The GREATEST war crime

[mightypeon]

One of the most gross numbers of history is the number of Chinese POWs who were returned to china.
54
Yes, 54 out of millions.

Even Nazi Germany is hard pressed to beat that.

I still maintain that to maximise shock and confusion, the most reasonable way would have been to nuke in concert with the Soviet invasion. That it was done prior to it implies, at least to me, that it was a powerplay aimed at the Soviet Union, and not neccesarly on Japan.

 

[editec]

There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.

Likely true. Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing

Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.

US was locked into no separate peace.

Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.

Japan was crushed.

Please explain to me why you believe the second bomb had to be dropped so quickly.

I don't see the rush.

I've never seen any credible answer to this question/

You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.

Understood.

Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.

We did in fact accept a conditional surrender. Hirohito was was not touched. Had we insisted on his standing trial, the Japanese people would have fought to the last person, atomic bomb or no.

The accounting for dropping the second bomb is that after the first, Japan was again ordered to surrender and did not reply. We dropped the second bomb as a result.

Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.

Cedibility certainly is that, Guns.

Still...what was it.. three days between bombs?

Seems hasty to me, given the diplomatic events happening at the same time.

 

[elvis]

Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans. (not even counting the Holocaust)

 

[elvis]

Some historians claim that it wasn't the bombs that made Japan surrender, but what they were facing if they didn't surrender. they were facing a mainland invasion from the US from the South and Russian invasion from the West. This is all assuming the US only had two bombs. I read somewhere we had a third one. Just something to chew on.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans. (not even counting the Holocaust)

If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.

 

[elvis]

Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans. (not even counting the Holocaust)

If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.

you're assuming the civilians were innocent. I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent. and this should not be controversial. Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.

and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans. (not even counting the Holocaust)

If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.

you're assuming the civilians were innocent. I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent. and this should not be controversial. Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.

and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".

I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians. What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children? The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.

I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.

 

[elvis]

If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.

you're assuming the civilians were innocent. I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent. and this should not be controversial. Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.

and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".

I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians. What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children? The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.

I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.

Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped? No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you're assuming the civilians were innocent. I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent. and this should not be controversial. Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.

and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".

I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians. What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children? The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.

I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.

Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped? No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?

I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.

Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico

However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion? To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan? What's wrong with conditional surrender?

I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.

 

[elvis]

I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians. What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children? The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.

I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.

Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped? No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?

I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.

Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico

However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion? To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan? What's wrong with conditional surrender?

I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.

What's wrong with conditional surrender? you mean like tojo gets to stay in power? We had to make sure they never tried it again.
Pearl harbor was bombed. that was enough for the pacific. I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve? the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East. I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped? No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?

I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.

Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico

However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion? To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan? What's wrong with conditional surrender?

I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.

What's wrong with conditional surrender? you mean like tojo gets to stay in power? We had to make sure they never tried it again.
Pearl harbor was bombed. that was enough for the pacific. I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve? the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East. I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.

I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.

 

[elvis]

I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico

However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion? To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan? What's wrong with conditional surrender?

I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.

What's wrong with conditional surrender? you mean like tojo gets to stay in power? We had to make sure they never tried it again.
Pearl harbor was bombed. that was enough for the pacific. I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve? the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East. I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.

I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.

what about horrifying the people so they never repeat their actions?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What's wrong with conditional surrender? you mean like tojo gets to stay in power? We had to make sure they never tried it again.
Pearl harbor was bombed. that was enough for the pacific. I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve? the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East. I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.

I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.

what about horrifying the people so they never repeat their actions?

Beating them in the war wasn't enough? There's no justification for dropping those bombs.

 

[elvis]

I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.

what about horrifying the people so they never repeat their actions?

Beating them in the war wasn't enough? There's no justification for dropping those bombs.

That's just it. They WEREN"T beaten. In fact, they barely surrendered after the bombs were dropped. Why should we have settled for conditional surrender so they can build their war machine again?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If they're willing to accept a conditional surrender then they're beaten.

 

[elvis]

If they're willing to accept a conditional surrender then they're beaten.

again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If they're willing to accept a conditional surrender then they're beaten.

again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?

Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.

 

[elvis]

If they're willing to accept a conditional surrender then they're beaten.

again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?

Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.

i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine. The Japanese government brought that horror on its people. they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?

Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.

i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine. The Japanese government brought that horror on its people. they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.

The Japanese government didn't decide to drop those bombs, Truman did.

 

[elvis]

Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.

i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine. The Japanese government brought that horror on its people. they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.

The Japanese government didn't decide to drop those bombs, Truman did.

Still, Japan's treachery brought about those bombs. I don't feel the least bit guilty about dropping those bombs on "innocent" people. fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

Maybe we should have just kept bombing them with conventional weapons until they gave up. People get so stuck on the bombs, even though they were not the most deadly or destructive bombing raids on japan. or conducted a mainland invasion, splitting the country in half with Russia and killing millions more people.