Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[magburner]

Actually, if anybody actually broke the Nazi's backs, it was the Russians. With a little help from the Russian winter. And then you have the British beating the Germans in Africa, denying them access to vital petroleum supplies. (or was it the Americans? Can't remember if it was Montgomery or Patton who pounded Rommel to a bloody pulp)

In regard to the Russians, you are correct. that is why I mentioned that 'some of the most decisive battles'. Hitlers failiure to defeat Great Britain in the Battle of Britain and the failiure of Operation Barbarossa, and particularly the attack and subsequent siege of Stalingrad were critical turning points in WWII, which the NAZI's never recovered from.

Don't get me wrong though. In a military sense, the Battle of Britain was more a case of a stalemate than an outright victory, because even though Great Britain had secured the islands from a land invasion, German bombers still attacked our cities with relative impunity.

The north African Campaign was initially fought by the British under the command of Montgomery. Two years later, the Americans, joined opening a second front on Rommel, which he could not counter, resulting in his surrender.

There is no doubt that the huge amount of materiel that US factories produced played a pivotal role in the war, but if Germany had not broken truce with the Russians, the outcome of the war might have been much different.

I believe, like the A-bomb, American manufacturing assistance help bring about a swift resolution of the war in Europe. Granted it was a key factor, but not the only factor. Also, never forget the hubris of a megalomaniac!

 

[niky]

Yup... one of the biggest factors in Hitler's defeat was Hitler himself... fascinating man.

 

[dxm8975]

Winston Churchill was not kidding either. If we had lost the Battle of Britain, then Hitler would have had free reign over the entire European Continent. There would have been no bombing raids into the German manufacturing heartlands, and Hitler would have been free to amass a vast military machine. There may have also been no D-Day landings...

So, by the time America entered WWII (or at the very least, started to supply the allies with equipment), Great Britain HAD 'literally just saved the world'. 👍
​

Huh, I'm not quite sure about how he planned to do if Germany defeated the UK in the Battle of Britain, but the final result of the war should have been different

 

[analog]

Huh, I'm not quite sure about how he planned to do if Germany defeated the UK in the Battle of Britain, but the final result of the war should have been different

Hope you meant could have been different as opposed to should have been, unless it was meant jokingly...........

 

[magburner]

Huh, I'm not quite sure about how he planned to do if Germany defeated the UK in the Battle of Britain, but the final result of the war should have been different

Hitler never could have defeated Great Britain, because even though we lacked the power to project force beyond our own borders, we were more than capable of defending ourselves.

It may have escaped many peoples attention, but, up until the end of WWII, Great Britain was a global super power. The Royal Navy was one of the largest, and most powerful navies in the world, though by the early 1940's, its size and strength had been eclipsed by that of Japan and America. Still, it was far superior to the Kriegsmarine.

So, for Hitler to succeed in conquering Great Britian, he first had to gain air superiority, and THEN attempt an amphibious landing. The Kriegsmarine was no match for the power of the Royal Navy, and any amphibious landing would have led to annihilation. Hitler knew this, and once he tasted defeat in the Battle of Britain, he attempted to sue for peace - he would rather pacify us than contemplate another humiliating defeat!

 

[dxm8975]

Hope you meant could have been different as opposed to should have been, unless it was meant jokingly...........

?? Maybe I suppose I should've said "could have been" instead of "should have been" when I wrote it, but "should have been different" might have been closer to what I meant then, to be honest...

 

[magburner]

Going back to the OP, One thing that I cannot understand, is why the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not considered war crimes? I can understand the purpose of the attacks, but not the reasons why largely civilian targets were selected. Due to the sheer loss of civilian life, they should at least be considered as war crimes, maybe even genocide.

Likewise, some of the allied bombing campaigns in the later stages of WWII over Germany, particularly over Dresden were considered war crimes, but not the atomic attacks on Japan, why?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Going back to the OP, One thing that I cannot understand, is why the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not considered war crimes? I can understand the purpose of the attacks, but not the reasons why largely civilian targets were selected. Due to the sheer loss of civilian life, they should at least be considered as war crimes, maybe even genocide.

Likewise, some of the allied bombing campaigns in the later stages of WWII over Germany, particularly over Dresden were considered war crimes, but not the atomic attacks on Japan, why?

I beg to differ. From my experience those that are aware of the Dreseden bombings regard them in much the same way as the Nuclear bombings.

Both can be argued as purely massacres of civilian life, both have arguments for their military value.

However, I guess you could say it is easier for some to justify the Nuclear bombings because they brought an end to the war.

