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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hopefully we can keep this discussion civil, intelligent, and informative.
---

No

We gave them a chance to surrender, but they didn't. They never were going to surrender. What Japan did to Nanking was a war crime
---

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

No? I wasn't aware that this was even an issue.
---

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But in all honesty, it was no worse than, say, Operation Meetinghouse. The level of devastation was much the same; only the method was unique. Now, whether that itself counts as a war crime too is far more debatable, and I'd lean towards yes.
---

i've actually been to hiroshima they are 100% war crimes
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

We gave them a chance to surrender, but they didn't.

Yes, although bombing civilians was the norm in WW2. It was a war full of crimes, completely overt.

But ultimately, for the human race, I think it was a good thing the US bombed Hiroshima and the whole world got to see how terrible the nuclear weapon is. I think its probably the single biggest reason that the Cold War was cold, and not the US and USSR sending the world back to the stone age.
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

No

We gave them a chance to surrender, but they didn't. They never were going to surrender. What Japan did to Nanking was a war crime

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

Two wrongs don't make a right. Revisionist history has taught that the bombs were "necessary," but this is the complete opposite of the truth.

If Japan had the nukes first imagine what they would of done to China. But anyways, it was a means to end the war quicker and without the winning side taking anymore casualties.

It was a very hard decision to make for sure but like I said, if the shoe had been on the other foot you think the Japanese brass at the time would of been careful in using them? They were unknowns at the time at the effects of the bomb as well.
---

Yeah. It's one of the most horrible things ever done in human history and it was by my country and not very long ago.
---

alt_no_1_loves posted...

But ultimately, for the human race, I think it was a good thing the US bombed Hiroshima and the whole world got to see how terrible the nuclear weapon is. I think its probably the single biggest reason that the Cold War was cold, and not the US and USSR sending the world back to the stone age.

This is actually a really good point, tbh.
---

I have always considered it a crime.

bombs are typically something I associate with cowardice.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Revisionist history has taught that the bombs were "necessary," but this is the complete opposite of the truth.

But there has to be two wrongs
---

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

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

This story may assuage the conscience of the air museum visitor, but it is largely myth, fashioned to buttress our memories of the good war. By and large, the top generals and admirals who managed World War II knew better. Consider the small and little-noticed plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy that accompanies the replica of Little Boy, the weapon used against the people of Hiroshima: In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Trumans political advisors overruled the military in determining the way in which the end of the war in Japan would be approached. Furthermore, contrary to the popular myths around the atomic bombs nearly magical power to end the war, the Navy Museums explication of the history clearly indicates that the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.

Indeed, it would have been surprising if they had: Despite the terrible concentrated power of atomic weapons, the firebombing of Tokyo earlier in 1945 and the destruction of numerous Japanese cities by conventional bombing had killed far more people. The Navy Museum acknowledges what many historians have long known: It was only with the entry of the Soviet Unions Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender. Japan was used to losing cities to American bombing; what their military leaders feared more was the destruction of the countrys military by an all-out Red Army assault.

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Trumans Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that 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, weadopted 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.

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.
---

If anything it was a Crime against Humanity.
As was so much of WWII.
To this day, we are still paying for it.

And by it, I mean the total of WWII.
---

1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War.
---

rikasa posted...

Yeah. It's one of the most horrible things ever done in human history and it was by my country and not very long ago.

Oh, give me a break. Wasn't even top 3 during WW2, let alone all of human history. What Japan did to China, what the Germans did to the Jewish people and was Russia did to their own people were all worse.
---

Yes, but I'm glad the right side was was the one to prove how horrific they are and should never be used again.
---

KillerKhan420 posted...

If Japan had the nukes first imagine what they would of done to China.

Hell, imagine what they would have done to the US. They could have nuked all of Hawaii instead of just kamikaze-ing Pearl Harbor.

Yep. As was Hamburg, which few people seem to know about or mention
---

I want to hear from the people who do think it was a war crime. If we dropped a nuke on Germany to kill off all the Nazis, would that have been a war crime too?
---

Vertania posted...

KillerKhan420 posted...

If Japan had the nukes first imagine what they would of done to China.

Hell, imagine what they would have done to the US. They could have nuked all of Hawaii instead of just kamikaze-ing Pearl Harbor.

a scary place to live is in the imagination of paranoid folk
---

Killing many thousands of civilians is a war crime. How can you argue it isn't?
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

I want to hear from the people who do think it was a war crime. If we dropped a nuke on Germany to kill off all the Nazis, would that have been a war crime too?

