The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[iamwhatiseem]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

That is a poor one sided article.
Truman correctly surmised that Japan was going to never surrender in battle. Indeed, they would have fought all the way to the last soldier alive. And the Japanese Army was way-way better led and organized than the Nazis. And very dug in.
When Truman got the numbers of assumed dead... it was a no brainer.
It was the right decision then, and still is.

 

[Unkotare]

I have a free period here at night school (wrestling season is over - none of my guys qualified for states).

Not sure what the "dud" found "fake news" about that, but whatever.

 

[Mushroom]

Great, let's cut to the chase. Leaving aside all points of contention such as overtures to surrender earlier in the war

What "overture" to surrender? Notice, you can not address a single one of the points that I brought up. If you can't address a single one, that shows you have nothing backing you up, and are speaking out your arse.

But please, feel free to go through the exchanges between Ambassador Sato and Foreign Minister Togo. Does it seem in any of those that they were indicating they were prepared to surrender? And remember, those were actual dispatches from one of the top leaders of the Japanese Government to their Ambassador to the Soviet Union in the hopes to arrange an armistice.

Not a surrender, an armistice. But in case you forgot, here is the link yet again.

Nuclear Files: Library: Correspondence: Telegrams: Togo-Sato

Japanese Peace feelers in the Soviet Union

www.nuclearfiles.org

Please point out anywhere in there where it shows that Japan was even considering a "surrender". Because I can promise you, they were not.

Now please, back up your claims with actual facts. Not rainbows and unicorn fart fantasies.

 

[Unkotare]

What "overture" to surrender? Notice, you can not address a single one of the points that I brought up. If you can't address a single one, that shows you have nothing backing you up, and are speaking out your arse.
....

So much for "open to considerations." As I expected. Keep avoiding the real question.

 

[Unkotare]

Great, let's cut to the chase. Leaving aside all points of contention such as overtures to surrender earlier in the war, the idea that an invasion was an unavoidable choice, the silly notion of children and old women charging US Marines with pointy sticks and get to the real question: If we remove "we had to!" from the equation, do you consider the deliberate incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians (yes, even civilians in a country with whom we were at war) to be a moral decision that reflects your idea of what America is and should be about? If you ask many people about the decision to drop the atomic bombs, they attempt to brush it off without any real thought. Why? Because moral questions can be very uncomfortable. That is precisely why they need to be asked.





By the way, that is exactly how most abortion supporters respond to moral questions, if that helps give you any perspective.

.

 

[Mushroom]

So much for "open to considerations." As I expected. Keep avoiding the real question.

I am open. But that does not mean I turn off my brain and believe anything shoveled at me.

Tell me, does actually requesting validation such an issue? Do you honestly believe that others should simply accept something because you say it, without question?

Hell, I am very much the opposite. I actually encourage others to challenge me. That is why I provide so damned many references. Hell, I once again linked all of the telegrams sent between Ambassador Soto and Foreign Minister Togo. Inviting anybody to read through them and find where what I said was wrong. I actually encourage others to question things, and to check for themselves to see if I am correct or not.

You are the exact opposite. You vomit up some almost nonsensical claim with absolutely nothing to confirm if it is factual or not, and expect everybody to believe it simply because you posted it. I can back up almost everything I post, quite often from original historical documentation. You are able to back up absolutely nothing.

That is not my failure, that is yours. I am not avoiding the question, you are avoiding every proving in any way that the claims you make endlessly are even real.

So how about it? Who did the Japanese government authorize to approach General MacArthur with a surrender proposal? And where and how did they meet him? And when did he then inform Washington of this historic event?

Because according to everything I have ever read, the closest person that had that authority was Ambassador Soto. General MacArthur never met anybody in such a position from the Japanese Government. And he never sent any such message stating that he had to Washington.

Therefore, it never happened. He was just talking out his arse again.

 

[Kruska]

The idea wasn't to "win." It was to convince the world to stay out of a "sphere of influence." Kinda like what China is trying to slow-roll today. Didn't work then, won't work today.

What? so convincing the world to stay out of a self proclaimed "sphere of influence" whilst murdering 20+ million civilians, and via attacking the USA and all other colonial western powers in Asia plus those Aussies, did not harbor the idea or principle of ridding opposition or "obstacles" via winning a war???

You are obviously on par with those US deniers who simply fail to acknowledge their own countries misdeeds (war-crimes) committed during a war.

