New War Crime Allegations?

[nakedemperor]

Well, you did say more or less that it was unjustified, and compared it to Japanese and German war crimes by saying the rationale behind it was 'they did this' therefore 'we did that'.

Were we or were we not at war? Did they surrender after Hiroshima?

I think it is a tragedy that today so many Americans are quick to question the legitimacy of acts committed during our 'total war' against the Japanese and Germans 60 years after the fact.

It leads me to believe that criticizing America has gained primacy over learning about what was actually going on during World War II and the stakes that were involved.

About 51 million people died during that war.

The four events you listed, Dresden (40,000), Nagasaki (92,000), Hiroshima (45,000), and Tokio (84,000), constitute collectively about one half of one percent of the total deaths.

It's about perspective and concentrating on what's really important.


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

I find it rather odd to use numbers to indicated that the death of 92,000 people was statistically irrelevent. Like freeandfun said, a strong case could be made that Japanese surrender was inevitable after the dropping of the first bomb on Hiroshima.

This isn't ignoring the fact that 'total war' belies the death, even the intentional killing of civilians. I'm just saying these THESE 92,000 civilian deaths could (arguably) have been avoided at minimal cost to the United States. If we responded to total war with equal retaliation and fought tactics with like tactics ALL the time we would be relinquishing the moral standards that keep us from participating in immoral wars of aggression.

 

[Zhukov]

From a historical perspective (as in having the privilege of looking back - verses being forced to make a decision NOW), I too would say that Nagasaki was probably "over-kill".

I wouldn't. I'd say they had it coming.

I find it rather odd to use numbers to indicate that the death of 92,000 people was statistically irrelevent.

I never said their deaths were irrelevant because they constituted such an small percentage of the total deaths of the entire war.

My point is people in my opinion pay far too much attention to the .5% of the people, of questionable innocence, that we killed in those four particular instances, at the expense of completely ignoring the vast majority of those who were killed by the people who started the war in the first place. Further, it is my belief that many who focus on that .5% do so because they hate this country and enjoy pointing out what they perceive as our hypocrisy.

Like freeandfun said, a strong case could be made that Japanese surrender was inevitable after the dropping of the first bomb on Hiroshima.

I don't think that's true, at least not under the conditions that were necessary to make sure the Japanese knew they were beat, unlike the situation Germany was left in after the Great War. That second bomb was about preventing World War 3 in more ways than just intimidating the Soviets. It was part in parcel with our whole philosophy of unconditional surrender and total victory.

 

[nbdysfu]

In my opinion, the rules of engagement shift from from war to war, from battle to battle. On a battlefield where your enemy ignores the generally accepted combat norms, you have no choice but to match his tactics. If your enemy ignores the Geneva convention, in some case, it is your right to self defense to ignore the Geneva convention as well. Over the course of United States history, there are many instances of the military ignoring the Geneva convention simply because they were faced with a choice: fight on equal footing and be willing to assume the tactics of your enemy, or essentially fight with one hand tied behind your back.

In Shakespeare's Henry V, the English were holding French prisoners after an initial engagement. They were, however, vastly outnumbered in enemy territory. They could expect to save their own lives (by taking the field) and abide by the accepted rules of engagement (giving prisoners quarter). Instead of guarding the prisoners with soldiers that needed to be at the front lines, they executed the prisoners. Henry's pragmatic decision to do so could be seen as immoral, but considering the circumstances, he was taking French lives to save English lives.

By assuming that an enemy soldier in Iraq was not in possession of a bomb, in close quarters, when similar tactics are known to have been used, you're endangering U.S. lives to preserve the life of an enemy combatant. Had the man been wear no possibly concealing garments, had his hands on his head, the situation would have been different; but as it was, it was necessary to approach the man at close range in order to ascertain whether or not he was a threat.

That isn't to say that there isn't point at which fighting fire with fire becomes immoral. The My Lai massacre, for example. The firebombings of Dresden by the Allies in WWII, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki after Hiroshima had already been nuked, the firebombing of Tokyo; saying "the Germans and the Japanese commited war crimes before, therefore we were justified in killing all these civilians" doesn't hold water in these cases. But in the case of this marine in that mosque, I say he did the right thing. Case by case basis.

