Current Events > Do you consider the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan to be war crimes?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yes, but it had a more-good-than-bad outcome in the long run.

I don't think the US should be held accountable in the sense of it being legit war crimes, but if we were to say drop another one again, absolutely.
---

FairyLeviathan posted...

Are you guys so out of touch that you're really confusing Japan and Germany?

Germany is still shit on for the Holocaust and is currently plagued by political correctness and all the shit Europe is getting into with mass immigration.

Japan on the other hand is generally touted as a technology leader.

Sageharpuia shitpost

Bad_Mojo posted...

What I means is that we dropped them on Japan to kill the Japanese strong hold and win the war. And by doing that, a lot of innocent people got killed, which is what those people (who think it's a war crime) are most angry about, right? I just wanted to know if those same people would feel the same way if it happened to Germany and killing Nazis (along with innocent civilians), since people to this day still bash on Germans and Nazis, but love Japan like a far away brother.

I can't think of an instance where I would not consider killing thousands of innocent people not a horrific crime against humanity. Good intentions and future consequences are entirely irrelevant to the notion of something being a war crime.

Lesser evils are still evils.
---

ImmatureContent posted...

Nation A uses weapon of mass destruction against Nation B and kills well over 100,000 people including many civilians. Now imagine Nation B is your home country. Still don't think it is a war crime?

This is always something I wonder when it comes to the USA trying to justify her actions in WWII.

Imagine if, somehow, the rest of the world decided that Al-Qaeda's suicide bombing in 9/11 was justified because it brought upon better securities (not saying this is true at all, just saying hypothetically). Just think of the outrage Americans would feel at the suggestion of that.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Bad_Mojo posted...

What I means is that we dropped them on Japan to kill the Japanese strong hold and win the war. And by doing that, a lot of innocent people got killed, which is what those people (who think it's a war crime) are most angry about, right? I just wanted to know if those same people would feel the same way if it happened to Germany and killing Nazis (along with innocent civilians), since people to this day still bash on Germans and Nazis, but love Japan like a far away brother.

I can't think of an instance where I would not consider killing thousands of innocent people not a horrific crime against humanity. Good intentions and future consequences are entirely irrelevant to the notion of something being a war crime.

Lesser evils are still evils.

i agree wholeheartedly.
---

They weren't any worse than the firebombing campaigns on Japanese cities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks

But no one cares about all that.
---

Funbazooka posted...

They weren't any worse than the firebombing campaigns on Japanese cities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks

But no one cares about all that.

People are talking about firebombing attacks in this fucking topic.
---

Mareen posted...

Yes, but it had a more-good-than-bad outcome in the long run.

for whom?
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Mareen posted...

Yes, but it had a more-good-than-bad outcome in the long run.

for whom?

The Japanese, obviously. Operation Downfall, the land invasion of Japan, was projected to have up to ten million Japanese casualties. The atomic bombings were arguably one of the most humanitarian choices ever made in human history. Literally millions of lives were saved.
---

UnhndredDescole posted...

Being justified and being war crimes aren't mutually exclusive things. Torturing POWs is still a war crime even if in one instance the correct Intel that saved lives happened because of it.

Ding
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

UnhndredDescole posted...

Being justified and being war crimes aren't mutually exclusive things. Torturing POWs is still a war crime even if in one instance the correct Intel that saved lives happened because of it.

Ding

Justified use of force isn't a crime. Ding.
---

Geiki Ganger posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

Nation A uses weapon of mass destruction against Nation B and kills well over 100,000 people including many civilians. Now imagine Nation B is your home country. Still don't think it is a war crime?

This is always something I wonder when it comes to the USA trying to justify her actions in WWII.

Imagine if, somehow, the rest of the world decided that Al-Qaeda's suicide bombing in 9/11 was justified because it brought upon better securities (not saying this is true at all, just saying hypothetically). Just think of the outrage Americans would feel at the suggestion of that.

Did you just compare 9/11 to Hiroshima
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Geiki Ganger posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

Nation A uses weapon of mass destruction against Nation B and kills well over 100,000 people including many civilians. Now imagine Nation B is your home country. Still don't think it is a war crime?