The A-bombs clearly constituted a war-crime - simply due to the fact that the radius of destruction is a "bit" more then a load-full of conventional TNT bombs, that theoretically within their singular capacity were only supposed to destroy military relevant targets? Any bombing of a city or an location that beholds civilians and as such naturally results in civilian losses - supposedly constitutes a war-crime in today's "moral society". actually it is "just" an indiscriminate killing of civilians. or the rather eloquent present US version collateral damage.

The Geneva convention, explicitly terms a city or any location a valid military target due to beholding military relevant objects.
No doubt whatsoever - that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were therefore clearly valid military targets.
Even the city of Dresden - surely beheld a bicycle repair shop that could be argued into having supported the German military effort.

The US argumentation beheld by many people - is that the usage of the A-bombs caused less civilian death then a continuation of the conventional war towards mainland Japan.
It therefore also saved the lives of US military personal, that of it's allies and also those of Imperial Japan.
Imperial Japan had refused to accept unconditional surrender latest since Okinawa, and in the two weeks prior to the A-bombs - they diverted the terms towards the maintaining of their Emperor and where still heckling around in regards to letting their war-criminals go scot-free.

In the end of the day the Emperor prevailed and got the say; never mind the prosecution of our Japanese war-criminals - those A-bombs we face present far worse consequences for the country.

Every country will dig out all kind of excuses or 'justifications" to counter the claim of war-crimes by other parties.
E.g. the British faced a claim brought in by the UN in regards to war-crimes due to their usage of chemical-warfare (a forerunner of Agent-orange) during the "Malayan Insurgency"
They found a loophole - counter-arguing that there was no Malayan WAR, but rather a policing action by security forces against insurgents - therefore it constituted no war-crime.

There is a single specific reason as to why Putin refers to a "special operation" - making use exactly of that UN sanctioned verdict towards Britain and other warring countries.

So once again - Imperial Japan had been on an aggressive military expansion in Asia since 1880 - foremost against China, resulting in the death of more then 20 million Chinese civilians till 1945 and a further million or millions in regards to it's occupation and war-actions (war-crimes) through out Asia and the Pacific during WW2.

Until today Japan has not even managed to officially apologize towards China for their war-crimes and neither reacted positively towards claims of compensation brought in by, e.g. comfort women or former Allied POW's, etc. etc. But keeps pointing fingers and accusing other nations of war-crimes towards Imperial Japan - persistently ignoring the fact, that they Imperial Japan, had waged war/declared war solely towards others and committed war-crimes.

With that kind of mindset that prevails in majority until today - Japan is indeed a "perfect" ally for the USA in regards to China and others.

Also as a final word in this issue:

Legal binding amendments that would make e.g. the A-bombing a war-crime were only passed by the UN in 1949, with further amendments in 1977

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

www.un.org

 

[Mushroom]

and via attacking the USA and all other colonial western powers in Asia

And the biggest irony of that was that the US did not want to be a "colonial power". And had been for decades been steering the Philippines towards independence. At the time Japan attacked, the Philippine Independence Act had been in effect since 1934, and they were to become an independent nation by 1944. Which was delayed by two years because of the war and occupation, but they were an independent nation by 1946.

That is one of the reasons Japan had such a problem holding down the Philippines. Kinda hard to make others believe they are being "liberated", when in fact they are killing any real chance of liberation and are even more brutal than who was there before.

The biggest example of nations not learning from that was the UK, but mostly France. All of the nations would have done better if they had realized the era of colonialism was over, and let them go on a scheduled timeline rather than forcing it through revolution.

 

[braalian]

They tried. Fdr wasn’t interested.

I get that they sent out peace-feelers to the Allies. But Japan didn’t accept the unconditional surrender terms of the Allies.

They were in no position other than to accept complete and unconditional surrender. It’s like a little guy picking a fight with a bigger guy. They (Japan) started it.

 

[Mushroom]

I get that they sent out peace-feelers to the Allies. But Japan didn’t accept the unconditional surrender terms of the Allies.

And what they wanted was a joke. A pro quo ante belus, they actually believed that the Allies would agree to both sides withdrawing to 1941 lines. And returning all lands captured from Japan, and at the same time any lands captured by Japan be turned into demilitarized locations where they would administer the turnover on their own terms.

Even the Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union knew there was absolutely no chance of that ever happening, and even told that to his boss. But the Privy Council still believed that the Allies would do it and that was the only kind of solution they were interested in. An Armistice.

They thought that was likely, because that is how WWI ended. The only problem is that the Allied Powers had learned their lesson from WWI, and was not about to allow any of the nations they had been fighting for half a decade or longer off so easily. Hence, they all agreed together that there would be no armistice. Nothing but a full and complete surrender.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What? so convincing the world to stay out of a self proclaimed "sphere of influence" whilst murdering 20+ million civilians, and via attacking the USA and all other colonial western powers in Asia plus those Aussies, did not harbor the idea or principle of ridding opposition or "obstacles" via winning a war???

