American war-criminal?

[nurizeko]

Zeroyon's post summarized: Tough sh*t, world, your rules dont apply to us.

Zero, we cant live in a world where one act of inhumanity is a war-crime while another is let off because they just so happened to be winning, what kind of message is that?.

At the time Japan WAS willing to surrender, it was crumbling and cracking, the allies knew this, they had total air superiority, Japan offshore shipping was getting wasted, the japanese infrastructure was getting pounded by the American airforce, any allied commander who didnt think or know Japan was on its last leg were either blatantly ignorant of reality or lying to themselves in favour of continuing their little playing soldiers game. The allies knew that Japan would simply not accept an unconditional surrender because understandably enough that would not ensure the survival of the imperial line, something which is a lot older then America, and which has been central to Japan history since forever.

The Japanese government was seeking ways to surrender, they sent the americans diplomatic attempts to ask for a conditional surrender, they even went to russia to mediate a peace-agreement, simply put, Japan wanted out, it had given up, but maybe unlike some other of America's targets (America has decided attacking a more dangerous enemy isnt as fun as bulldozing third world nations) Japan wasnt going to take the risk of losing its cultural identity by giving into an unconditional surrender.

If America was defeated in world war 3 by china after American agression because China stopped shipping it the last oil reserves, and America was on the verge of collapse, would America accept an unconditional surrender?, would America just throw itself to the mercy of the Chinese pseudo-communist governments mercy?....my ass it would, at the least it would want a conditional surrender so as to preserve the american way of life, the american specific brand of democracy the country seems to get wood over.

I guess its that sense of invulnerability America has which seems to protect it from a common global empathy most of the other developed world has, a war criminal is a war criminal, no matter where he comes from in my part of the world.

Its easy to sit there on the American mainland, secure in your belief America is far away from any of the worlds problems convinced the consiquences of war will never reach your city or home town, but a war-criminal is a war criminal.

If America can admit its war crimes, then maybe suddenly signing up to things like international treaties designed to lessen the impact of human increased climate change, and extradition treaties can be taken seriously, and a bit more international co-operation.

America isnt the make or break of the world anymore, that was a post war stint while the rest of it rebuilt, being an American no longer automatically gives the rest of the world the impression their war-crimes werent that.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I personally think it would be a gesture of immense enlightenment and good will to have someone in charge of the atomic attacks recognised for the war criminals they are but, my opinion is just one in a sea of 6 billion, so, debate and engage in this issue.

It is the correct opinion.

It is a crime to target an area with such an indiscriminate weapon knowing that collateral damage to innocense will not be minimal -- but excessive.

Truman and a large number in the chain of command and the bombers, if they had knowledge of the immense destructiveness of their payload, should be charged rightfully for the horrible deaths they inflicted.

The bombings were not a last ditch option available. I have always found the suggestion that one atomic bomb could have been exploded a few miles outside of Tokyo Bay in view of the palace to drive the point home that emminant defeat was at hand. That would have left many to at least testify to a searing heat that left some 2nd degree burnings. Still bad on innocense, but far more acceptable than what happened.

I guess one has to ask themselves when they fight someone, are they satisfied with winning in a way in which their opponant isn`t pulvarized to a pulp. I think that method of victory over an adversary is barbaric and if humanity and universal love marks our species, we should know that victory can be done with mercy and compassion that does not leave our enemy disgustingly bloodied and oursleves not disgustingly depraved.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

... Even almost all (around 99.9%) of the japanese civilians living on okinawa commitied suicide (many jumped from cliffs into the ocean), ...

Zeroyon, that is just not true. Either you are mislead or are actively employing hyperbole to mislead. You tell us.

If you can make that statistical statement, then cite that source or Okinawa`s prewar civilian population and surrender population -- and then we can easily extrapolate this 99.9% dubious figure.

 

[zeroyon]

Zeroyon's post summarized: Tough sh*t, world, your rules dont apply to us.

I never said this anywhere, nor did I imply it.