This is always something I wonder when it comes to the USA trying to justify her actions in WWII.

Imagine if, somehow, the rest of the world decided that Al-Qaeda's suicide bombing in 9/11 was justified because it brought upon better securities (not saying this is true at all, just saying hypothetically). Just think of the outrage Americans would feel at the suggestion of that.

Did you just compare 9/11 to Hiroshima

Couldn't think of a worse atrocity committed on U.S. soil by a foreign entity.

Kinda shows how lucky Americans have been.
---

I don't think the civilian death toll is justifiable. I cannot imagine death on that scale, lives wiped out. Plus the radiation legacy of generations of cancer etc. Not justifiable IMO

Usually I'd say yes but not in that war.

Pretty much the worst war in history, it needed to be ended by any means necessary.

Plus no one has nuked each other sense so it maybe at least was a cautionary tale kinda thing.

My only gripe is we should dropped them on military bases rather than civillains.
---

Geiki Ganger posted...

Mr_Biscuit posted...

Geiki Ganger posted...

ImmatureContent posted...

Nation A uses weapon of mass destruction against Nation B and kills well over 100,000 people including many civilians. Now imagine Nation B is your home country. Still don't think it is a war crime?

This is always something I wonder when it comes to the USA trying to justify her actions in WWII.

Imagine if, somehow, the rest of the world decided that Al-Qaeda's suicide bombing in 9/11 was justified because it brought upon better securities (not saying this is true at all, just saying hypothetically). Just think of the outrage Americans would feel at the suggestion of that.

Did you just compare 9/11 to Hiroshima

Couldn't think of a worse atrocity committed on U.S. soil by a foreign entity.

Kinda shows how lucky Americans have been.

I wouldn't call it luck. We have one of the most bad ass militaries. Most don't have the balls to attack us on our terf.

Just like I don't see us ever fucking with Russia on theirs. You stand to lose too much even if you do win.
---

FairyLeviathan posted...

Anyone who claims this has no idea how vicious the Japanese army actually was during WWII and why even today they still aren't allowed to have an army

They have the fourth most powerful military in the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

There is also debate going on recently here to try to change the constitution to explicitly mention the JSDF as legal.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

My only gripe is we should dropped them on military bases rather than civillains.

That's kind of a large gripe.
---

fhqwhgads posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

My only gripe is we should dropped them on military bases rather than civillains.

That's kind of a large gripe.

It is but times where different back then. Its just how shit was done. I don't like it but I acknowledge that most people probably felt it was fine back them (except those on the receiving end obviously)

Iirc my history correctly you can blame the northerners for that mind set. As they started up the idea of "total warfare" during the civil war in America.

I understand they where quite Savage. Burning places to the ground slaughtering livestock etc. I wanna say they were even raping the women but that part I'm not so sure about.

Edit. I also understand why they would want to Nuke a city over a base. To showcase just how devastating the bomb could be. As a base I'm sure is smaller or at least has far less people.
---

I can't even fathom what type of mental disability you'd have to suffer from to think that nuking civilians is anything other than a war crime.
---

omega cookie posted...

I can't even fathom what type of mental disability you'd have to suffer from to think that nuking civilians is anything other than a war crime.

Welcome to almost half of CE.
---

Geiki Ganger posted...

omega cookie posted...

I can't even fathom what type of mental disability you'd have to suffer from to think that nuking civilians is anything other than a war crime.

Welcome to almost half of CE.

And over half the world during ww2 era. Apparently they where all mentally Ill. Nevermind it was a different time and people where raised with different standards and morals
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

they where all mentally I'll

Yeah, really helping your case.
---

omega cookie posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

they where all mentally I'll

Yeah, really helping your case.

If you mean the typo surely your not so daft to not realize auto correct is a thing. I type I'll far more often than ill

And it auto changed it again, this time I caught it though.
---

dreamvoid posted...

the belief that it ended the war is a lie told to deny the fact a war crime took place and many innocent lives were lost pointlessly.

To be fair it DID end the war. Also the US wanted an unconditional surrender that the Japanese didnt agree too.

Also there was a plan to do a normandy style land invasion on japan that would have cost more.

on the topic of it being a warcrime though, it was definitely a war crime. The real debate is that if the bombs saved more lives than a prolonged land invasion would have costed.

