In small ways in a number of places. Yes, the route in Manchuria occurred between the two bombings, but the bombings were not necessary to get Japan out of those places. Japan's ability to resupply its army had been eliminated. The invasion of the Japanese homeland may have been something that would have to be done at great cost, but the rout of the Japanese elsewhere was well in progress.
Nuclear attacks in Japan justified - Agree or Disagree?
- Thread starter wet_suit_one
- Start date
Which section of the Geneva convention are you suggesting that was from?So this is not a crime?
"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."
It seems to me that the firebombing a city or the atomic bombing of a city with the goal of annihilating its civilian population certainly counts as murder and extermination.
Or are you going to man up and admit you fucked up again?
Whoops, facts intervene in Fuji world again. Stop embarassing yourself man. While you still have any shred of dignity?In small ways in a number of places. Yes, the route in Manchuria occurred between the two bombings, but the bombings were not necessary to get Japan out of those places. Japan's ability to resupply its army had been eliminated. The invasion of the Japanese homeland may have been something that would have to be done at great cost, but the rout of the Japanese elsewhere was well in progress.
Which has no application to the Geneva convention as it existed in 1945. You were simply dead wrong in your assertion about the GC.That's the definition of crime against humanity that was used at Nuremberg.
So people can understand let's show your position again:
The bolded section is factually wrong. I trust you agree and are willing to apologize to those you tried to mislead?I disagree that it was ex post facto. The Geneva Conventions, which prohibit attacks on civilians, were already in place, as were many other conventions prohibiting the attacks on civilians. It was in fact a crime at the time it was done. We have codified the law better since that time but the principles are unchanged--it is, was, and always has been illegal to attack civilians.
Again you quibble irrelevantly while missing the substance of the argument.Which has no application to the Geneva convention as it existed in 1945. You were simply dead wrong in your assertion about the GC.
The Nazis were convicted of war crimes on the basis of that definition. Why can't it be used to convict those responsible for the firebombing of Dresden, an event that took place in the same country and at the same time as the crimes against humanity the Nazis were convicted of.
I`ve long had Fuji on ignore, as he has proven he is not worth trying to deal with as one does a normal person, but this comment is sooooo stupidly idiotic it needs a short comment:
As Aardvark suggests, one should READ BOOKS on topics before one offers opinions, lest one show himself to be a fool. "Japan capitulated after the loss of only two cities". Really? Is that when Japan surrendered? All it took was two cities being levelled and they rolled over? SO, Japan suffered no prior losses before August 1945? They didn`t sacrifice 100k of their men in their defense of Okinawa (an occupied island, not one of the Japanese home islands) against Allied liberation? They didn`t sacrifice 200K in their defense of Luzon (again, an occupied island, not a Japanese home island) when the Allies came to liberate the Philippines?
The fact is that Japan sacrificed its people by the millions as occupied island after occupied island were liberated (pretty much starting with Gaudalcanal). Looking at these two cities in isolation is just stupid. Truly, truly stupid. But, I guess thats the best we can expect from someone who tried to argue against historical facts (like the estimate of 10000 available aircraft for kamikaze defense of the home islands)
Heres a thread from this time last year: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-298648.html?.
As Aardvark suggests, one should READ BOOKS on topics before one offers opinions, lest one show himself to be a fool. "Japan capitulated after the loss of only two cities". Really? Is that when Japan surrendered? All it took was two cities being levelled and they rolled over? SO, Japan suffered no prior losses before August 1945? They didn`t sacrifice 100k of their men in their defense of Okinawa (an occupied island, not one of the Japanese home islands) against Allied liberation? They didn`t sacrifice 200K in their defense of Luzon (again, an occupied island, not a Japanese home island) when the Allies came to liberate the Philippines?
The fact is that Japan sacrificed its people by the millions as occupied island after occupied island were liberated (pretty much starting with Gaudalcanal). Looking at these two cities in isolation is just stupid. Truly, truly stupid. But, I guess thats the best we can expect from someone who tried to argue against historical facts (like the estimate of 10000 available aircraft for kamikaze defense of the home islands)
Heres a thread from this time last year: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-298648.html?.
Just a note that on this thread, this point remains undisputed:
It's primarily unjustified because it set the precedent that it is OK to use weapons of mass destruction under any circumstances. I disagree. The use of WMD's is *never* justified. It's an evil act regardless of how you dress it up. Worse, from a practical standpoint, the precedent puts at risk many innocent people around the world. Sooner or later the bad guys are going to get the bomb, and they are going to point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to justify their use of it. They are going to argue that bombing New York, or Toronto, or Los Angeles is the only practical way to win their conflict, and it's going to be a hard argument to refute unless you insist that Hiroshima and Nasgasaki were equally evil.
It's primarily unjustified because it set the precedent that it is OK to use weapons of mass destruction under any circumstances. I disagree. The use of WMD's is *never* justified. It's an evil act regardless of how you dress it up. Worse, from a practical standpoint, the precedent puts at risk many innocent people around the world. Sooner or later the bad guys are going to get the bomb, and they are going to point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to justify their use of it. They are going to argue that bombing New York, or Toronto, or Los Angeles is the only practical way to win their conflict, and it's going to be a hard argument to refute unless you insist that Hiroshima and Nasgasaki were equally evil.
Legal argument aside, because the bombing of Dresden was a legitimate military attack under the rules of war at the time.Again you quibble irrelevantly while missing the substance of the argument.
