Scientists, 1945





Exactly, because it was all pending on the USA accepting not to prosecute the Emperor.
It was diplomacy that ended the war. Not bombs, and most certainly, not nuclear bombs dropped in civilian towns.


About the existence of the nuclear bombs, Admiral Nimitz was informed on July 29, 1945. General MacArthur was informed several days later. Both men received the information from General Spaatz the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific.
The authorizations were all made in May 1945, when the Target List was prepared and the orders to "use the atomic bombs on Japan as they become available". As the Trinity Test had not yet been done, only the simpler MK-I "Little Boy" type atomic bomb was certain to work. It was unlikely that more than about 6 of these could be made before the end of 1945.
Who else do you think could give the authorization to use nuclear weapons, but the President of the US.



Just look again at the plead made by the scientist to the US President.
Everyone knew even then that nuclear weapons were very dangerous. Even at the time.
These are not some yahoos just making stuff as it goes. Everyone knew full well what they were doing. And this includes Truman, when he authorized the use of nuclear weapons.

Japan up until the Emperor personally made the decision was only offering peace terms including them keeping China and Korea. They never came close to accepting the terms of the Potsdam declaration until the Emperor's statement.

I also don't know why you keep saying that the Emperor's status was negotiated, there are clear discussions on this on the US side and it was explicitly decided against because it would be seen as a concession. The closest the US would come to agreeing that the Emperor would be maintained is the statement in the Potsdam declaration that the Japanese people could choose their government. The documents signed by Japan themselves made it clear that the Emperor was subject to the rule of the occupier, so if MacArthur had wanted to arrest and try the Emperor, he could have.

As for the plea from the atomic scientists, the targeting committee explicitly asked the scientists of the interim committee to come up with a demonstration of the bomb that would be as effective as it's use on the list of targeted cities, but they could not. The Szilard petition was delivered to the Secretary of state and never seen by Truman until after Hiroshima, because the decision had already been made by the targeting committee and the interim committee that there was no plausible demonstration of the bomb that would have been effective. Could it have changed something if Truman had seen it? Maybe, but it doesn't really give a plausible alternative course of action. It argues for a technical demonstration of the bomb which the interim committee had already rejected as impractical without actually giving an example of a demonstration that would have been effective. It also argues that the bomb shouldn't be used unless the terms were public and Japan refused to surrender. At this time the terms were already public and Japan had refused to surrender, so the whole argument was moot by the time the petition was formalized.

Again I return to the main point though, what was the plausible alternative course of action that could have been taken given the facts that these decision makers were dealing with that would have resulted in a better outcome for Japan. We know blockade and invasion would have been much worse, that Japan was at risk of famine had the war dragged on into winter. No one who was asked could come up with a plausible demonstration use that would have been effective, and I certainly can't either.

 

[winjer]

Japan up until the Emperor personally made the decision was only offering peace terms including them keeping China and Korea. They never came close to accepting the terms of the Potsdam declaration until the Emperor's statement.

Japan was obviously trying to get the better deal it could. This is something all countries do in these types of negotiations.
But the fact remains that Japan accepted an unconditional surrender, with the promise of the Emperor to continue as ruler.

I also don't know why you keep saying that the Emperor's status was negotiated, there are clear discussions on this on the US side and it was explicitly decided against because it would be seen as a concession. The closest the US would come to agreeing that the Emperor would be maintained is the statement in the Potsdam declaration that the Japanese people could choose their government. The documents signed by Japan themselves made it clear that the Emperor was subject to the rule of the occupier, so if MacArthur had wanted to arrest and try the Emperor, he could have.

Because this was the point that was staling the negotiations. As stated by most historians.
And even MacArthur was quoted as saying this point was critical to getting a surrender from Japan.
The surrender agreement, states the hierarchy between the Emperor and the US representative.
But in no where does it state that MacArthur had the power to arrest and try the Emperor.

As for the plea from the atomic scientists, the targeting committee explicitly asked the scientists of the interim committee to come up with a demonstration of the bomb that would be as effective as it's use on the list of targeted cities, but they could not. The Szilard petition was delivered to the Secretary of state and never seen by Truman until after Hiroshima, because the decision had already been made by the targeting committee and the interim committee that there was no plausible demonstration of the bomb that would have been effective. Could it have changed something if Truman had seen it? Maybe, but it doesn't really give a plausible alternative course of action. It argues for a technical demonstration of the bomb which the interim committee had already rejected as impractical without actually giving an example of a demonstration that would have been effective. It also argues that the bomb shouldn't be used unless the terms were public and Japan refused to surrender. At this time the terms were already public and Japan had refused to surrender, so the whole argument was moot by the time the petition was formalized.

The scientist could not replicate the effects of a nuclear bomb in a city, because that would require the use of such a weapon in a real city. Of course that is unfeasible.
But the point I was making with another user, is that the scientists and military involved in the project knew full well about the destructive capabilities and the radiation issue.

