Support NeoGAF

[German Hops]

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?

Read the post.

 

[IFireflyl]

Read the post.

Sorry, I mean can you post the actual part of the law/treaty/convention that you feel was violated. You're referencing some big documents and saying they were violated, but expecting people to either believe you or read the whole thing to find out where the violation occurred.

 

[German Hops]

Sorry, I mean can you post the actual part of the law/treaty/convention that you feel was violated. You're referencing some big documents and saying they were violated, but expecting people to either believe you or read the whole thing to find out where the violation occurred.

Go read the documents.

Also, Japan firmly denounced the use of nuclear bombs in a protest :

"The Hague Conventions also prohibited the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". The Japanese government cited this prohibition on 10 August 1945 after submitting a letter of protest to the United States denouncing the use of atomic bombs"

It was a war crime.

 

[IFireflyl]

Go read the documents.

Also, Japan firmly denounced the use of nuclear bombs in a protest :

"The Hague Conventions also prohibited the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". The Japanese government cited this prohibition on 10 August 1945 after submitting a letter of protest to the United States denouncing the use of atomic bombs"

It was a war crime.

I'm not going to read through every single part of the Hague documents (which are quite large) to try to figure out YOUR argument. Respectfully, either cite what section was violated or don't engage in the discussion. Coming in and saying, "You are wrong and something else proves it, but I won't tell you how or where so figure it out for yourself," is a poor way to engage in a discussion.

And of course Japan was going to protest what was done. They were the ones who got hurt. But the fact is that the Hague Convention of 1907 stated that the bombardment of civilian places that were NOT defended is a crime. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were defended. Hiroshima contained the headquarters for the 2nd General Army that was responsible for defending most of Southern Japan. There were around 20,000 combatants there. That proves that they were a defended city. As to the unnecessary suffering, how is this worse than moving to a land war? The estimated deaths for both sides were much higher if Japan didn't surrender and we moved to a land war. And even if you think it was still unnecessary, we move to the final point:

Again, the U.S. gave warning to Japan's civilians and leadership that their cities would be bombed. The fact that they remained in the cities is not the fault of the U.S. We literally gave warning about the bombings when it would have been more advantageous for us to engage in a surprise attack. Blame Japan for putting their military targets in populated cities and not evacuating their citizens when given advanced warning. The fact that we provided warning keeps getting overlooked, and this alone should quell any argument regarding the "spirit of the law".

 

[German Hops]

I'm not going to read through every single part of the Hague documents (which are quite large) to try to figure out YOUR argument. Respectfully, either cite what section was violated or don't engage in the discussion. Coming in and saying, "You are wrong and something else proves it, but I won't tell you how or where so figure it out for yourself," is a poor way to engage in a discussion.

You engaged me, and I told you what to do. If you don't want to do it, fine. Go quote someone else.

 

[IFireflyl]

You engaged me, and I told you what to do. If you don't want to do it, fine. Go quote someone else.

Great rebuttal. Way to really hold your own in this discussion.

 

[German Hops]

Great rebuttal. Way to really hold your own in this discussion.

There's no discussion here. I'm trying to enlighten you, but I can't hold your hand.
Go read the documents and stop crying like a bitch.

 

[Tams]

The thing is, the 'spirit of the law' bears no weight on the judgement on whether a law has been broken. No just legal system could do so, as then anything could be made up, so the 'letter of the law' has to be followed.

'Spirit of law' is only useful for proposing new laws or amendments to existing laws. Nothing else.

The atomic bombings did not break the 'letter of the law', so they were not war crimes. End of.

 

[IFireflyl]

There's no discussion here. I'm trying to enlighten you, but I can't hold your hand.
Go read the documents and stop crying like a bitch.

You're not enlightening anyone by saying, "Somewhere there is evidence that proves my claim." It isn't hand-holding to say, "This is what the U.S. violated, which is why the action was a war crime." That's you supporting your claim, which is what everyone does in a debate. Even without knowing your exact argument (likely because you don't have one and just want to sound intelligent) I still rebutted your claim which you didn't quote since you wanted to be a brat about this. Sorry your feelings got hurt. Maybe you can find a safe space to post on Ree.

 

[German Hops]

You're not enlightening anyone by saying, "Somewhere there is evidence that proves my claim." It isn't hand-holding to say, "This is what the U.S. violated, which is why the action was a war crime." That's you supporting your claim, which is what everyone does in a debate. Even without knowing your exact argument (likely because you don't have one and just want to sound intelligent) I still rebutted your claim (which you didn't quote since you wanted to be a brat about this). Sorry your feelings got hurt. Maybe you can find a safe space on Ree.

Cool down and go engage someone else.
We're done here.

 

[IFireflyl]

Cool down and go engage someone else.
We're done here.