The Nazis were convicted of war crimes on the basis of that definition. Why can't it be used to convict those responsible for the firebombing of Dresden, an event that took place in the same country and at the same time as the crimes against humanity the Nazis were convicted of.
Now let me help you. Now you have to find some specific charge someone at Nuremburg was convicted of that equates or is really similar to Dresden to try and refute my position. I look forward to it...
You missed the point. My view is that once the casualties started mounting in the main Island of Japan they would have surrendered. That view is consistent with the idea that they surrender in light of the devastation of a couple of their cities. It's the opposing view which is illogical and inconsistent, which maintains that even though the destruction of a couple of cities was evidently enough to achieve capitulation, that somehow turning the entire Island of Japan into a huge devastated battlefield would not have achieved it.seth gecko;3670772" said:Japan capitulated after the loss of only two cities". Really? Is that when Japan surrendered? All it took was two cities being levelled and they rolled over? SO, Japan suffered no prior losses before August 1945? They didn't sacrifice 100k of their men in their defense of Okinawa (an occupied island, not one of the Japanese home islands) against Allied liberation?
Fuji, presuming that your real world beliefs are what you post here, please let us know if you ever even decide to run for dog-catcher so that we can be sure to vote for another candidate.
That's a question of fact. The question is this: Was the bombing of Dresden primarily intended to be an attack on a civilian population? If the answer is "yes" then it was a crime against humanity per the definition used at Nuremberg.Legal argument aside, because the bombing of Dresden was a legitimate military attack under the rules of war at the time.
I think that the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were primarily attacks on civilians, that the military aspects of the attacks could have been achieved through other means, and were not the motivating factor in attacking those cities. I think the same thing is true of many other "strategic bombing" attacks, by both sides, in WW2: They were often done with the explicit goal of turning the civilian population against the government. They were attempts to murder and exterminate civilians, and not primarily attacks on military infrastructure.
While we have codified the rules regarding this much more thoroughly since 1949 it was as true then as it is now, per the definition used at Nuremberg, that the murder and extermination of civilians was just as much a crime against humanity then as now.
It is I suppose nice that this is your view. The only problem is that it directly conflicts with the view of D.M. Giangreco the author of the most definative study to date on the topic of the invasion of the Home Islands.You missed the point. My view is that once the casualties started mounting in the main Island of Japan they would have surrendered.
Your view that crimes against humanity are acceptable so long as the perpetrator is an American is well known to me. I wouldn't want your vote. If your view is that a majority of Americans support crimes being perpetrated by the American government--well you may be correct, but you are not right.Fuji, presuming that your real world beliefs are what you post here, please let us know if you ever even decide to run for dog-catcher so that we can be sure to vote for another candidate.
Personally, for a number of reasons I conclude Dresden was a very legitimate military attack.That's a question of fact. The question is this: Was the bombing of Dresden primarily intended to be an attack on a civilian population? If the answer is "yes" then it was a crime against humanity per the definition used at Nuremberg.
I think that the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were primarily attacks on civilians, that the military aspects of the attacks could have been achieved through other means, and were not the motivating factor in attacking those cities. I think the same thing is true of many other "strategic bombing" attacks, by both sides, in WW2: They were often done with the explicit goal of turning the civilian population against the government. They were attempts to murder and exterminate civilians, and not primarily attacks on military infrastructure.
While we have codified the rules regarding this much more thoroughly since 1949 it was as true then as it is now, per the definition used at Nuremberg, that the murder and extermination of civilians was just as much a crime against humanity then as now.
I think the nuclear attacks were more in a grey area, but you have proven yourself such a wanker to deal with for so long, I cannot give you the respect required for a civil conversation on the subject.
The loss of those 2 cities without any chance to strike at the attackers was a major setback. At least with an invasion of the home islands they would have been able to bleed the invaders dry. But the bombs were different, one aircraft, one bomb capable of destroying every city without setting foot onto land and without any chance for them to get back at the attackers was even too much for even the most fanatical japanese defender.You missed the point. My view is that once the casualties started mounting in the main Island of Japan they would have surrendered. That view is consistent with the idea that they surrender in light of the devastation of a couple of their cities. It's the opposing view which is illogical and inconsistent, which maintains that even though the destruction of a couple of cities was evidently enough to achieve capitulation, that somehow turning the entire Island of Japan into a huge devastated battlefield would not have achieved it.
So yes those bombs did save countless of lives that would have been lost in an invasion, your point is more illogical and inconsistent. How could they defend against nuclear bombs fuji? So yes those bombs broke their spirit to resist to the last man.
Seems to me that in several posts above you have argued that Britons, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are all "guilty" of crimes against humanity and that these 85+ year-olds should all be thrown in to prison.Your view that crimes against humanity are acceptable so long as the perpetrator is an American is well known to me.
Yup, even the WW II Japanese were smart enough to realize that they were completely impoent against nuclear bombs. It was game over, Thank goodness, Bradley Manning wasn't around then to tell Japan that the U.S. only had the two bombs.How could they defend against nuclear bombs fuji? So yes those bombs broke their spirit to resist to the last man.
Of course, the French and Danes are exempt because they simply rolled over and threw their hands up in surrender.Seems to me that in several posts above you have argued that Britons, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are all "guilty" of crimes against humanity and that these 85+ year-olds should all be thrown in to prison.
Absolutely correct. Is it your view that war criminals shouldn't be prosecuted if they are "too old"? Charges against Mladic should be dropped, in your view?Seems to me that in several posts above you have argued that Britons, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are all "guilty" of crimes against humanity and that these 85+ year-olds should all be thrown in to prison.