Again I return to the main point though, what was the plausible alternative course of action that could have been taken given the facts that these decision makers were dealing with that would have resulted in a better outcome for Japan. We know blockade and invasion would have been much worse, that Japan was at risk of famine had the war dragged on into winter. No one who was asked could come up with a plausible demonstration use that would have been effective, and I certainly can't either.

You assume that it was the bombs that made Japan surrender. But there is no evidence of that.
Do you have any evidence that show that the Japanese were so afraid of these bombs, they would immediately surrender?
In fact, the Japanese thought the USA had dropped all the nukes they had and it would take several months until the US could get another.
They were not very wrong, the US already had another nuke ready to deploy. But they would require more time to make more.
The Japanese were just biding for time to get a better deal, which they got, with the assurances that the Emperor would remain.
It also helped a lot that Russia declared war on Japan in the 9th. One thing is to lose territorial sovereignty to the USA, another would be to lose it to the USSR.
Japan still has problems with Russia over the Kuri Islands.


Herbert Hoover’s diary, pp 350-352 regarding a May 1946 meeting with MacArthur:

“I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we could have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." In a postwar interview with journalist Norman Cousins, MacArthur expressed the view that there was "no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier...if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

How about one of the biggest journalistic articles of the War

Chicago Tribune History

Historical News and Comment Chicago Tribune History Michael A. Hoffman II Perhaps the most telling aspect of World War Two historical orthodoxy is its one-dimensional view of war criminals; by current definition these are the losers of a war. The winners decide the degree of the losers’...

www.ihr.org

Some proof of the former was offered by Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan. Due to wartime censorship, he was forced to withhold for seven months the biggest story of America's war in the Pacific. It was finally published on the Sunday following VJ-Day, August 19,1945, on the front pages of both the Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald.

Trohan's article revealed that two days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, the president received a crucial, forty page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Jap officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August.

The MacArthur communication was leaked to Trohan in early 1945 by Admiral William D. Leahy, FDR's chief of staff, who feared it would be classified as top secret for decades or even destroyed. The authenticity of Trohan's article (which elicited no editorial notice or re-publication in any other major U.S. newspaper), was never challenged by the White House. Former President Herbert Hoover personally queried General MacArthur on the Tribune's story and the general acknowledged its accuracy in every detail.

According to Harry Elmer Barnes, Truman was aware of the January surrender offer by the Japanese and privately confessed that both atomic warfare as well as further conventional military operations were unnecessary for concluding the war in the Pacific.

The significance of General MacArthur's statement to Roosevelt is monumental. Trohan's article shows that the war in the Pacific could have been over by the early Spring and that Roosevelt had sent thousands of American boys to needless deaths at Iwo Jima and Okinawa as Truman would later do to hundreds of thousands of civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The measure of FDR can be found in the realization that he dismissed MacArthur's report after only a "casual reading" and described the general as a "poor politician." Indeed, in the politics of mass murder MacArthur was a non-contender. The skilled players, FDR, Truman and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson tried out their new military "toy," as Barnes described the A-bomb, without a scintilla of justification.

Defeat Seen Inevitable

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more.

The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:

1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.
2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.
3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

Would Give Up Territory

4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.
5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.
6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.
7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

 

[MisterFalcon]

How about one of the biggest journalistic articles of the War

Chicago Tribune History

Historical News and Comment Chicago Tribune History Michael A. Hoffman II Perhaps the most telling aspect of World War Two historical orthodoxy is its one-dimensional view of war criminals; by current definition these are the losers of a war. The winners decide the degree of the losers’...

www.ihr.org

That article was wrong, no proposals of any kind were communicated by the Japanese. The only thing was an attempt to get the Soviet Union to agree to act as an intermediate party for future negotiations.

"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.

www.nationalww2museum.org

The sole Japanese diplomatic effort sanctioned by the key Japanese leadership was to secure the Soviet Union as a mediator to negotiate an end to the war. That effort ran through Sato. Decoded Japanese cables made American leaders fully aware that none of the Japanese diplomatic or military representatives in Europe who presented themselves as seeking peace on behalf of Japan carried actual sanction.

Japan’s one authorized diplomatic initiative required two things: 1) concessions that would enlist the Soviets as mediators; and 2) Japanese terms to end the war. Sato relentlessly exposed the fact that Japan never completed either of these two fundamental steps.

...

Sato then went for the jugular. He insisted that the crucial proof that Japan seriously sought an end to the war would be a statement of Japan’s peace terms. Togo could not provide terms because even within the tiny inner circle who authorized the Soviet initiative, there was never serious discussion, much less agreement, on actual Japanese terms to end the war.

The idea that the Japanese were about to surrender would be offensively stupid to anyone involved in the war in the Pacific. The Japanese had fought to the last man for the most insignificant sliver of land and it was only getting worse with Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs by the thousands once the Home Islands got near.