You are obviously on par with those US deniers who simply fail to acknowledge their own countries misdeeds (war-crimes) committed during a war.

The A-bombs clearly constituted a war-crime - simply due to the fact that the radius of destruction is a "bit" more then a load-full of conventional TNT bombs, that theoretically within their singular capacity were only supposed to destroy military relevant targets? Any bombing of a city or an location that beholds civilians and as such naturally results in civilian losses - supposedly constitutes a war-crime in today's "moral society". actually it is "just" an indiscriminate killing of civilians. or the rather eloquent present US version collateral damage.

The Geneva convention, explicitly terms a city or any location a valid military target due to beholding military relevant objects.
No doubt whatsoever - that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were therefore clearly valid military targets.
Even the city of Dresden - surely beheld a bicycle repair shop that could be argued into having supported the German military effort.

The US argumentation beheld by many people - is that the usage of the A-bombs caused less civilian death then a continuation of the conventional war towards mainland Japan.
It therefore also saved the lives of US military personal, that of it's allies and also those of Imperial Japan.
Imperial Japan had refused to accept unconditional surrender latest since Okinawa, and in the two weeks prior to the A-bombs - they diverted the terms towards the maintaining of their Emperor and where still heckling around in regards to letting their war-criminals go scot-free.

In the end of the day the Emperor prevailed and got the say; never mind the prosecution of our Japanese war-criminals - those A-bombs we face present far worse consequences for the country.

Every country will dig out all kind of excuses or 'justifications" to counter the claim of war-crimes by other parties.
E.g. the British faced a claim brought in by the UN in regards to war-crimes due to their usage of chemical-warfare (a forerunner of Agent-orange) during the "Malayan Insurgency"
They found a loophole - counter-arguing that there was no Malayan WAR, but rather a policing action by security forces against insurgents - therefore it constituted no war-crime.

There is a single specific reason as to why Putin refers to a "special operation" - making use exactly of that UN sanctioned verdict towards Britain and other warring countries.

So once again - Imperial Japan had been on an aggressive military expansion in Asia since 1880 - foremost against China, resulting in the death of more then 20 million Chinese civilians till 1945 and a further million or millions in regards to it's occupation and war-actions (war-crimes) through out Asia and the Pacific during WW2.

Until today Japan has not even managed to officially apologize towards China for their war-crimes and neither reacted positively towards claims of compensation brought in by, e.g. comfort women or former Allied POW's, etc. etc. But keeps pointing fingers and accusing other nations of war-crimes towards Imperial Japan - persistently ignoring the fact, that they Imperial Japan, had waged war/declared war solely towards others and committed war-crimes.

With that kind of mindset that prevails in majority until today - Japan is indeed a "perfect" ally for the USA in regards to China and others.

Also as a final word in this issue:

Legal binding amendments that would make e.g. the A-bombing a war-crime were only passed by the UN in 1949, with further amendments in 1977

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

www.un.org

In WWII unrestricted bombing of civilians wasn't a war crime. The Nazis did it in Spain (Guernica) and Poland (Warsaw) after both cities had been declared "open" meaning they wouldn't be defended. As well as London and other cities in the Blitz. The Japanese did it all over China as well as Rangoon, Manila and several other cities that could in no way be considered military targets. All of the above with the exception of London were purely terrorism.

 

[Unkotare]

.

 

[Unkotare]

"
two days before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in early February 1945, he was shown a forty-page memorandum drafted by General MacArthur outlining a Japanese offer for surrender almost identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, President Truman. The single difference was the Japanese insistence on retention of the emperor, which was not acceptable to the American strategists at the time, though it was ultimately allowed in the final peace terms. Trohan relates that he was given a copy of this communication by Admiral Leahy who swore him to secrecy with the pledge not to release the story until the war was over. Trohan honored his pledge and reported his story in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald on August 19, 1945. According to historian Anthony Kubek, Roosevelt, in the presence of witnesses, read the memorandum and dismissed it with a curt “MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician.”

Specifically, the terms of the Japanese peace offers of late January 1945 were as follows:

• Full surrender of the Japanese forces, air, land and sea, at home and in all occupied countries.
• Surrender of all arms and ammunition.
• Agreement of the Japanese to occupation of their homeland and island possessions.
• Relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea and Formosa.
• Regulation of Japanese industry.
• Surrender of designated war criminals for trial.
• Release of all prisoners.

