Hiroshima — war crime or not?

[Saradiel]

Lots of the papers today are filled with news stories about the 65th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. There has been much discussion of how, for the first time, a representative of the United States -- Ambassador John Roos -- decided to attend. The United States is, of course, the nation that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, making it the only country on earth to have used nuclear weapons against another nation.


Two pieces in particular caught my eye. First, the report by the Independent's acclaimed war correspondent Robert Fisk, on the front page of that paper, in which he writes:
On the surface, it's all very simple. Most of us seem to believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. I certainly do. The Japanese were already talking of surrender. That Caesar of British historians, A J P Taylor, quoted a senior US official. "The bomb simply had to be used -- so much money had been expended on it. Had it failed, how would we have explained the huge expenditure? Think of the public outcry there would have been . . . The relief to everyone concerned when the bomb was finished and dropped was enormous."

I agree with Fisk (and with A J P Taylor!). I still can't quite understand how defenders of the US decision to nuke those two Japanese cities can argue, in good conscience, that it wasn't a war crime. To use atomic bombs to literally incinerate hundreds of thousands of men, women and children? If that's not a war crime, then what is? And even if we were to accept that the nuclear strikes were somehow unavoidable, and the only way to end that horrific war and prevent further (largely American) casualties, would that then make them morally correct and permissible? Since when do the ends justify the means?


So I was interested also to read the leader in the (paywall-protected!) Times which was, I assume, written by Oliver Kamm, an ardent apologist for the US strike on Hiroshima. The Times leader says:
The bombings of Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki were a terrible act of war. But they were no crime . . . It seems incredible, but even the destruction of Hiroshima was not enough to force the Japanese cabinet to accept that the war was lost. The xenophobic fanaticism of a powerful constituency within it believed that Japan should resist till the literal extinction of its people. Recent research by Sadao Asada, a historian at Doshisha University, demonstrates beyond reasonable dispute that only the use of the A-bomb -- at Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima -- enabled the "peace party" within the cabinet to prevail . . . President Truman, who ordered the bombings, insisted that his decision had shortened a war and prevented huge casualties. The historical evidence strongly suggests that he was right.
Despite the one-sided view ("beyond reasonable doubt") presented by the Times leader writer (Kamm?), the fact is that an intense historical debate continues to rage over whether or not the use of the A-bomb by the Americans was necessary to end the war in the Pacific. Revisionist historians such as Gar Alperovitz argue that the US political and military leadership knew the bombs were unnecessary, other than to make a geopolitical point about postwar American primacy, because, as the US Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without them.
I'm not going to get into the details of the complex, historical debate here. But I will leave you with these quotations, courtesy of Doug Long:

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)
". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
(Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan)
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: ". . . the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction'. MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the general's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964", pg. 512.
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had 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."
William Leahy, "I Was There", pg. 441.
JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Secretary of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favourable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
McCloy quoted in James Reston, "Deadline", pg. 500.
HERBERT HOOVER
(former President)
". . . the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 . . . up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped . . . if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
Quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., "Judgment at the Smithsonian", pg. 142.​

 

[elis]

Definitely not, Japan was not so nice people

It's only after the death of Kennedy that USA has really become JEW USA and start their savage agression wars that are marked with real war crimes

 

[jhungary]

Lots of the papers today are filled with news stories about the 65th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. There has been much discussion of how, for the first time, a representative of the United States -- Ambassador John Roos -- decided to attend. The United States is, of course, the nation that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima in 1945, making it the only country on earth to have used nuclear weapons against another nation.


Two pieces in particular caught my eye. First, the report by the Independent's acclaimed war correspondent Robert Fisk, on the front page of that paper, in which he writes:
On the surface, it's all very simple. Most of us seem to believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. I certainly do. The Japanese were already talking of surrender. That Caesar of British historians, A J P Taylor, quoted a senior US official. "The bomb simply had to be used -- so much money had been expended on it. Had it failed, how would we have explained the huge expenditure? Think of the public outcry there would have been . . . The relief to everyone concerned when the bomb was finished and dropped was enormous."