 

[akimbo009]

That article was wrong, no proposals of any kind were communicated by the Japanese. The only thing was an attempt to get the Soviet Union to agree to act as an intermediate party for future negotiations.

"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.

www.nationalww2museum.org

The idea that the Japanese were about to surrender would be offensively stupid to anyone involved in the war in the Pacific. The Japanese had fought to the last man for the most insignificant sliver of land and it was only getting worse with Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs by the thousands once the Home Islands got near.

Fairly sure youre arguing with someone who has half an understanding and a full on agenda.

 

[winjer]

That article was wrong, no proposals of any kind were communicated by the Japanese. The only thing was an attempt to get the Soviet Union to agree to act as an intermediate party for future negotiations.

"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.

www.nationalww2museum.org

The idea that the Japanese were about to surrender would be offensively stupid to anyone involved in the war in the Pacific. The Japanese had fought to the last man for the most insignificant sliver of land and it was only getting worse with Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs by the thousands once the Home Islands got near.

That speaks about what Sato thought about Tōgō and their negotiations.
But you forget that there were several factions fighting to different outcomes. Some wanted peace and were willing to sacrifice more, like the article I posted, it was a small faction that was trying to open negotiations.
Tōgō was much worse, as he intended to keep all that Japan had conquered. And then there was those who wanted to fight to the very end, even if they had to commit a coup against the Emperor.

Now if you read the article I posted, you can see no references to Tōgō or Sato. So claiming it's false, it's not correct.
Something very similar happened in Germany, especially near the end. One of the first to try a peace settlement was Rudolf Hess, who failed spectacularly.
But near the end, Goering and Himmler a were talking with the Allies. All the while Hitler wanted to fight to the very end.

 

[IFireflyl]

It's from the article I posted previously.

After reviewing the quote it actually confirms exactly what I said. It states that it contains an army headquarters (that was the 2nd General Army headquarters I was referring to), and a troop loading dock. Both of which would be extremely beneficial targets to hit for anyone in war.

And let's point out that you have not provided with any evidence to support your idea that Nagasaki and Hiroshima had such military instalations, that would require the use of nuclear weapons.

I never said that the "required" the use of nuclear weapons to destroy the targets. I only said they were valid targets to be bombed, and that it's the fault of the Japanese leadership that their civilian populations weren't evacuated from the cities.

So Now, I ask you proof of what military installations were there in these towns, that required such extreme measures.

See above. It isn't about what measures were required. It was whether they were good (military) targets (they were), and if the U.S. violated any laws/treaties/conventions by dropping these bombs (it did not).

It were several diplomats already initiating negotiations with the Allies. As stated by Admiral Nimitz in that quote.
Even when I provide you with quotes from the US officers in the fight at the time, you always try to make it seem as it's nothing.

Because quotes from officers don't mean anything when other officers of equal or greater rank say something contrary. I don't want hearsay. I want you to provide concrete evidence that there were talks of surrender occurring with the appropriate parties on both sides. And the minority peace party that was trying to talk surrender terms, prior to the Emperor finally getting involved, was not authorized by the Japanese leadership to engage in terms of surrender. Any discussions they attempted are moot because they didn't have the authority to surrender on behalf of Japan. See the below point.

Have you heard of Super Sunrise?
In early 1945 Japanese navy circles in Berlin tried to begin peace negotiations with the United States. Using their contacts with the arms trader Friedrich Wilhelm Hack, they sent Commander Fujimura Yoshikazu to Switzerland, where he opened talks with Allen W. Dulles of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services. Though the Japanese navy and Foreign Ministry showed some interest, the peace attempts finally failed since neither side took the initiative to an official level. Fujimura confused his government by claiming that the Americans had made the first step, while the U.S. side waited for proof that the administration in Tokyo was backing the navy officer's initiative.

This corroborates what I have been saying. "...the peace attempts finally failed since neither side took the initiative to an official level." At least read the stuff you're posting before telling me I'm wrong.

In fact:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/067a.pdf

The final paragraph of this document is the Emperor confirming that the atomic bombs played a very real part in their surrender.

It's the President's Chief of Staff.
And then there is also the quote I made from Nimitz, and the previous from MacArthur.
I'm quoting some of the biggest names of the war, and you still claim they are all wrong.

I'm not claiming they are wrong. I'm saying they were speculating, and there is no hard evidence to corroborate their claims.

Now you are being fallacious.

Way to refute me with facts. /s

How could anyone have known about nuclear fallout before we had nuclear fallout? Radiation is one thing, but it had never been tested to see that fallout would occur. That's why our own soldiers were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after. Nobody knew they were being bombarded with radiation from the fallout.

You say that, even after quotes from MacArthur, clearly stating that the issue with the Emperor would stall the negotiations.

So here is another quote and another article.

