The Bomb

If japan had used the bomb on china to end resistance or if germany had used the bomb on england for the same reason would this have been considered a war crime?
if your reason for a yes is that those countries were the agressors i would like to know how many offensive actions japan carried out on america before america decided to attack japan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the fact that German and Japan STARTED it means alot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

with germany that is pretty much indisputable,with japan vs america its not so clear cut

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well things are different when you actually experience it. For someone looking at the big picture over 60 years later may not seem to be clear cut.

My impression is that present day Japan\Japanese appear to realize what they had for leaders, at the time, and where they were taking them.

 

dont really understand what you mean by the first part unless you mean you were there to experience it and it was clear cut then?

as for the second part, it depends who you talk to.

 

What exactly did the U.S. do, for Japan to be the aggrieved and justified in starting a war against the U.S.?

Japan was already was at war with China since 1937, and was committing mass murder of Chinese civilians, and atrocities of mass rape of Chinese women, and chemical warfare on the Chinese population.

We objected to that.

All we did was to embargo steel, aluminum, and oil shipments from the U.S., that Japan needed to continue that aggression against China, and several other countries around the world did the same, namely the British and the Dutch.

 

Actually it is very clear cut. FDR begged the US public to agree in going to war. But because of their isolationist views and ignorance the public did not budge.

FDR received a report of Japanese plans to ambush the US within a week or so. He did not know where but he knew it was imminent. The president of the United States actually let the land he swore to protect come under enemy attack, not because he didn't care, but because its people were to ignorant to acknowledge the danger right on their door step.

Pearl Harbor could have been avoided if the US had been preemptive but FDR saw it necessary for the public to be witness that the enemy danger was real.

 

History shows us that what is considered to be a war crime, and who the perpetrators of said crimes are considered to be, is typically decided by the victors of the conflict.
Thus had Germany neatly ended WII by nuking Britain prior to US involvement (assuming that would have won it for them - were tough fuckers you know) - then it would certainly not be considered to have been a war crime.

Likewise had Germany perpetrated an aerial attack on the same scale (i.e bigger than either of the A-bombs on Japan) as the bombing of Dresden, against an Allied city which, (like Dresden) was of little strategic or military value, and (like Dresden) was full of civilians, then no doubt those responsible for ordering and planning it would have been considered war criminals.

 

Green:

there was a lot of military support given by the americans to the japanese enemies and the americans even carried out some bombing runs..

Red:

please dont make me laugh.that would be number 4857 on the list of why america went to war with japan.


anyway,this is all getting away from my original post.whats your opinion?

 

Oh, really???? And I suppose that you have some historically accurate proof that shows that the Americans bombed some Japanese interests PRIOR to their attack on Pearl Harbor??????

Show it to all of us, please!

 

Kenworth,

What about ALL the causualties of the war???

 

reasons we went to war with japan:
rivalry over control of the pacific
military threats to our allies, namely, China, Britain, Holland
pearl harbor

and though the Japanese atrocities in china were not a primary reason for going to war, they were certainly a justification.

 

i like christopher hitchens' arguement

Hitchens regarded the employment of nuclear weapons as the compulsory enlistment of civilians in a war and, as such, a violation of individual sovereignty.

with ordinary war there is a chance civilians might be injured/killed,with nuclear weapons its is an absolute certainty,massive numbers of civilians.

 

this may sound really lazy and actually it is but i cant really be bothered to search them out now.

 

It would be best for you if you did. Because you made the claim and you need to substantiate it or you will quickly be considered unreliable at best - and at worst, a liar.

I'm giving you the opportunity to avoid both of those.

What will it be?

 

Everyone who died was a person regardless of their country. Also the soldiers on all sides were drafted and the bombs dropped on all side killed all kinds of people. Not to mention those that died from other weapons.

Dont you start this same thread once a month?

:wtf:

 

Basically, the justification for the dropping of the atomic bomb is that we wanted to conclude the war as soon as possible. The American military was planning an invasion of the Japanese homeland that would have cost millions of lives (operation downfall), and the British were at the same time planning an enormous assault on Singapore that would have no doubt cost hundreds of thousands of lives as well. Fighting was still going on in China and Burma, and the Japanese occupiers were killing, tortuing, and raping more innocent civilians every day.
That's why we dropped the atomic bomb.

 

Don't forget that the US did not want the Soviet Union spread communism. Dropping the A-Bomb prevented them from entering Japan.

 

best for me?i dont really have time to explain how little i care about how seriously im taken on the internet.you're giving me the opportunity?!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
i really dont give a tiny fuck.either you care enough to read up about it or you dont,it really doesnt make a difference to me.

 

i very rarely start threads,if you can find a thread that ive started that is remotely similar i would be interested...
your post is not relevant to the comment i made.