I never said that Truman shouldn't have been tried as a war criminal, I am explaining why he hasn't been. I was trying to explain what information the USA and the rest of the world had, to try and explain to people why he chose to do what he did. I was also trying to show that other alternatives could have been worse. In my opinion, Truman should have not asked for unconditional surrender, and waited longer before resorting to drop the bomb if he had to. I already stated this before. If I "had" to choose right now for either truman being a war criminal or not being one, I would say he is one.

Its easy to sit there on the American mainland, secure in your belief America is far away from any of the worlds problems convinced the consiquences of war will never reach your city or home town, but a war-criminal is a war criminal.

I certainly don't think this way, and I would guess that most don't think this way either after what happened on 9/11.

In case you don't know, most of America disagrees with the war that is going on in Iraq, and Bush's approval ratings are at around 35% now. I think the only reason he got elected into office is because the person who ran against him is just as big of an idiot (I voted against Bush and for John Kerry). FYI, I am also against the war in Iraq.

Zeroyon, that is just not true. Either you are mislead or are actively employing hyperbole to mislead. You tell us.

That is probably true, I don't have an exact figure for the amount of civilians that jumped off the cliffs, nor does anyone else. The only thing known for sure is that they were in the thousands. In the most realalistic sense, it is probably not anywhere near to 99.9% (although for soldiers, it was), and I was trying to compare the mindset of the japanese civilians to the mindset of the japanese soldiers, and used a poor comparison.

EDIT: over a thousand Japanese civilians also commited suicide by jumping off cliffs on Saipan as well. It's still not anywhere near 99.9% that did it though, that was an over-exaggeration by me (there were around 30,000 civilians there, 22,000 were japanese. Im not sure how many were killed in combat...).

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The pre-battle population was 450,000 people. On third of that (i.e. 150,000 civilians) died in the battle. If all of those were suicides (which they were not) then that would mean 33. 333% of the population committed suicide. That is like 66.666% lower than your figure -- quite a high error -- seeing that, that would mean you are 200% off.

Americans did witness perhaps hundreds of people jumping from cliffs and even other Okinawans recall friends blowing themselves up with grenades, but surely not all of that 33.333% of the civilian population died from suicide. A large majority of them died from bombings and beng caught in the battlefield between advancing U.S. and defending Japanese forces. Therefore your error rate is even more considerable than what I granted in the first paragraph.

In retrospect, suicide by the civilian population was not as high as some would expect just because Japanese soldiers reverted to it in high numbers. Graphing the actions of soldiers onto civilians is misleading.

But, you did admit it was a poor example zeroyon. Good on you to do so.

But, I still wouldn`t say the mindset of the Okinawan civilians were so similar to the Japanese soldiers. Fear from propoganda (Americans were monster baby rapists) is what precipitated the civilian suicides. Fear of dishonor is what precipitated the Japanese suicides.

The Okinawans were also very fearful of their Japanese soldier 'protectors' as they often accused them of spies just for speaking their island language and often requisitioning the safe caves they were hiding in, forcing them out into the deadly crossfire.

 

[zeroyon]

strongvoicesforward, I already know I made a mistake with the numbers of suicides, you don't need to rub it in :bluush:

The Okinawans were also very fearful of their Japanese soldier 'protectors' as they often accused them of spies just for speaking their island language and often requisitioning the safe caves they were hiding in, forcing them out into the deadly crossfire.

This is quite true. Also, i read that many were also fearful of their Japanese soldier 'protectors' because some japanese soldiers murdered Japanese civilans and used them for food. Is this true?

EDIT: I read that from here --> http://www.21stcenturyadventures.com/articles/TheOkinawanSuicideCliffs.html second last paragraph. It doesn't seem like a great source to me, can anyone verify?

EDIT2: Here is an interesting question...

Although the correct thing to do should have been to not ask for unconditional surrender and deal with the Japanese in a diplomatic way, do you think Truman would have been tried as a war criminal if he chose to invade japan instead of dropping the a-bombs?