Pacific War - Japanese Surrender, WWII, Allies

Pacific War - Japanese Surrender, WWII, Allies: The Allies’ reply to the Japanese offer of August 10, 1945, agreed to respect the sovereign status of the Japanese emperor on condition that he should be subject to the directives of the supreme commander of the Allied Powers. On August 14 the...

www.britannica.com

See my PDF above that shows the Emperor stating to his staff that the bombs played a part in their surrender.

400k civilians dead, to 30k combatants dead, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Once again, you are free to provide evidence of such amazing military installation in these cities, that would require a nuclear attack.

Once again, I didn't say it was the only way to accomplish the objective. They could have done standard bombing which would take a greater amount of time and ammunition, and it wouldn't have swayed the Emperor anymore than the previous 64 bombings had. Not to mention a greater chance for U.S. military forces to be shot down in planes and the like.

Then stop pretending that no one knew what would happen.

They knew they were dangerous. They didn't know about the nuclear fallout that would decimate the area for generations. Nobody could know that until after the fact.

 

[akimbo009]

After reviewing the quote it actually confirms exactly what I said. It states that it contains an army headquarters (that was the 2nd General Army headquarters I was referring to), and a troop loading dock. Both of which would be extremely beneficial targets to hit for anyone in war.


I never said that the "required" the use of nuclear weapons to destroy the targets. I only said they were valid targets to be bombed, and that it's the fault of the Japanese leadership that their civilian populations weren't evacuated from the cities.



See above. It isn't about what measures were required. It was whether they were good (military) targets (they were), and if the U.S. violated any laws/treaties/conventions by dropping these bombs (it did not).



Because quotes from officers don't mean anything when other officers of equal or greater rank say something contrary. I don't want hearsay. I want you to provide concrete evidence that there were talks of surrender occurring with the appropriate parties on both sides. And the minority peace party that was trying to talk surrender terms, prior to the Emperor finally getting involved, was not authorized by the Japanese leadership to engage in terms of surrender. Any discussions they attempted are moot because they didn't have the authority to surrender on behalf of Japan. See the below point.



This corroborates what I have been saying. "...the peace attempts finally failed since neither side took the initiative to an official level." At least read the stuff you're posting before telling me I'm wrong.

In fact:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/067a.pdf

The final paragraph of this document is the Emperor confirming that the atomic bombs played a very real part in their surrender.



I'm not claiming they are wrong. I'm saying they were speculating, and there is no hard evidence to corroborate their claims.



Way to refute me with facts. /s

How could anyone have known about nuclear fallout before we had nuclear fallout? Radiation is one thing, but it had never been tested to see that fallout would occur. That's why our own soldiers were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after. Nobody knew they were being bombarded with radiation from the fallout.



See my PDF above that shows the Emperor stating to his staff that the bombs played a part in their surrender.



Once again, I didn't say it was the only way to accomplish the objective. They could have done standard bombing which would take a greater amount of time and ammunition, and it wouldn't have swayed the Emperor anymore than the previous 64 bombings had. Not to mention a greater chance for U.S. military forces to be shot down in planes and the like.



They knew they were dangerous. They didn't know about the nuclear fallout that would decimate the area for generations. Nobody could know that until after the fact.

Can we also stop saying the bombs caused generational harm. It hasn't, and in fact, the cities are thriving today with little to no measurable residuals radiation or harm.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects | K=1 Project

k1project.columbia.edu

It's not Fallout or anything. Near term after the bombing there was impact (5- 8 years) but most of the radioactive material got blown into the atmosphere where it is negligible (it's not a nuclear reactor, that's a different animal and problem).

 

[winjer]

After reviewing the quote it actually confirms exactly what I said. It states that it contains an army headquarters (that was the 2nd General Army headquarters I was referring to), and a troop loading dock. Both of which would be extremely beneficial targets to hit for anyone in war.

And you do realize these military assets are nothing special. There is no huge army. No new super weapons.
Nothing in those two towns merit the use of nuclear weapons.

I never said that the "required" the use of nuclear weapons to destroy the targets. I only said they were valid targets to be bombed, and that it's the fault of the Japanese leadership that their civilian populations weren't evacuated from the cities.

When the amount of civilians is so big, and the military assets are nothing special, the use of nuclear weapons are not justified.

Because quotes from officers don't mean anything when other officers of equal or greater rank say something contrary. I don't want hearsay. I want you to provide concrete evidence that there were talks of surrender occurring with the appropriate parties on both sides. And the minority peace party that was trying to talk surrender terms, prior to the Emperor finally getting involved, was not authorized by the Japanese leadership to engage in terms of surrender. Any discussions they attempted are moot because they didn't have the authority to surrender on behalf of Japan. See the below point.

I already showed several evidences of several Japanese channels that were trying to open negotiations. Some more honest than others, but it was something.
MacArthur did said, peace was possible at the start of 1945. This is not some guy. It's the person that in the end signed the surrender and that managed the Japanese territory.
And those same articles showed that the US had several officers that were receptive to the openings. But even to start some serious negotiations it is necessary to have some basic understanding, something both sides were unable to achieve.