IMO i think we dropped the bomb to give an FU to the Soviets
---

I4NRulez posted...

dreamvoid posted...

the belief that it ended the war is a lie told to deny the fact a war crime took place and many innocent lives were lost pointlessly.

To be fair it DID end the war. Also the US wanted an unconditional surrender that the Japanese didnt agree too.

Also there was a plan to do a normandy style land invasion on japan that would have cost more.

on the topic of it being a warcrime though, it was definitely a war crime. The real debate is that if the bombs saved more lives than a prolonged land invasion would have costed.

IMO i think we dropped the bomb to give an FU to the Soviets

I'll agree its a war crime by today's standards.

Standards back then where different though.
---

What ended the war was a combination of three things.

1 - Hirohito supporting his foreign minister Shigenori Togo, who said they should accept the Potsdam Proclamation as long as it didn't dethrone the emperor.

2 - The short timeframe between Hiroshima and Nagasaki made Japan think the U.S.'s atomic capacity was much greater than it was at the time.

3 - The Soviet Union declaring war on Japan.

Even then, you had some of the military high command plotting a coup to overthrow the emperor and continue the war.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

where

omega cookie posted...

I can't even fathom what type of mental disability

Figured it out.
---

No.

A lot of cities were being bombed in that war. France and England easily took the brunt of it, especially since they didn't have much of a chance to recover from the first world war.

80 million people died in that war. 200,000 died from those two bombs.

I'd say it was perfectly reasonable for the time.
---

This topic is way more interesting than sitting in a history class where you get one version.
---

CobraGT posted...

This topic is way more interesting than sitting in a history class where you get one version.

I always wanted a history class where we got to hear the other countries version of the events.

Had a British guy straight up tell me they don't really teach the American revolution over there. At most its mentioned and glossed over. At least at the school he went to.
---

america is taught alt history

rest of the world knows they cant justify the second bomb
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

CobraGT posted...

This topic is way more interesting than sitting in a history class where you get one version.

I always wanted a history class where we got to hear the other countries version of the events.

Had a British guy straight up tell me they don't really teach the American revolution over there. At most its mentioned and glossed over. At least at the school he went to.

Tbf, the actual event was a relative footnote in British history. Certainly compared to what was going on elsewhere and after.
---

Funkydog posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

CobraGT posted...

This topic is way more interesting than sitting in a history class where you get one version.

I always wanted a history class where we got to hear the other countries version of the events.

Had a British guy straight up tell me they don't really teach the American revolution over there. At most its mentioned and glossed over. At least at the school he went to.

Tbf, the actual event was a relative footnote in British history. Certainly compared to what was going on elsewhere and after.

True but I still wonder how they portray it. Like do they make us out to look like bad guys or is it like how we go over Vietnam, we lost its old news moving on.

ModLogic posted...

america is taught alt history

rest of the world knows they cant justify the second bomb

My history class didn't teach no alt anything. They just told us what happened. No justification just facts. We made up our own minds on how we felt about it.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

True but I still wonder how they portray it. Like do they make us out to look like bad guys or is it like how we go over Vietnam, we lost its old news moving on.

I was never taught it at all tbh, and I think that is the case for most people here in Britain.

Just so much other history to go over comparatively, that focusing on that one point is essentially a waste of time. It is very commonly european based typically, from my experience, but can venture out in some cases (albeit rarely)
---

Funkydog posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

True but I still wonder how they portray it. Like do they make us out to look like bad guys or is it like how we go over Vietnam, we lost its old news moving on.

I was never taught it at all tbh, and I think that is the case for most people here in Britain.

Just so much other history to go over comparatively, that focusing on that one point is essentially a waste of time. It is very commonly european based typically, from my experience, but can venture out in some cases (albeit rarely)

True y'all do have a vastly longer span of time to cover in history class. We managed to cover our entire history in 2 school years only glossing over eras that nothing significant happened in.

We stopped right before bill Clinton's presidency but we were alive when that happened so yeah...
---

Yes. Targeting civilians is always wrong in war.
---

Yes. Both were attacks of mass destruction and the collateral damage was far too great.
---