Think about it... the American propaganda machine was in full effect at that time, and the average american thought that all Japanese were bloodthirsty monsters that should all be wiped out (same thing in Japan with the Japanese propaganda machine). If Truman ordered the US forces to invade Japan, which could have possibly caused hundreds of thousands to millions of casualties (both military and civilian), how do you think the American public at that time (and especially the US forces) would have reacted to knowing that Truman could have used the bombs to avoid any American casualties? I think he would have been at the least, impeached, and at the most, found as a war criminal by his own people.

It's an odd, twisted world we live in...

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Also, i read that many were also fearful of their Japanese soldier 'protectors' because some japanese soldiers murdered Japanese civilans and used them for food. Is this true?

Hi Zeroyon,

I think you are not comprehending the passage you are referring to on that site correctly. Here it is:

The Americans were not the sole cause of death among the Okinawans. Some Japanese soldiers murdered Okinawan civilians for food and shelter. Overall, Okinawa was in a vulnerable position and became a pawn in World War II, suffering innumerable losses.​

It doesn`t mean they killed them and used them 'for' food as in eating them. It means they killed them for the shelter and food they may have possessed at that time (i.e. murdering and then robbing).

Reading that passage again, doesn`t that seem more clear to you now?

 

[4321go]

EDIT2: Here is an interesting question...
Although the correct thing to do should have been to not ask for unconditional surrender and deal with the Japanese in a diplomatic way, do you think Truman would have been tried as a war criminal if he chose to invade japan instead of dropping the a-bombs?
Think about it... the American propaganda machine was in full effect at that time, and the average american thought that all Japanese were bloodthirsty monsters that should all be wiped out (same thing in Japan with the Japanese propaganda machine). If Truman ordered the US forces to invade Japan, which could have possibly caused hundreds of thousands to millions of casualties (both military and civilian), how do you think the American public at that time (and especially the US forces) would have reacted to knowing that Truman could have used the bombs to avoid any American casualties? I think he would have been at the least, impeached, and at the most, found as a war criminal by his own people.
It's an odd, twisted world we live in...

Truman not only worry about this~ also,the USSR!
And Truman and his fellow want to test its power,and show it to the world .
you know,Japan only occupied by the US.force (not the ally force), different from the Germany.

The Soviets agreed to intervene in the war with Japan within three months of the German surrender. In return they would be given the Sakhalin and Kurile Islands and pre-eminent interests over Port Arthur and Darien (Dalian) and its rail connections.
On August 8, 1945, Stalin declared war against Imperial Japan and launched an attack on IJ's puppet regime Manchukuo & IJA's Guandong Army in Operation August Strom with success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm
Operation August Storm was the codename for the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, Mengjiang, Korea, the southern portion of Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, and Hokkaido. This was the initial action of the Soviet Union against the Empire of Japan. At the Yalta Conference, it had agreed to enter the Second World War's Pacific theatre within three months of the end of the war in Europe.
The invasion began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8. It occurred in violation of a neutrality pact with Japan, and, notably, between the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).
The operation was carried out as a classic double pincer envelopment over an area the size of Western Europe. In the western pincer, the Red Army advanced over the deserts and mountains from Mongolia, far from their resupply railways. This confounded the Japanese military analysis of Soviet logistics, and the Japanese were caught by complete surprise, in unfortified positions. The Japanese commander was missing for the first eighteen hours of conflict, and communication was lost with forward units very early on; Japanese forces had been misled into believing the invasion would be in October. At the same time, airborne units were used to seize airfields and city centers in advance of the land forces; they were also used to ferry fuel to those units that had outrun their supply lines.
The attackers were essentially victorious by the 16th. The fighting had lasted only for about a week when Japan's Emperor Hirohito read the Gyokuon-hōsō on August 15, and declared a ceasefire in the region the next day; Soviet forces were already penetrating deep into Manchukuo by that time. They continued their now largely unopposed advance into Manchukuo's territory, reaching Mukden, Changchun and Qiqihar by August 20. At the same time, Mengjiang was invaded by the Red Army and her Mongol allies, with Guihua soon taken.
On August 18, several amphibious landings had been conducted ahead of the land advance: three in northern Korea, one in Sakhalin, and one in the Kuril Islands. This meant that, in Korea at least, there were would be already Soviet soldiers waiting for the troops coming overland. In Sakhalin and the Kurils, it meant a sudden and undeniable establishment of Soviet sovereignty.
The land advance was stopped a good distance short of the Yalu River, the beginning of the Korean peninsula, when even the aerial supply lines became unavailable. The forces already in Korea were able to establish a bit of control in the peninsula's north, but the ambition to take the entire peninsula was cut short when American forces landed at Incheon on September 8, six days after the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
Hokkaido was never invaded as planned.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/timeline/1940/1945.htm
http://www.japannuclear.com