I think most people underestimate the Japanese unity in the war, which was not that big.
In fact, the navy and army were extremely suspicious of each other. To the point of both having their own air force. The army having it's own ships. And the navy having it's own land forces. Simply because they didn't want to cooperate. It got so bad at points, they would sabotage each others plans.

This corroborates what I have been saying. "...the peace attempts finally failed since neither side took the initiative to an official level." At least read the stuff you're posting before telling me I'm wrong.

Correct, there was not even a basic agreement that would allow the initiation of proper peace talks.
But you have to admit that there were attempts from both the US, USSR and Japan to at least start negotiating.

In fact:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/documents/067a.pdf

The final paragraph of this document is the Emperor confirming that the atomic bombs played a very real part in their surrender.

Correct, they should not lose time and take the opportunity to get a peace treaty.
Which they got, when the USA accepted to maintain the Emperor in power. As I have showed you in several quotes from very important people in the US side.

I'm not claiming they are wrong. I'm saying they were speculating, and there is no hard evidence to corroborate their claims.

They were tight there, when history was happening.
The President's Chief of Staff saw the whole history unfolding, most of the time, right next to the President. Nimitz and MacArthur were right in the thick of battle.
They are not just speculating, they were making history.

Way to refute me with facts. /s

How could anyone have known about nuclear fallout before we had nuclear fallout? Radiation is one thing, but it had never been tested to see that fallout would occur. That's why our own soldiers were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after. Nobody knew they were being bombarded with radiation from the fallout.

Because the US had already tested nuclear bombs in the Nevada territory. So they knew about the fallout and radiation.
We are talking about the some of the most intelligent people in the world. Plenty of award winning physicists in the Manhattan team.

Once again, I didn't say it was the only way to accomplish the objective. They could have done standard bombing which would take a greater amount of time and ammunition, and it wouldn't have swayed the Emperor anymore than the previous 64 bombings had. Not to mention a greater chance for U.S. military forces to be shot down in planes and the like

But it was the worst way to achieve the objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but I'm done with this argument. And I think that you are as well.
We are at a point when we are just repeating the same arguments.
Feel free to respond to my post, but I won't respond again.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm sorry, but I'm done with this argument. And I think that you are as well.
We are at a point when we are just repeating the same arguments.
Feel free to respond to my post, but I won't respond again.

That's probably for the best since you keep using make believe to "prove" your points. Like saying that wiping out almost all of the leadership for the 2nd General Army wasn't anything special. That was the branch of the Japanese army that was responsible for the defense of Honshū, Kyūshū and Shikoku. But yeah, no big deal right? It's common sense that this was extremely advantageous for the U.S., especially if an unconditional surrender did not occur which would have prolonged the war. You keep living in your fantasy land.

 

[German Hops]

 

[Yoda]

Some of you guys should take the time to research this topic. A lot of you clearly don't grasp (at the very least) the nuances of the pacific theater in WWII.

• The Japanese Empire was on a similar Nazi style military conquest were they'd 'cleanse' most of the countries they invaded. If Nazi Germany hadn't been so awful, they'd have the same stain that persists for Germany to this day. Feel free to browse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes if you're curious.

• The targets weren't purely civilian. Hiroshima had been retrofitted to become a manufacturer of many military armaments. Similarly Nagasaki (which was actually a backup targets due to bad weather) was a major port that had turned into a naval base for the Japanese Empire. In both cases, leaflets warning of the attack were dropped in advance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Organization_and_training

• Surrender due to the supposed invasion of the USSR is speculation that become prominent longer after the bombings. There was less than a week between the final bombing and the absolute surrender and said claims were never corroborated by detained officials, the emperor (he wasn't executed), or those close to the emperor.

So had there been a land invasion, how many civilians would've died? A lot more than ended up dying in the two bombings. Does civilians dying during an invasion as collateral damage (which like the bomb, you know will happen) make it not a war crime? There were no other options unless you were OK with leaving Imperial Japan as a sovereign nation, which I really hope everyone here understands wasn't acceptable at all (unless you'd also be OK with Nazi Germany being also remaining as a sovereign nation). So no, dropping atomic bombs on Imperial Japan was not a war crime. Had the bombs been made sooner they'd have been used on Nazi Germany, which most likely would've saved more lives than the slow motion carnage of the land invasion of the Allies (no surrender until the USSR was literally in Berlin).

In a perfect world there'd be no war, in a slightly less perfect war, the fighting would be exclusive to the members of each side's military. But the reality is war is an existential crisis for a civilization. Depending on how existential it becomes, the diving line between the military and non military ceases to exist. It's awful, but that's how it is.

 

[IFireflyl]

Honestly, the votes shock me. I hope the ~60% of GAF that voted yes never has to go through a world war where their country was targeted and bombed while trying to not get directly involved, and then try to make the best decision on how to force the surrender of the aggressor while saving the most lives of their own population. This reeks of either ignorance or poor revisionist history. There were actual war crimes committed by the allied powers during World War II. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.