I agree with Fisk (and with A J P Taylor!). I still can't quite understand how defenders of the US decision to nuke those two Japanese cities can argue, in good conscience, that it wasn't a war crime. To use atomic bombs to literally incinerate hundreds of thousands of men, women and children? If that's not a war crime, then what is? And even if we were to accept that the nuclear strikes were somehow unavoidable, and the only way to end that horrific war and prevent further (largely American) casualties, would that then make them morally correct and permissible? Since when do the ends justify the means?


So I was interested also to read the leader in the (paywall-protected!) Times which was, I assume, written by Oliver Kamm, an ardent apologist for the US strike on Hiroshima. The Times leader says:
The bombings of Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki were a terrible act of war. But they were no crime . . . It seems incredible, but even the destruction of Hiroshima was not enough to force the Japanese cabinet to accept that the war was lost. The xenophobic fanaticism of a powerful constituency within it believed that Japan should resist till the literal extinction of its people. Recent research by Sadao Asada, a historian at Doshisha University, demonstrates beyond reasonable dispute that only the use of the A-bomb -- at Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima -- enabled the "peace party" within the cabinet to prevail . . . President Truman, who ordered the bombings, insisted that his decision had shortened a war and prevented huge casualties. The historical evidence strongly suggests that he was right.
Despite the one-sided view ("beyond reasonable doubt") presented by the Times leader writer (Kamm?), the fact is that an intense historical debate continues to rage over whether or not the use of the A-bomb by the Americans was necessary to end the war in the Pacific. Revisionist historians such as Gar Alperovitz argue that the US political and military leadership knew the bombs were unnecessary, other than to make a geopolitical point about postwar American primacy, because, as the US Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without them.
I'm not going to get into the details of the complex, historical debate here. But I will leave you with these quotations, courtesy of Doug Long:

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)
". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
(Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan)
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: ". . . the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction'. MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the general's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964", pg. 512.
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had 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."
William Leahy, "I Was There", pg. 441.
JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Secretary of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favourable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
McCloy quoted in James Reston, "Deadline", pg. 500.
HERBERT HOOVER
(former President)
". . . the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 . . . up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped . . . if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
Quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., "Judgment at the Smithsonian", pg. 142.​

Maybe America should surrender to the imperial japan and let them rules the world, then you will see what exactly is war crime

 

[EyanKhan]

To an extent yes it was.

The US could have simple bombed a few rural areas to show the bombs capabilities if they really only wanted to make Japan surrender instead they went for major Urban centers Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply to show what a big power it now was and therefore no one should mess with it.....

 

[Genesis]

Is it morally wrong? Yes, the US deliberately dropped Nukes in population centres to see its effect on humans, they admitted as much. They have no idea the power and effect of the nuke so Japanese were the perfect test subjects.

That was not the only reason to drop it, but it was in consideration. Though, there are a few other reasons why a quick end suited America, not just the casualties.

However, the world isn't so simple, the casualties would have likely been higher, and the life lost may not have been less that way and since Japanese used civilians as soldiers at that point anyways, the difference isn't huge.


BUT, this isn't the topic now is it, people equate right and wrong to war crimes, but it is not so.

War crimes were designed specifically for the losing side. Not for any sinister reason, but just the loser don't really have the power to pursue those charges against their victors. Hence colonization was brushed under the carpet.

If we are to get technical, the Soviets caused more or less the same damage in German occupied countries as the Germans did, DURING the war. They also robbed Northern China, steel, food, women and all.

Yet Stalin was front and centre in the victory photos.

So it is actually two questions, right or wrong, morally? Wrong. War crime? No. Necessary? Depends on who you are. For the Americans, it definitely is. For the Russians, not so much. For the Japanese, hell no.

 

[Android]

There are many speculation that if Roosevelt would have been alive he wouldn't have approved of atomic bombing at least on populated regions. Don't know how much its true.

 

[flamer84]

War crimes were designed specifically for the losing side. Not for any sinister reason, but just the loser don't really have the power to pursue those charges against their victors. Hence colonization was brushed under the carpet.

If we are to get technical, the Soviets caused more or less the same damage in German occupied countries as the Germans did, DURING the war. They also robbed Northern China, steel, food, women and all.

Yet Stalin was front and centre in the victory photos.

So it is actually two questions, right or wrong, morally? Wrong. War crime? No. Necessary? Depends on who you are. For the Americans, it definitely is. For the Russians, not so much. For the Japanese, hell no.

Quoted for truth.