Killing civilians intentionally is. We killed 50k in Hamburg. That was a war crime.
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

I want to hear from the people who do think it was a war crime. If we dropped a nuke on Germany to kill off all the Nazis, would that have been a war crime too?

Yeah. This is not a competition. "Better than the Holocaust" ain't proof of something being good. Necessary evils would still be evil.
---

dreamvoid posted...

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

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

This story may assuage the conscience of the air museum visitor, but it is largely myth, fashioned to buttress our memories of the good war. By and large, the top generals and admirals who managed World War II knew better. Consider the small and little-noticed plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy that accompanies the replica of Little Boy, the weapon used against the people of Hiroshima: In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Trumans political advisors overruled the military in determining the way in which the end of the war in Japan would be approached. Furthermore, contrary to the popular myths around the atomic bombs nearly magical power to end the war, the Navy Museums explication of the history clearly indicates that the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.

Indeed, it would have been surprising if they had: Despite the terrible concentrated power of atomic weapons, the firebombing of Tokyo earlier in 1945 and the destruction of numerous Japanese cities by conventional bombing had killed far more people. The Navy Museum acknowledges what many historians have long known: It was only with the entry of the Soviet Unions Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender. Japan was used to losing cities to American bombing; what their military leaders feared more was the destruction of the countrys military by an all-out Red Army assault.

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Trumans Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that 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, weadopted 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.

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.

Who said it ended the war?

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah. This is not a competition. "Better than the Holocast" ain't proof of something being good. Necessary evils would still be evil.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not saying if anything is better or worse than the Holocast. I want to know if you would be upset if they did this to the German Nazis
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah. This is not a competition. "Better than the Holocast" ain't proof of something being good. Necessary evils would still be evil.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not saying if anything is better or worse than the Holocast. I want to know if you would be upset if they did this to the German Nazis

Are you under the impression that German civilians were Nazis?
---

Japan would not have surrendered until every last person was dead.

We had to show them that it was futile in the most convincing of ways possible.

Let's also not forget all the city bombings done by essentially every nation with an air force. Many civilians were killed regardless.

It was just one of many horrific things the allies did, and they really should have been held accountable, as should America for the nukes.

Hamburg and Dresden being two just brutal attacks that might well rival the bombs or even beat it.

But history is written by the winner and evils are passed off as "acceptable" when you win.
---

The us had routinely been bombing civilian areas prior to dropping the atomic bombs in an area that they'd not targeted nearly as frequently and therefore had an increased population because of all the people who had fled their cities to go there.

It was a war crime, plain and simple.

Funkydog posted...

It was just one of many horrific things the allies did, and they really should have been held accountable, as should America for the nukes.

Who's supposed to hold them accountable exactly, the countries who lost the war or the countries who sided against the countries who lost the war?

FairyLeviathan posted...

Funkydog posted...

It was just one of many horrific things the allies did, and they really should have been held accountable, as should America for the nukes.

Who's supposed to hold them accountable exactly, the countries who lost the war or the countries who sided against the countries who lost the war?

That is the unfortunate thing, no is going to in cases like this. Not entirely sure they can either when it gets to the level it did.

But doesn't excuse it though and we should now realise the horror it was and endeavour to be better in the future.
---

RebelElite791 posted...

Are you under the impression that German civilians were Nazis?

Of course not. I never said any such thing. Go back and read the question again. I'll even quote it -

Bad_Mojo posted...

I want to hear from the people who do think it was a war crime. If we dropped a nuke on Germany to kill off all the Nazis, would that have been a war crime too?

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.

Japan, a Country that was so cruel and fucked up that they can't even have an army now, which wasn't a restriction to Germany, who was literately lead by fucking Hitler. That's how crazy the Japanese military was.
---

They invaded first so we made an example out of them, an example that ended the whole war. Not a war crime. Sucks for the civilian casualties but war is hell. Not to mention the Japanese were committing atrocities just as bad as Hitler was.
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

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.

You are aware Germany DID suffer absolutely horrific bombing in the form of carpet and fire bombing where people were burnt alive, yes?

It was awful and the bombing of citizens is a disgusting act no matter who commits it. No matter if you believe it justified or not in the end, it can still be a terrible act/war crime as well.
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

since people to this day still bash on Germans and Nazis

Anyone who bashes on Germans is an idiot. And again, as mentioned, Hamburg and Dresden were horrific Allied war crimes during the War.
---

Funkydog posted...