The decision to drop the atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most controversial issues of the 20th century. Many modern historians have criticized the commonly held perceptions that the bomb shortened the war, saved American lives and prevented USSR's sharing in the post-war administration of Japan (see, for example, Hiroshima's Shadow edited by Kai Bird & Lawrence Lifschultz ). In 1995, on the 50th anniversary of the bombing, an exhibit designed to commemorate the event resulted in unprecedented controversy for the Smithsonian Institution . The American Legion and other veteran's organizations successfully lobbied against the inclusion of quotes from a number of notables including Dwight D. Eisenhower that questioned the necessity of the bomb's use.
The debate has not subsided. This timeline seeks to chronicle the events in 1945 leading up to and following the bombings. In 1945 the Manhattan Project, the ambitious and expensive US effort to create the atomic bomb, succeeded in its mission. The first atomic device was tested at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945. Three weeks later the atomic bomb was used on the city of Hiroshima, killing to 70,000 to 90,000 people-- overwhelmingly civilians-- immediately. Three days later the atomic bomb was used again on the city of Nagasaki, followed shortly by the end of World War II.
The decision to drop the first atomic bomb on Japan will remain relevant to our joint human experience forever. Important questions remain: Did it have to happen? Will it happen again in an even more catastrophic way? What do the first human experiences with nuclear power say about humanity's ability to control its most dangerous creation?

It doesn`t mean they killed them and used them 'for' food as in eating them. It means they killed them for the shelter and food they may have possessed at that time (i.e. murdering and then robbing).
Reading that passage again, doesn`t that seem more clear to you now?

How evil ! the atomic bombings is the punishment ,Don't forget the Pearl Harbor, "if you want trouble ,you will get trouble!" Why Japan start this war?

 

[osias]

If the same logic goes, China should be nuked too for its evil. And America should be nuked too, and maybe everyone else should. You are not afraid of contradictions..I like your naivete.

 

[moffeltoff]

4321go if you really believe ,what you said just then you probably also believe Mao was a good guy too....

 

[zeroyon]

Ah strongvoicesforward, it seems I had my head on bass ackwards and misinterpreted it. It's still just as bad that way though....

 

[4321go]

How evil ! the atomic bombings is the punishment ,Don't forget the Pearl Harbor, "if you want trouble ,you will get trouble!" Why Japan start this war?

If the same logic goes, China should be nuked too for its evil. And America should be nuked too, and maybe everyone else should. You are not afraid of contradictions..I like your naivete.

4321go if you really believe ,what you said just then you probably also believe Mao was a good guy too....

Look at what he said:
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

"We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).

"I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner."

more info in it: http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

 

[nurizeko]

But the funny thing is Japan was willing to surrender, all america had to do was give them the one little condition that the imperial line would remain (which they did anyway so it wasnt hard), would YOUR country surrender if an enemy power soon to defeat your broken nation was going to do away with your nations most highly respected and protected cultural heritage?.
If another country killed my country's queen you can bet your ass britain would want their blood, I actually admire the Japanese, facing the overwhelming defeat they faced, they still had some pride and respect for themselves left to protect a cultural treasure.
Yes, Japan was misguided in its war-effort, the Uinted States just seemed malicious in finishing it.

"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].