WW2 was a power struggle,the victors got to write history while the loosers ended as the ultimate villains who got vanquished by the forces of good.Ofcourse this is far from the truth.War crimes happenned on both sides,only the loosers got punished.

The japanese and the germans were brutal towards their conquered foe but were the allies any different ? The soviets invaded Poland with the Nazis in 1939 and were just as brutal in killing the polish elites ,massacring left and right.In Germany and other occupied territories they've killed and raped civilians in a murdering frenzy just as the germans and the japanese.

The romanian allies of Nazi Germany started executing russian civilians after russian partisans killed romanian officers in bombings and guerilla warfare.They've justified it as retribution and instilling fear in the locals.For killing civilians the leaders were executed after the war and judged as war criminals.But was this any different from bombing german civilians in german cities by the allies just to break german morale ? Was this any different from the americans fire bombing Tokyo to break the japanese moral ? Was this any different from the americans dropping atomic bombs on civilian areeas to destroy the japanese moral ??.................NO....WW2 was Humanity at its worst...on all sides.

 

[gambit]

To an extent yes it was.

The US could have simple bombed a few rural areas to show the bombs capabilities if they really only wanted to make Japan surrender instead they went for major Urban centers Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply to show what a big power it now was and therefore no one should mess with it.....

That is truly a bad argument.

Back then, it often took hundreds of bombers over dozens of missions to destroy a major target like an arms depot, or the Schweinfurt ball bearing factories, for example. If we go by your argument, given how many bombs missed the true targets, blew up a lot of dirt that created a lot of craters, and made a lot of noise that deprived a lot of people their beauty sleep, the Germans and the Japanese would have surrendered a long time ago.

'Mein Gott...!!! Achtung...Achtung...!!! Ze Yankees bombs exploden und maden viele craters...!!! Ve surrenders...Ve surrenders...!!!'

Sorry for my bad German. Too much Hogan's Heroes.

 

[shuntmaster]

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed

If the war had continued, US military had estimated that they would have to mobilize atleast 5million soldiers and marines, one year to attack & capture Japanese home islands, and at least 1 million US casualties alone, not counting the Japanese losses (civilian and military). Considering the fanatical and suicidal defense during Iwo Jima and Okinawa by the Japanese, it would be safe to say 10's of millions of Japanese would be dead before the end of war, if the war continued in the conventional way.
In view of this, it could be said that nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives of both allied powers and Japanese.

Battle of Okinawa
Casualties and losses
Allies
More than 12,000 killed
More than 38,000 wounded

Japanese
More than 110,000 killed
More than 7,000 captured
40,000–150,000 civilians killed (Okinawans)​

​

 

[shuntmaster]

To an extent yes it was.

The US could have simple bombed a few rural areas to show the bombs capabilities if they really only wanted to make Japan surrender instead they went for major Urban centers Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply to show what a big power it now was and therefore no one should mess with it.....

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the next best thing to some low population density rural region.. They were small sized towns (with some weapons industry) and were chosen to send the appropriate message to the warlords in Tokyo... If US really wanted to kill maximum number of Japanese, they could have chosen some of the bigger cities like Tokyo or Kyoto. Even after nuking Nagasaki, the US used conventional bombing raids in Tokyo, until Japan surrendered..

On the other hand, if Japan got the atomic bomb before others, they would not have thought twice to use it on a cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles..

 

[Indischer]

It cannot be termed as War Crimes. Incessantly bombing cities was a common practice during WW2. Germany carried out the blitz while the allies carried out the Dresden firebombings. Since these weren't termed war crimes after the war, why should the atomic bombing of Japan be considered as such?

 

[gambit]

It cannot be termed as War Crimes. Incessantly bombing cities was a common practice during WW2. Germany carried out the blitz while the allies carried out the Dresden firebombings. Since these weren't termed war crimes after the war, why should the atomic bombing of Japan be considered as such?

That is also not a very good argument. What the 'other guy' did does not justify, meaning make morally right or even acceptable, doing the same.

The problem is that of war itself.

When you blockade a bay, you are not doing any damages to the water or even the sea port. You are preventing ships from accessing the bay. Ships are resources that can be DIRECTLY use in the war efforts. If you damage a road, you deny the enemy one resource in his war effort and if he can drive off road to deliver war materiel, it would be better if you destroy or at least give the truck a flat tire.