I agree with you for all but the last paragraph. Most of the examples you give are a matter of hindsight, and besides what Zhukov already said about the nuclear bombing, the alternatives to the nuclear bomb for the japanese people themselves were as grim if not grimmer. An american invasion of Japanese mainland was estimated to result in a number of soldiers deaths somewhere in between the number of deaths at Hiroshima and the number of soldiers currently in Iraq. Logically the Japanese casualties would have been even higher. The other option, a Russian invasion. If you are familiar with Russian WWII post-purge combat tactics, then you know the word is attrition, and you know the loser is whoever's on the ground. If Stalin had managed to pull that off, he would likely have remained in power in Russia. Either something similar to cold war east germany would have happened, or the Russians would have wiped the Japanese off the face of the earth. Forcing the unconditional surrender forged the diplomatic paths that allowed us to shape the Japan which exists today.

 

[freeandfun1]

I don't think that's true, at least not under the conditions that were necessary to make sure the Japanese knew they were beat, unlike the situation Germany was left in after the Great War. That second bomb was about preventing World War 3 in more ways than just intimidating the Soviets. It was part in parcel with our whole philosophy of unconditional surrender and total victory.

I would agree with this. And I agree with nbdysfu that a full scale invasion might have caused even more casualties. I guess I tend to forget the mentality of the Japanese at the time. I also forget that the Japanese are very "hard headed" and that they would have - literally - fought to the death.

 

[sagegirl]

sgaegirl,

have you ever played sports at any kind of "high" level?

I would not necessarily call my training "sports at a high level", but I did train on a personal level to establish the discipline and the confidence that one must have to empower one's self.
Not sadly, but with a loss of innocence we learn these lessons.

 

[KarlMarx]

Some historical perspective on why we dropped that 2nd bomb.....

1. The Japanese military subscribed to the Samurai code of bushido (sp?).... part of which dictated that they would not surrender under any circumstances.
2. A full scale invasion of Japan was planned, Allied casualties were estimated to be as high as half a million American soldiers.... more than all the casualties suffered by American forces during the entire war (which was about 400,000)
3. The Soviets were preparing to invade Japan from the North in order to "liberate" it.... if they had, we would now have a situation similar to that of North Korea in Japan as well.
4. The Allied bombers had firebombed a lot of Japanese cities in order to prepare for an invasion, the number of casualties easily exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.
5. Keep in mind that the Japanese did not surrender after Hiroshima, a second bomb was necessary (and even then, some people in the Japanese government wanted to continue the fight)
6. Had we invaded, the number of civilian deaths would have amounted to millions of people. The Japanese government had been secretly training its civilian population to fight the Americans in case of invasion.
7. In fact a demonstration of the bomb to the Japanese was discussed as an alternative to dropping it on them. However, this was eventually decided against because of the Japanese steadfast refusal to surrender.

Speaking of war crimes, the Japanese were guilty of tremendous war crimes...
A. Nanjing China --- massacred over 300,000, raped over 20,000
B. The Japanese conducted experiments in germ and chemical warfare on prisoners of war and on civilians in occupied areas.
C. Japanese mistreatment of POWs --- notably the "Bataan Death March" where 76,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war were bound, beaten, or killed by their Japanese captors.
D. Systematic enslavement of civilian populations wherever the Japanese military occupied.

In spite of these and many other atrocities, to this day, the Japanese have not apologized, nor made restitution for, or even acknowledged, their crimes. The emperor Hirohito was never put on trial for his role as leader of the Japanese war machine.

Frankly, if you should weep for anyone, it should be for the American, British, Filipino soldiers that fought the Japanese, it should be for the millions of Chinese, Korean, Filipino and others that were raped, enslaved, tortured and murdered by the fanatical Japanese soldiers.

In light of what they did, the Japanese got off easy with only two atom bombs.

 

[sagegirl]

I'll speak from personal experience at war.