 

[Toons]

Yes. Yes it was.

 

[TheGrat1]

Based on the Hague conventions, general principles of international law, jus cogens etc..., i can safely say that the indiscriminate bombing of the city was indeed a war crime. But that doesn't seem to resonate with a lot of people.

And don't come give me the "b-but it was total war!" crap. Everyone knows that in a war, you don't attack civilians on purpose.

You tell me that THIS isn't a war crime?

Had the Germans won, wouldn't they have put some people on trial on the allies side for war crimes?

Good God, man. Educate yourself. I'll quote myself from the Ukraine thread:

The purpose of the bombings was not to kill innocents. I can not think of a single war in modern history that ended simply because civilians were killed. This may surprise you: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (especially by 1945 standards) legitimate military targets. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, the site of the Imperial Naval Academy and the home port of the Japanese Navy. Nagasaki was home to several factories that supported the war effort, making torpedoes and ammunition. It was also a Naval port and given it's location it was usually the last stop for troops shipping off to the mainland. If they had the ability to affect it, it would have doubtlessly been the initial stop for troops returning from the mainland to defend the home islands as the Americans closed in. However, the IJN had been almost completely destroyed by that point and any oversea troop movements would have literally been blown out of the water by the American Navy.

Bombing cities was typical at the time. No one considered it a war crime (except, ironically, the Germans when it started happening to them. Goebbels called it "bomb-terror"). Industries that supported the war effort as well as political headquarters were in cities. The fact that they were surrounded by civilians could not be helped. A very important thing to remember is that bombing then is nothing like today. You basically had to mass hundreds of planes to fly over an area and bomb the shit out it with the driving doctrine being quantity over quality. You basically dropped your bombs and hoped they hit their targets. Getting most of your ordinance within 2,000 feet of the target considered great, and that was during the daytime when you could see what you were flying over.

The most important thing to remember: The US spent months dropping thousands of leaflets telling civilians to leave the major cities because they were going to be bombed to hell and back, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they did. The government evacuated virtually everyone that could not work in a factory or hold a rifle (children, elderly) to the countryside or just outside the cities.

Plenty of cities were bombed. Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Berlin, Stalingrad, Tokyo, Dresden etc. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no different. The bomb was used for a practical test of it's effectiveness and shock the enemy into surrender. Which it barely did. Even after the second bomb and surrender was decided upon there was and attempt to overthrow the emperor for giving up. Outside of immediately surrendering after Germany was defeated, the bombs were the best outcome for Japan. I can not imagine how much further behind schedule they would be if the US and Soviets had to take over the entire country in a land invasion and march into Tokyo to end the war. So many more people would have died just from starvation and the entirety of the country would have been ravaged.

The Potsdam Declaration was made in July. Japan could have surrendered then, they chose not to.

......

Excuse me and my answer will be controversial, but what they did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...

It is not only a great barbarity, it is a great crime and a shame what they did with the poor Japanese.

This criminal act is inexcusable.

Warning people to leave cities because they are going to be bombed. You call that barbarism?

The aftereffects of nuclear warfare are devastating including a substantial increase in birth defects and cancer. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more heinous than using nuclear weapons. An invasion would have been kinder to the Japanese.

You think an invasion would have been kind???
You both need to watch this:


Not to mention a protracted invasion would mean a Soviet invasion and occupation as well, assuming the US allowed them to cross the Sea of Japan. You really think 45 years of 1/3 of Japan being under Socialist occupation would have been preferable to what happened? Millions of people alive today (in Japan and around the world) simply would not exist because of this invasion and the subsequent mass starvation that was already setting in when the bombs were dropped. Japan would be nowhere near the nation it is today. The bombs were bad, war always is. The alternatives were worse, for everyone.

22,000 Japanese and 7,000 Americans died in the battle of Iwo Jima. Just the deaths, not all casualties. That island is 20 square kilometers.
Okinawa: 110,000 Japanese Dead. 20,000 Americans dead. 2,281 square kilometers.
Kantō, Chūbu, Kansai, Chūgoku, Shikoku, and Kyūshū (Basically everything from Tokyo to the south mainland) = 2.2 million square kilometers. That is the invasion you said would be kinder. We can only imagine the deaths on that scale.

You guys have weird concept of barbarism and kindness.

 

[Tams]

Some like to frame this quote as something that we shall not go into here. But this thread is showing it heavily. And it's those same people who dismiss this quote that it applies to the most.

'Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.'

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The only thing that I remember about this topic was a podcast telling the history of the Manhattan Project. And how United States spend so much money (and they were running out of time) so, they needed an excuse to use the bomb. (At least that is what I remember thinking).

I think the "War Crime" concept is defined legally in international law of something right?. So I am not going to say it is or it isn't.