So when I say the problem is that of war itself, I mean that war demands the destruction of resources that have as close or as direct contribution to the war effort as possible. Could the US dropped Fat Man off shore? Absolutely. But how far off shore in order to make an effective statement? All Fat Man would produce is a gigantic water geyser. Not even a moderately scary tsunami. We conducted many underwater nuclear testings in the Pacific with more powerful bombs and no real tsunamis produced. Yes, we could dropped Fat Man on land somewhere, but what if the Japanese military imposed a ban on traveling to the crater site? What then? How would the Emperor be sufficiently frightened into submission? Like it or not, the destruction of a city, a product of civilization and pride of any country of any era, is required.

 

[Saradiel]

Definitely not, Japan was not so nice people

It's only after the death of Kennedy that USA has really become JEW USA and start their savage agression wars that are marked with real war crimes

What japanese did was wrong, but the war was WON by the allied forces by the time US nuked Japan.

Maybe America should surrender to the imperial japan and let them rules the world, then you will see what exactly is war crime

what is the point of surrendering to the losing party by the winning party in a war? I think you fail to grasp the point here

To an extent yes it was.

The US could have simple bombed a few rural areas to show the bombs capabilities if they really only wanted to make Japan surrender instead they went for major Urban centers Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply to show what a big power it now was and therefore no one should mess with it.....

Of course it was power projection nothing else. US had already targetted military targets in Japan and Japan faced threat of war from Russia as well. Japan had already surrendered to US.
It was nothing but revenge for pearl habour.

Is it morally wrong? Yes, the US deliberately dropped Nukes in population centres to see its effect on humans, they admitted as much. They have no idea the power and effect of the nuke so Japanese were the perfect test subjects.

That was not the only reason to drop it, but it was in consideration. Though, there are a few other reasons why a quick end suited America, not just the casualties.

However, the world isn't so simple, the casualties would have likely been higher, and the life lost may not have been less that way and since Japanese used civilians as soldiers at that point anyways, the difference isn't huge.


BUT, this isn't the topic now is it, people equate right and wrong to war crimes, but it is not so.

War crimes were designed specifically for the losing side. Not for any sinister reason, but just the loser don't really have the power to pursue those charges against their victors. Hence colonization was brushed under the carpet.

If we are to get technical, the Soviets caused more or less the same damage in German occupied countries as the Germans did, DURING the war. They also robbed Northern China, steel, food, women and all.

Yet Stalin was front and centre in the victory photos.

So it is actually two questions, right or wrong, morally? Wrong. War crime? No. Necessary? Depends on who you are. For the Americans, it definitely is. For the Russians, not so much. For the Japanese, hell no.

This is not a topic nowadays, but many today belive that had not the US nuked Japan the war would continue. That is a lie. japan was ready to surrender then. By the time US nuked Japan, the war was already won.
I went trough some Hiroshima bombing videos in youtube and found out how people believe that was right. Many do not know this.

 

[Saradiel]

There are many speculation that if Roosevelt would have been alive he wouldn't have approved of atomic bombing at least on populated regions. Don't know how much its true.

It says even the British commander of allied forces didnt approve hiroshima bombing. It was purely an american decision. Read what the Eisonhower say here,

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)
". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had 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."
William Leahy, "I Was There", pg. 441.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed

If the war had continued, US military had estimated that they would have to mobilize atleast 5million soldiers and marines, one year to attack & capture Japanese home islands, and at least 1 million US casualties alone, not counting the Japanese losses (civilian and military). Considering the fanatical and suicidal defense during Iwo Jima and Okinawa by the Japanese, it would be safe to say 10's of millions of Japanese would be dead before the end of war, if the war continued in the conventional way.
In view of this, it could be said that nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives of both allied powers and Japanese.

Battle of Okinawa
Casualties and losses
Allies
More than 12,000 killed
More than 38,000 wounded

Japanese
More than 110,000 killed
More than 7,000 captured
40,000–150,000 civilians killed (Okinawans)​

​

The point is Allied forces had already won and the japanese were defeated. The story that war could have continue is a myth

 

[shuntmaster]

World War -2 is probably first time in the history of mankind where war fighting became mechanized in true sense. WW-1 had some mechanization, but even there the combatants had to come into visual range of each other to battle.