I don't need to cool down. You're the one that called me a bitch. I was respectful the entire time. You behaved like a child. I'll engage anyone I please on this open forum. If you don't like that then set me to ignore or don't bother posting.

 

[German Hops]

I don't need to cool down. You're the one that called me a bitch. I was respectful the entire time. You behaved like a child. I'll engage anyone I please on this open forum. If you don't like that then set me to ignore or don't bother posting.

I didn't call you a bitch, I said stop acting like one.
I can't have an actual discussion with you if you haven't done your proper research.
If you go do that, then we'll talk.
If not, that's fine. "engage" elsewhere.

 

[strange headache]

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.

I think you don't understand the issue with legal positivism and the moral crux of the Nuremberg trials.

 

[IFireflyl]

I didn't call you a bitch, I said stop acting like one.

Do you think that makes it better? It's disrespectful for absolutely no reason.

I can't have an actual discussion with you if you haven't done your proper research.

I have proven that I did my research. You didn't respond to the rest of my post that rebuts your statement, and it isn't my job to make your argument for you. Nobody has debates or discussions in that manner.

If you go do that, then we'll talk.

See above.

If not, that's fine. "engage" elsewhere.

Again, I will engage when and where I please. You're just a nobody on GAF like everyone else on here (myself included). I'm not about to bow down to some keyboard warrior.

 

[IFireflyl]

I think you don't understand the issue with legal positivism and the moral crux of the Nuremberg trials.

By all means, enlighten me. I'm not going to pretend I know everything. Is it possible that I'm in the wrong? Absolutely. I don't think that I am, but if I'm missing something then I'd love to learn from it.

 

[German Hops]

Do you think that makes it better? It's disrespectful for absolutely no reason.



I have proven that I did my research. You didn't respond to the rest of my post that rebuts your statement, and it isn't my job to make your argument for you. Nobody has debates or discussions in that manner.



See above.



Again, I will engage when and where I please. You're just a nobody on GAF like everyone else on here (myself included). I'm not about to bow down to some keyboard warrior.

Why do you insist on disobeying me? Are you that hard-headed?

 

[synchronicity]

The whole notion of "war crime" is absurd to me. The whole premise of war is to get your way via *force*. War is war. Personally, I'm a man of peace, but to suggest there are appropriate and inappropriate or legal/illegal actions in a contest of blunt force is ridiculous. In my view, war itself is a crime against humanity. And even if there are agreed-upon "rules of engagement", again the essence of war will see all sides circumventing any agreements wherever possible due to the nature of the type of conflict.

 

[lukilladog]

Vaporizing innocent people is always wrong, there is no logical spin to it.

 

[Slicker than your average]

The whole notion of "war crime" is absurd to me. The whole premise of war is to get your way via *force*. War is war. Personally, I'm a man of peace, but to suggest there are appropriate and inappropriate or legal/illegal actions in a contest of blunt force is ridiculous. In my view, war itself is a crime against humanity. And even if there are agreed-upon "rules of engagement", again the essence of war will see all sides circumventing any agreements wherever possible due to the nature of the type of conflict.

So youre fine with how the Nazis behaved then.

 

[poppabk]

I feel like the second bomb was. Basically wipe out 100k civilians for a chance to test a different type of bomb and to say "that first one wasn't a fluke"

 

[DeepEnigma]

So youre fine with how the Nazis behaved then.

This is gaslighting with a strawman.

 

[synchronicity]

So youre fine with how the Nazis behaved then.

I'm not pro war/force in *any* way, shape or form. Violence will never solve the problem of violence.

But within the context of "war", the foundation is ultimately force - deadly force, whatever the reasons or ideology behind the actions. One side kills others because of their views and agendas and likewise for the "enemy". I don't see things in terms of "righteous" acts of war and evil acts of war.

 

[Lady Jane]

The whole notion of "war crime" is absurd to me. The whole premise of war is to get your way via *force*. War is war. Personally, I'm a man of peace, but to suggest there are appropriate and inappropriate or legal/illegal actions in a contest of blunt force is ridiculous. In my view, war itself is a crime against humanity. And even if there are agreed-upon "rules of engagement", again the essence of war will see all sides circumventing any agreements wherever possible due to the nature of the type of conflict.

Yep. In nearly every war, the rules get looser and the victor decides which rules are crimes and which ones aren't. Just look at the American revolution. Americans hid behind rocks instead of forming lines, invaded at night and on Christmas morning, sunk British ships before they hit the shore. All of this was breaking the rules of engagement and the British learned the hard way that those rules of engagement are as powerful as the paper they're written on.

In war, the goal is to win. The rules are decided after. Is Hiroshima a war crime? Most definitely. Is Pearl Harbor a war crime? Most definitely. Did the victor get to write history and decide would be remembered as evil and which would be remembered as necessary? Most definitely.