Other than retention of the emperor these terms were identical to the final surrender terms. Harry Elmer Barnes, in his essay “Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe,” published in the May 10, 1958 issue of the National Review, tells the same story. Barnes said that the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and says that after MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail. The Trohan story was ignored by other news media and almost immediately dropped off the public radar."

.

 

[ThirdTerm]

The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs (Togo) to the
Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union (Sato)




[Translation]

[Tokyo,] July 11, 1945 --7 p. m.​

Secret
Urgent

891. As it has been recognized as appropriate to make clear to Russia our general attitude concerning the termination of the international war despite the last paragraph in my telegram No. 890, please explain our attitude as follows, together with the substance of the above telegram, and let me know of our progress with Molotov by telegram as soon as possible:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in Asia as one aspect of maintaining world peace. We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the area which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war with a view to establishing and maintaining lasting world peace."

Please confer with Mr. M. within a day or two.

The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs (Togo) to the
Japanese Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Sato)​

[Translation]

[Tokyo,] July 12, 1945 --8:50 p.m.

Secret
Urgent

893. Re telegram 891 and others.

Not having seen the telegram regarding the meeting with Molotov, I feel as though I am sending troops out without sufficient reconnaissance. Much as I dislike doing so, I find that I must proceed at this time and would like to have you convey to the Soviet side before the Three-Power Conference begins the matter concerning the Imperial wishes for the termination of the war. The substance of the following should be borne in mind as appropriate in your direct explanation to Molotov:

"His Majesty the Emperor is greatly concerned over the daily increasing calamities and sacrifices faced by the citizens of the various belligerent countries in this present war, and it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war. In the Great East Asia War, however, as long as American and England insist on unconditional surrender, our country has no alternative but to see it through in an all-out effort for the sake of survival and the honor of the homeland. The resulting enormous bloodshed of the citizens of the belligerent powers would indeed be contrary to His Majesty's desires, and so it is His Majesty's earnest hope that peace may be restored as speedily as possible for the welfare of mankind.

"The above Imperial wishes are rooted not only in his Majesty's benevolence toward his subjects but in his sincere desire for the happiness of mankind, and he intends to dispatch Prince Fumimaro Konoye as special envoy to the Soviet Union, bearing his personal letter. You are directed therefore, to convey this to Molotov, and promptly obtain from the Soviet Government admission into that country for special envoy and his suite (The list of members of the special envoy's suite will be cabled later.) Furthermore, though it is not possible for the special envoy to reach Moscow before the Russian authorities leave there for the Three-Power Conference, arrangements must be made so that the special envoy may meet them as soon as they return to Moscow. It is desired, therefore, that the special envoy and his suite make the trip by plane. You will request the Soviet Government to send an airplane for them as far as Manchouli or Tsitsibar."​

The cables show that Japan asked Molotov to hold a peace conference between the U.S., Soviet Russia and Japan. The emperor really wanted the swift termination of the war but he could not accept unconditional surrender, which was why he asked for the Soviet intervention to end the conflict. Unfortunately, Stalin was not interested in mediating peace between the two nations, secretly planning to grab the northern half of Japan and dividing the nation in two. By prolonging the war, the Soviet Union would have gained more territories.

 

[Mushroom]

The emperor really wanted the swift termination of the war but he could not accept unconditional surrender, which was why he asked for the Soviet intervention to end the conflict.

The "Emperor" asked for nothing, he could ask for nothing. No matter what the telegrams say, it must be realized that was not the "Emperor's Wishes", but that of the Taisei Yokusankai and the Privy Council. Because one must never forget that the Emperor did not rule, everything was done entirely by the Privy Council, where he had absolutely no voice. He could not even speak in those meetings, he was only allowed to listen and say nothing.

So no matter what the telegrams say, that was the conditions set by the Privy Council, the 6 men that really ruled Japan. And in fact their terms as dictated to Ambassador Soto were only to negotiate an armistice. Hence, the repeated use of the word "peace", the admonished their Ambassador in one of the cables that he must never even mention the word "surrender", as that was something they would never accept.

And the Soviets really were their last hope. Sweden, the Swiss, every nation they tried to approach to negotiate this "peace" turned them down. And the Soviets only accepted as a ruse, as they had already agreed to join the Allies in attacking Japan, and they were only stalling for time as they got their forces into position.

But when not even the Swiss would agree to be the mediators of a "Peace Proposal", that pretty much screams that it was absolutely not acceptable in any way. They wanted to end the war, but only on terms favorable to themselves.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Of starving women, children, and old people. Uh-huh.

Human Shields Should Never Be a Barrier

The same kind of kamikaze Japanese who caused the deaths of 12,500 Americans on Okinawa, proving that the invasion of Japan would have been far more costly than even that bloodbath preview of it.