But just from an ignorant point of view of recent history. I cannot equate something as Destructive as those bombs.

Some people I see basically saying that United States did a favour to the rest of world (and Japan itself) by dropping those bombs.

I wonder tho. If dropping big as bombs is the solution....why it hasn't been dropped again?

 

[Outlier]

No. If you want your enemy to know you mean business you put them in their place and make sure they know you'll do it again if they don't bend the knee.

It's not nice or pretty, but which would you prefer?

 

[Bojji]

They had Korea occupied at the time and were imprisoning them in camps and erasing their history. They did unspeakable things. They got their asses kicked and got the fuck out of Korea. Fuck them.

It's funny how the west doesn't know that.

Yoko Ono used to play that shitty card too. Like she was sone poor Japanese girl and owed something. What a joke.

Compared to Nazi Germany Japan history is super whitewashed, only few people know true scope of their crimes and atrocities they commited.

Unit 731 anyone?

 

[MisterFalcon]

That speaks about what Sato thought about Tōgō and their negotiations.
But you forget that there were several factions fighting to different outcomes. Some wanted peace and were willing to sacrifice more, like the article I posted, it was a small faction that was trying to open negotiations.
Tōgō was much worse, as he intended to keep all that Japan had conquered. And then there was those who wanted to fight to the very end, even if they had to commit a coup against the Emperor.

Now if you read the article I posted, you can see no references to Tōgō or Sato. So claiming it's false, it's not correct.
Something very similar happened in Germany, especially near the end. One of the first to try a peace settlement was Rudolf Hess, who failed spectacularly.
But near the end, Goering and Himmler a were talking with the Allies. All the while Hitler wanted to fight to the very end.

That's exactly the problem with the article, they mention 'responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.' without naming them. Who are these people? Did they even exist? In August 1945 it would not have been possible for the Chicago Tribune to talk to these supposed envoys to verify their existence so they based this purely on whatever source in the US military came up with it. In the German examples the peace overtures were verified after the war to have happened. None of the Japanese were.

After the bombs were dropped the US military establishment on all level (rightly) felt threatened by this new development where a dozen aviators can decide a war. It does not take a genius to see the next step where nukes go on rockets and even those aviators are no longer needed and the President can destroy an enemy nation himself at the push of a button. Undermining the role of the bombs and emphasising the role of the blockade (Navy), strategic bombing (Air Force) and Soviet invasion (Army) are vital for those services' survival.

 

[strange headache]

Honestly, the votes shock me. I hope the ~60% of GAF that voted yes never has to go through a world war where their country was targeted and bombed while trying to not get directly involved, and then try to make the best decision on how to force the surrender of the aggressor while saving the most lives of their own population. This reeks of either ignorance or poor revisionist history. There were actual war crimes committed by the allied powers during World War II. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.

The European continent says hi. You're not the only one whose ancestors went through war, even worse, our cities were in complete shambles when all was said and done. So spare us the patronizing.

You are arguing from a purely legal positivist perspective, which is an absolutely absurd position to take when discussing the many atrocities committed in both world wars.
Following your logic one would need to absolve every Nazi accused during the Nuremberg trials. Heck, you'd need to let Eichmann go based on the narrow-viewed perception that he didn't break any laws per se.

There are no two ways about it that the US instrumentalized innocent civilian lives to achieve strategic victory. To use people merely as means is in itself a moral wrong. That is what it means to uphold a person's dignity, to acknowledge individual rights irrespective of the consequences. That is also the basic principle upon which the universal declaration of human rights was founded upon merely 3 years after Hiroshima.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Good God, man. Educate yourself. I'll quote myself from the Ukraine thread:

......

Warning people to leave cities because they are going to be bombed. You call that barbarism?

You think an invasion would have been kind???
You both need to watch this:


Not to mention a protracted invasion would mean a Soviet invasion and occupation as well, assuming the US allowed them to cross the Sea of Japan. You really think 45 years of 1/3 of Japan being under Socialist occupation would have been preferable to what happened? Millions of people alive today (in Japan and around the world) simply would not exist because of this invasion and the subsequent mass starvation that was already setting in when the bombs were dropped. Japan would be nowhere near the nation it is today. The bombs were bad, war always is. The alternatives were worse, for everyone.

22,000 Japanese and 7,000 Americans died in the battle of Iwo Jima. Just the deaths, not all casualties. That island is 20 square kilometers.
Okinawa: 110,000 Japanese Dead. 20,000 Americans dead. 2,281 square kilometers.
Kantō, Chūbu, Kansai, Chūgoku, Shikoku, and Kyūshū (Basically everything from Tokyo to the south mainland) = 2.2 million square kilometers. That is the invasion .

Good God, man. Educate yourself. I'll quote myself from the Ukraine thread:

......

Warning people to leave cities because they are going to be bombed. You call that barbarism?