 

[TheGrat1]

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

It can not be helped when you are dropping bombs on targets inside cities with 1945 level technology. I have made it clear that the alternatives were more cruel and that the nukes were nothing compared to what the Japanese government had in store for their own citizens.
What should America have done? Starved them? Make the people of Japan cannibalize each other by the millions? Would that have been less cruel than the nukes?

What would you have done? Do not bring criticism if you will not offer solutions.

 

[Raven117]

Its only a war crime if you lose.

It probably saved more lives than it took anyway.

So, no.

 

[wondermega]

Check out Dan Carlin's excellent podcast "Hardcore History" where he goes into extreme depth dissecting the lead-up to, and morality of such things. Here's a soundcloud rip, but I'd recommend going to his site and paying the $3 for the episode

Hardcore History 42 – (BLITZ) Logical Insanity – Dan Carlin

www.dancarlin.com

He's got plenty of other podcasts captured on youtube discussing the subject as well, but this 2012 one was the one which really stuck with me, it is absolutely riveting.

 

[Slicker than your average]

This is gaslighting with a strawman.

Not in the slightest.

Allied warcrimes are consistently played down because 'we' generally come from those countries and were the victors. in ww2 it was quite clear cut who was in the wrong an evil compared to ww1 where everyone was at fault.

The person I quoted Is the typcial I see nothing wrong it's war argument. As I said nuking Japan was the right choice at the time in terms of cost of lives on both sides.

But bombing cities into oblivion are warcrimes and as time hass shown consistently, that strategic bombing of cities barely achieved anything compared to tactical bombing of military targets.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not in the slightest.

Allied warcrimes are consistently played down because 'we' generally come from those countries and were the victors. in ww2 it was quite clear cut who was in the wrong an evil compared to ww1 where everyone was at fault.

The person I quoted Is the typcial I see nothing wrong it's war argument. As I said nuking Japan was the right choice at the time in terms of cost of lives on both sides.

But bombing cities into oblivion are warcrimes and as time hass shown consistently, that strategic bombing of cities barely achieved anything compared to tactical bombing of military targets.

Yes the fuck it is.

He makes an opinionated logical view and you make and accusatory “question” with a strawman.

 

[Ionian]

Can we also stop saying the bombs caused generational harm. It hasn't,

It wiped out innocent families. It stopped their generations.

 

[InverseAgonist]

It wiped out innocent families. It stopped their generations.

As opposed to the Strategic Air War? Try searching for any of my posts on this topic in this thread.

 

[Ionian]

As opposed to the Strategic Air War? Try searching for any of my posts on this topic in this thread.

I was replying to someone, scroll back for context.

Thread is 2 pages and you missed it.

 

[akimbo009]

It wiped out innocent families. It stopped their generations.

What's that even mean? Nukes killed a bunch of people - so did the fire bombing, and general prosecution of war. I am failing to put together what you're saying here. My post, which I think you're snipping a part of, was that there is no ongoing radiological harm or risk to those who live in the targeted cities so there isn't "generational harm" or other such long-term impacts.

Yes, dead people are dead so there's that, and there were civilians, but that's not exactly novel when it came to WW2.

 

[Ionian]

What's that even mean? Nukes killed a bunch of people - so did the fire bombing, and general prosecution of war. I am failing to put together what you're saying here. My post, which I think you're snipping a part of, was that there is no ongoing radiological harm or risk to those who live in the targeted cities so there isn't "generational harm" or other such long-term impacts.

Yes, dead people are dead so there's that, and there were civilians, but that's not exactly novel when it came to WW2.

People tend to have families. Dying can wipe out your generation, especially if young.

Did I say it was a wrong action?

Simply pointing out a nuke can wipe out generations, it's that simple.

Christ, my post was obvious.

 

[akimbo009]

People tend to have families. Dying can wipe out your generation, especially if young.

Did I say it was a wrong action?

Simply pointing out a nuke can wipe out generations, it's that simple.

Christ, my post was obvious.

So your point was people die in wars? I mean, yes, that is obvious so my bafflement is more around why you stated something obvious. But that's it... got it.

 

[Ionian]

So your point was people die in wars? I mean, yes, that is obvious so my bafflement is more around why you stated something obvious. But that's it... got it.

Yes, congrats. Wars kill people. Nukes wipe out cities with undoubtfully generations in it.

Glad you learned something today.

 

[Craig of War]

No and also they should have drop a couple of Nukes on Stalin Russia than there would be no Putin today

 

[Mattyp]

No, the definition of talk shit and get hit.

Japan raping and slaughtering civilians as they marched their way through SEA? It was war.

So it’s all good when your winning the war but when someone comes along with a bigger stick don’t cry foul.

 

[ManaByte]

Too many people in this thread think the Japan of 1945 is the same Japan that gave them their waifu.