I watched the video. The Marine did everything right. The situation they were in calls for shoot first ask questions later. If you even suspect the guy is a threat you kill him. Its not cops and robbers there. That scene was probably replayed many times over in other locations just not filmed by anyone. It was taped and reported because some reporter wants a pulitzer prize.

Those screaming about how terrible it was have never been in combat and have no business even talking about it.

As for how the military changes people. The purpose of basic training and advance training is to instill discipline. Not to creat murderers. You must be willing and able to follow orders immediately without thinking about it. It could be a matter of life and death and hesitation can be deadly. They are also taught to react in extreme stress situations. That is what that Marine did.

They are killing garbage over there. Not some boy next door type or even another soldier.

When in doubt, pump a few rounds in em.

Just a quick comment on your last few statements 'they are killing garbage'
this is the first stage of the desensitizing.....(necessary to make our kind, young people able to kill, maybe even in cold blood) DEVALUE the lives of the enemy
it is much easier to kill garbage than a fellow human being. It IS!!!!!

 

[KarlMarx]

Just a quick comment on your last few statements 'they are killing garbage'
this is the first stage of the desensitizing.....(necessary to make our kind, young people able to kill, maybe even in cold blood) DEVALUE the lives of the enemy
it is much easier to kill garbage than a fellow human being. It IS!!!!!

Which is what they consider us ... except they use the word "infidel". Many of the insurrgents have had anti-American, anti-Christian propoganda fed to them since childhood. THey were taught this through a system of Islamic schools called "maddrassas" many of which are being used by radical fundamentalists not only to teach their radical brand of Islam but hatred for Americans and Westerners. These schools are used as recruiting grounds for the terrorists. In many cases, the kids come out of these schools with an incomplete education. They can recite the Koran backwards and forwards, but don't know much more.

Remember SG that this is a war, it is kill or be killed..... there isn't a third option.. if these clowns had their way, they'd kill you because you're an American. They don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, you're an American and that is all that counts. Or if they didn't kill you, they'd force you to accept Islam, wrap you up in a burqa and most likely force you either into slavery or a state closely resembling it. You wouldn't be allowed to vote, nor would you have a right to own property, you wouldn't have the right to free speech. Many of the protections that you take for granted under the law would be revoked. We aren't fighting them because we hate them, we're fighting them because they hate us. In their society a dissenting point of view is not allowed, in ours it is not only allowed but encouraged (this forum being a good example). What is at stake isn't just the freedom of the Iraqi people, but the survival of Western civilization.

 

[freeandfun1]

garbage is garbage...... even if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Though most media outlets will ignore or bury this story (they prefer to focus on a US Marine who shot a guy who was most likely a terrorist after some of his comrades had been killed in a similar incident), I found a video on the Little Green Footballs blog of French troops shooting into a crowd of people in the Ivory Coast. You can find the link on this page.

Here is an article about the conflict:

ABIDJAN : Ivory Coast said 63 people were killed in a week of clashes with French troops as it handed over military powers to a hawkish former head of its northern command, whose appointment is considered a provocation by both the rebels and France.



Major Colonel Philippe Mangou sought to offer reassurances that he wanted to restore stability to the former French colony as he was installed, after the violence caused an exodus of foreigners.

"Let us mobilize as one man to move beyond the problems observed or experienced in the unfortunate events of these last several days," Mangou, 52, told a crowd including his predecessor General Mathias Doue and Defense Minister Rene Amani gathered at the Camp Gallieni military base in Abidjan.

But the appointment of Mangou, deemed responsible for three days of air strikes on the rebel-held north this month that ruptured an 18-month-old ceasefire, is considered suspect by both France and the rebels who have held the north of the former star French colony since a civil war erupted in September 2002.

It has also been interpreted as a hardening of the regime of President Laurent Gbagbo and has created tensions within the armed forces due to Mangou's relative inexperience, a military source told AFP.

A government statement released after the cabinet meeting Thursday, the first since the air raids, said 63 people were killed and some 1,300 injured in anti-French mob riots that flared after France wiped out the country's modest air force.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/118033/1/.html