 

[Kruska]

In WWII unrestricted bombing of civilians wasn't a war crime. The Nazis did it in Spain (Guernica) and Poland (Warsaw) after both cities had been declared "open" meaning they wouldn't be defended. As well as London and other cities in the Blitz. The Japanese did it all over China as well as Rangoon, Manila and several other cities that could in no way be considered military targets. All of the above with the exception of London were purely terrorism.

You are "almost" correct.
Any city or location deemed to harbor military or military related and war-supporting installations was free game. As such also London was a valid target and did not pose a war-crime supposedly committed by Nazi-Germany. There was also no statement or documentation that would state "only" the e.g. factory is to be targeted.

An uncle of mine was a Group-Commander in a Luftwaffe bomber unit. He never received orders to bomb civilian areas or targets - but clear objectives constituting targets such as mining the channel, air-fields, industrial targets and the London Docks. Off course every member of a bomber-unit of any nation was clearly aware that a load of these bombs were prone to hit anything around a 1-3km diameter of probable impact - depending on weather conditions and altitude.

The intitial one-time "error" bombing of London wasn't a war-crime either - since London clearly housed military related installations. It had however defied an order by Hitler and Goering to exclude London from bombing runs - due to keeping the British publics mindset and opinion open towards a probable armistice/arrangement with Nazi-Germany.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are "almost" correct.
Any city or location deemed to harbor military or military related and war-supporting installations was free game. As such also London was a valid target and did not pose a war-crime supposedly committed by Nazi-Germany. There was also no statement or documentation that would state "only" the e.g. factory is to be targeted.

An uncle of mine was a Group-Commander in a Luftwaffe bomber unit. He never received orders to bomb civilian areas or targets - but clear objectives constituting targets such as mining the channel, air-fields, industrial targets and the London Docks. Off course every member of a bomber-unit of any nation was clearly aware that a load of these bombs were prone to hit anything around a 1-3km diameter of probable impact - depending on weather conditions and altitude.

The intitial one-time "error" bombing of London wasn't a war-crime either - since London clearly housed military related installations. It had however defied an order by Hitler and Goering to exclude London from bombing runs - due to keeping the British publics mindset and opinion open towards a probable armistice/arrangement with Nazi-Germany.

Ask your uncle about bombing Warsaw after it was declared an open city. Or about Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. As for the blitz, what hope did your uncle actually have of finding a specific target in a blacked out city, in a blacked out country. I’ll give him the docks, the Thames is an unmistakable landmark visible at night but any target ant where else would be a wild guess. Of course RAF bomber command operated the same way; drop enough explosives and you were bound to hit something.
But using the same standard to judge the USA on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is improper to some posters.

 

[Kruska]

Ask your uncle about bombing Warsaw after it was declared an open city. Or about Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. As for the blitz, what hope did your uncle actually have of finding a specific target in a blacked out city, in a blacked out country. I’ll give him the docks, the Thames is an unmistakable landmark visible at night but any target ant where else would be a wild guess. Of course RAF bomber command operated the same way; drop enough explosives and you were bound to hit something.
But using the same standard to judge the USA on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is improper to some posters.

Ask yourself about e.g. the US bombing of Monte Casino - a 100% civilian target with no military around at the time - just dead monks and a totally destroyed Abbey, providing excellent cover for those German paratroopers moving in after the bombing. (my long time barber - was one of them).

Somehow you don't seem to realize that we are in general agreement, The A-Bombs onto Japan did NOT constitute a war-crime,how many more times do I need to state that?
The amendments that would classify it as a war-crime came only in after 1949 and further added amendments in 1977

It's revisionists and today's moral apostles who constantly try their best, to twist the A-bombings into a war-crime - and further propagating the bull... about Japan having acepted unconditional surrendered before the bombing - and that therefore even US/Allied ground-forces would not have been needed to enforce Japans unconditional surrender.

 

[Mushroom]

Ask yourself about e.g. the US bombing of Monte Casino - a 100% civilian target with no military around at the time

Partially true.

The German army did indeed occupy it in January, but pulled out about a week prior to the bombing. Then after the bombing they returned and took up positions there again.

That is known as the "First Battle of Monte Cassino", and was initially attacked on 17 January. That battle went on for almost three weeks, with the Germans withdrawing when they realized they were about to be cut off. And at the same time the badly mauled Allied units also withdrew. It was only after that that the Air Corps bombed it.

So that is a half-truth. It was empty at the time of the bombing, the Allies had no way of knowing that the German forces had already withdrawn. But it was indeed occupied prior to the bombing.