You are aware Germany DID suffer absolutely horrific bombing in the form of carpet and fire bombing where people were burnt alive, yes?

So you're just not going to answer the question? It's pretty simple. I don't care what answer you give, I was just curious. But now I'm just irritated since you're not even answering the question.

What I was getting at is to this day Germany is still hated, while Japan is very much loved. I wanted to know if that messed with peoples opinions. I WANT to hear that you would have to same feelings if they did that to Germany if you felt badly for what happened to Japan. But let's face it, there are a lot of people who would have been happy if it happened to Germany, no matter how many people died since they were killing Nazis
---

It was a necessary evil.
---

FairyLeviathan posted...

dreamvoid posted...

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

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

This story may assuage the conscience of the air museum visitor, but it is largely myth, fashioned to buttress our memories of the good war. By and large, the top generals and admirals who managed World War II knew better. Consider the small and little-noticed plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy that accompanies the replica of Little Boy, the weapon used against the people of Hiroshima: In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Trumans political advisors overruled the military in determining the way in which the end of the war in Japan would be approached. Furthermore, contrary to the popular myths around the atomic bombs nearly magical power to end the war, the Navy Museums explication of the history clearly indicates that the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.

Indeed, it would have been surprising if they had: Despite the terrible concentrated power of atomic weapons, the firebombing of Tokyo earlier in 1945 and the destruction of numerous Japanese cities by conventional bombing had killed far more people. The Navy Museum acknowledges what many historians have long known: It was only with the entry of the Soviet Unions Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender. Japan was used to losing cities to American bombing; what their military leaders feared more was the destruction of the countrys military by an all-out Red Army assault.

The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, andfor manythat the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Trumans Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that 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, weadopted 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.

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.

Who said it ended the war?

This guy for one.

voldothegr8 posted...

They invaded first so we made an example out of them, an example that ended the whole war.

---

Bad_Mojo posted...

Funkydog posted...

You are aware Germany DID suffer absolutely horrific bombing in the form of carpet and fire bombing where people were burnt alive, yes?

So you're just not going to answer the question? It's pretty simple. I don't care what answer you give, I was just curious. But now I'm just irritated since you're not even answering the question.

What I was getting at is to this day Germany is still hated, while Japan is very much loved. I wanted to know if that messed with peoples opinions. I WANT to hear that you would have to same feelings if they did that to Germany if you felt badly for what happened to Japan. But let's face it, there are a lot of people who would have been happy if it happened to Germany, no matter how many people died since they were killing Nazis

What fucking world do you live in? The one where you actually had cancer? Germany is currently touted as one of the most advanced and progressive countries in the world while Japan is widely criticized for its outdated for a developed country policies with people casually taking jabs at them being weird or needing a third nuke etc.

Bad_Mojo posted...

Funkydog posted...

You are aware Germany DID suffer absolutely horrific bombing in the form of carpet and fire bombing where people were burnt alive, yes?

So you're just not going to answer the question? It's pretty simple. I don't care what answer you give, I was just curious. But now I'm just irritated since you're not even answering the question.

What I was getting at is to this day Germany is still hated, while Japan is very much loved. I wanted to know if that messed with peoples opinions. I WANT to hear that you would have to same feelings if they did that to Germany if you felt badly for what happened to Japan. But let's face it, there are a lot of people who would have been happy if it happened to Germany, no matter how many people died since they were killing Nazis

I did answer the question, please learn to read if you want to actually participate in this discussion and not troll.

Dropping nukes on Germany would have been just as evil, as dropping them anywhere

And people who still hate Germany are morons.
---

Bad_Mojo posted...

What I was getting at is to this day Germany is still hated

Literally what fucking world do you live in? The only people who hate Germany nowadays are alt-right types and white supremacists. Germany is the leader of the EU and arguably the free world.
---

GiggetySplicer posted...

What fucking world do you live in? The one where you actually had cancer?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh is that Rain/Usurption? LMAO
---

RebelElite791 posted...

Germany is the leader of the EU and arguably the free world.

Dude.

No.

Just no.

RebelElite791 posted...

GiggetySplicer posted...

What fucking world do you live in? The one where you actually had cancer?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh is that Rain/Usurption? LMAO

It is, yeah.
---

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.

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?
---