You think an invasion would have been kind???
You both need to watch this:


Not to mention a protracted invasion would mean a Soviet invasion and occupation as well, assuming the US allowed them to cross the Sea of Japan. You really think 45 years of 1/3 of Japan being under Socialist occupation would have been preferable to what happened? Millions of people alive today (in Japan and around the world) simply would not exist because of this invasion and the subsequent mass starvation that was already setting in when the bombs were dropped. Japan would be nowhere near the nation it is today. The bombs were bad, war always is. The alternatives were worse, for everyone.

22,000 Japanese and 7,000 Americans died in the battle of Iwo Jima. Just the deaths, not all casualties. That island is 20 square kilometers.
Okinawa: 110,000 Japanese Dead. 20,000 Americans dead. 2,281 square kilometers.
Kantō, Chūbu, Kansai, Chūgoku, Shikoku, and Kyūshū (Basically everything from Tokyo to the south mainland) = 2.2 million square kilometers. That is the invasion you said would be kinder. We can only imagine the deaths on that scale.

You guys have weird concept of barbarism and kindness.

That in the end they dropped the bombs and killed civilians and children... It is a very cruel and cowardly act.

 

[Last Prime]

https://allthatsinteresting.com/japanese-cannibalism-ww2

 

[NeoGiffer]

 

[Chronicle]

Compared to Nazi Germany Japan history is super whitewashed, only few people know true scope of their crimes and atrocities they commited.

Unit 731 anyone?

한국 사람 이에요?

 

[German Hops]

Good God, man. Educate yourself. I'll quote myself from the Ukraine thread:

Bitch please.

The nuclear attacks classifies as a war crime, since it violates the Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land, and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923. It does not go against the letter of the law, but it does violate it's spirit. Hence, and extended interpretation is in order, which leads us to conclude that it is, in fact, a crime.

Here is a quick explanation on the Spirit VS Letter of the Law:

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

 

[IFireflyl]

The European continent says hi. You're not the only one whose ancestors went through war, even worse, our cities were in complete shambles when all was said and done. So spare us the patronizing.

You are arguing from a purely legal positivist perspective, which is an absolutely absurd position to take when discussing the many atrocities committed in both world wars.
Following your logic one would need to absolve every Nazi accused during the Nuremberg trials. Heck, you'd need to let Eichmann go based on the narrow-viewed perception that he didn't break any laws per se.

There are no two ways about it that the US instrumentalized innocent civilian lives to achieve strategic victory. To use people merely as means is in itself a moral wrong. That is what it means to uphold a person's dignity, to acknowledge individual rights irrespective of the consequences. That is also the basic principle upon which the universal declaration of human rights was founded upon merely 3 years after Hiroshima.

The U.S. says hi back. I never said that we were the only ones to go through war, but please stop pretending that the wars prior to the 20th century were anything like the two world wars that were fought in the 20th century. The 20th century resulted in over 100 million deaths from war alone.

And please don't act like none of the European countries would have used an atomic bomb to force a surrender had they had the option at the time. I can't think of any country that is going through a war that wouldn't have used the option to save their people if they had it. You're using hindsight to give yourselves moral superiority, and that is an absurd position to take. Additionally, Britain has invaded more countries, and killed and displaced more people than any other country.

At the height of its empire, almost a quarter of the world succumbed to British rule. Yet this figure is dwarfed when time is disregarded and the British empire’s incursion record is viewed as a whole. Over its history, a new study found, Britain has invaded almost 90 percent of the world’s countries.

Only 22 countries escaped British invasion, according to The Telegraph. These findings are outlined in a new book, All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/brits-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-109283469/

Thanks Europe.

Also, I have stated several times that Germany and Japan violated existing laws/treaties/conventions that made their actions war crimes at the time they were committed. I have also stated that the aggressor is allowed to be punished by the defender(s) when the aggressor loses. By my logic we would not have needed to absolve every Nazi accused during the Nuremberg trials. In contrast, the U.S. broke no laws/treaties/conventions at the time they dropped the two atomic bombs. The U.S. was not the aggressor. We didn't start it, but we sure finished it.

Additionally, the U.S. (as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, and ignored by you and everyone else) dropped pamphlets all over Japan warning the Japanese civilians and leadership that their major cities were going to be targeted. They were given a chance to evacuate. Stop acting like we just gleefully slaughtered civilians. That is revisionist history coming out yet again.

The absurd thing is that the U.S. DID commit war crimes during World War II. I have no issue with admitting that at all. It's just that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both military targets) was not one of them. Get off of your high horse.

 

[IFireflyl]

Bitch please.

The nuclear attacks classifies as a war crime, since it violates the Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land, and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923. It does not go against the letter of the law, but it does violate it's spirit. Hence, and extended interpretation is in order, which leads us to conclude that it is, in fact, a crime.

Here is a quick explanation on the Spirit VS Letter of the Law:

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

Could you be specific as to what war crimes were committed that violated the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922-1923?