The thing is, it WAS used against women and children, unless sobbing elderly men and women talknig about their dead family or friends is a blatant "Jap" lie.
Also i understand it was a different time but the blatant racism and stereotyping is mind-boggling.
At least he showed a half-assed interest in civillian lives, even if in reality he couldnt care less who it killed, im actually suprised he even bothered to not wish tokyo or kyoto bombed, but then again, they need someone to sign the surrender documents.

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.

Basically he's saying America, in its bloodlust for cold vengence against pearl harbour, will see the japanese people murdered to satisfy American honour....

We hear this same b***sh** from An american president today in regards to breach of human rights, and killing of civillians in current american war zones, not to mention American behaviour to the locals as if their somehow the sub-humans in their own country.

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

Again truman states quite clearly to anyone with half a braincell that its an act of vengence, and that the lives of innocent people arent more important then the lives of soldiers who have been trained to do the fighting and dying for America's war of vengence.

We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

But the potsdam conference and other channels had clearly shown Japan's willingness to surrender on the pathetic non-issue of a condition that Japan maintains its imperial line, i dont think it mattered in what political context, just aslong as it remained, From that link provided above its quite clear truman was well aware of japans wish to surrender, not to mention the fact Japan had a pathetit non-ability to make war anyway, or was the ring of steel around japan just a figment of WW2 people's emagination?.

I agree Truman and the allied leaders were what passed as the "good guys" durring that war, but it doesnt make genocide right, i dont care how you justify it, Germany bombed british cities, Japan bombed pearl harbour (which makes it even odd that an attack on a military base should be treated as such a crime against humanity while atomic weaponry wasnt...odd that) so the allies decided that being the bigger men, being the good-guys wasnt enough, so we set off and started bombing innocent civillians, and then America committed what i feel is the greatest sin against humanity and the innocent...it dropped two nukes on Japanese cities.

I reckon someone needs to be recognised as a war-criminal for these acts, someone needs to be accepted as responsible for the deaths of innocent civillians, living in enemy territory or not.

Unfortunately the WW2 allies seemed small minded racist bigots so if you were a german or "jap" that automatically made you guilty.

 

[Thor]

The fire bombing hurt alot more then the atomic bombs did. I think Truman should be identified as a war criminal. Bombing Japan like the US did in WWII was inhumane.

 

[Jagotaro]

4231go,

"...but the ambition to take the entire peninsula was cut short when American forces landed at Incheon on September 8, six days after the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender."

There seems to be some sort of disconnect here, 4321go, the invasion of Incheon was in September 1950, which was 5 years after Japan's surrender.

 

[nurizeko]

It was also a military action occuring durring a different war against a different enemy, if the name's familiarity rings true in my mind.

 

[4321go]

4231go,

"...but the ambition to take the entire peninsula was cut short when American forces landed at Incheon on September 8, six days after the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender."

There seems to be some sort of disconnect here, 4321go, the invasion of Incheon was in September 1950, which was 5 years after Japan's surrender.

It was also a military action occuring durring a different war against a different enemy, if the name's familiarity rings true in my mind.

There are two Incheon invasion~ Sep. 8th 1945 & Sep.15th 1950

 

[nurizeko]

Reference link please?.

 

[Blututh]

War is war, it is a crime within itself. Anyone who takes up a gun against his fellow man unless in self-defense is a war criminal.

Truman didn't need to drop the atomic bombs on civilian targets, but he did, and for that I think he is a war criminal. But if anyone is a war criminal, then all soldiers who take up arms against other nations to kill civilans are war criminals as well. Every member of every bombing crew that dropped bombs on cities, every soldier who killed a civilian, every officer that commanded his/her troops to attack any position that had civilians present there, etc...

So, with that all in mind, yes he was.

 

[Thor]

You can't blame the people who piloted the planes that dropped the bombs. They were following orders. You can't hold a grudge against them. Much like americans cannot hold prejudice against japanese due to the pearl harbor attack. They were all following orders. The people who make the orders are the war criminals.