 

[analog]

Going back to the OP, One thing that I cannot understand, is why the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not considered war crimes? I can understand the purpose of the attacks, but not the reasons why largely civilian targets were selected. Due to the sheer loss of civilian life, they should at least be considered as war crimes, maybe even genocide.

Likewise, some of the allied bombing campaigns in the later stages of WWII over Germany, particularly over Dresden were considered war crimes, but not the atomic attacks on Japan, why?

The reason they aren't or weren't considered a war crime is probably astoundingly simple and cynical in equal measure, they were committed by the winners of war which write history apparantly.

Today these events ( although bombing civilians is regarded by most governments today as a no-no ) would be considered a war crime regardless who is winning ( although it strangely still depends on which country committed them due to political reasons ) and history will eventually make a judgement on these events.

If the Axis-forces would have won ( which fortunately they didn't ) the Allies would probably have been prosecuted of war crimes.

 

[Blitz187]

The reason they aren't or weren't considered a war crime is probably astoundingly simple and cynical in equal measure, they were committed by the winners of war which write history apparantly.

This is a very good point you bring up here... 👍

 

[TheBook]

If the Axis-forces would have won ( which fortunately they didn't ) the Allies would probably have been prosecuted of war crimes.

Not only that, Hitler would have probably been considered a war hero as well.

 

[analog]

Not only that, Hitler would have probably been considered a war hero as well.

And we wouldn't be having these free discussions or even heard about the Holocaust, etc. ( or even allowed to be born ) if the Third Reich and its Japanese allies had world domination.
Thing is, luckily the "good" guys won although that fact can't disguise the horrible atrocities also committed by the Allies ( Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and probably countless other cities as well ) whether they were really necessary or not ( this is really a very, very difficult subject, which cannot be easily answered also because a different outcome if they weren't committed will never and can't ever be proven ).
At least we can find comfort they ( nuclear bombs ) have never been used since due to its horrific consequences they've exposed and although far from perfect or efficient we now have at least the United Nations.

 

[magburner]

The reason they aren't or weren't considered a war crime is probably astoundingly simple and cynical in equal measure, they were committed by the winners of war which write history apparantly.

I couldn't agree with you more! 👍

If the Axis-forces would have won ( which fortunately they didn't ) the Allies would probably have been prosecuted of war crimes.

...And, been the butt of countless FPS video games!

 

[dxm8975]

Not only that, Hitler would have probably been considered a war hero as well.

Yeah, if the Axis-forces won the allied forces in World War II, he would have been considered to be a war hero who defeated the countries that composed the allies and conquered the Great Britain and the european continent, although the fact was that he could've never done it since he was considered he couldn't acquire air superiority and any other factors to win the Battle of Britain to prepare to do it.

 

[analog]

...And, been the butt of countless FPS video games!

Except for the fact that the Allies ( Britain ) invented the first computer and they would probably have destroyed it if they lost ( they actually destroyed it after they won apparantly, only for the Americans to take the blueprint and further develop it......).
If the Axis-forces would have won, we probably only still had tin-soldiers to do battle with.........

 

[Ibonibo]

On the subject :
discovery of atom force is great for humanity
The a bomb not.
+:
The Abomb served to quickly end the war and therefor saved a lot of lifes of the allies.
If it wasn't released on japan. Maybe later, because we wouldn't have been shocked of the effects, the cold war could have turned into a whole different direction.
it made humanity aware of the catastophal consequences of an abomb

-:
kind of obvious.
I can only condamn it. And if i remember correctly Nagasaki? wasn't the first choice, but the sky was covered so this was the second choice.
To many civilian casulties, but this was the goal to frighten the japanese enough so they would surrender.


I find it more pertubating that the V-Day was so long present in the Us and what the US did with the Asiatic community afterwards (now with muslims, and not soly in Us, also here in Europe). That was the behavior they were fighting against in Europe.

And as of the mentionning of war crimes
Did you know:
The judgement of Nürnberg was illegal (not that i would not agree with it) from a point of view of the law. You can't be judged retroactivly.
Meaning the defintion of war crimes and crimes to humanity was made after war. Theirfore their action would normally not be judge.
Not that i taking their position, it's just interesting to know, and they would have deserved much worse than just hanging and be shot.

 

[dxm8975]

On the subject :
discovery of atom force is great for humanity
The a bomb not.
+:
The Abomb served to quickly end the war and therefor saved a lot of lifes of the allies.
If it wasn't released on japan. Maybe later, because we wouldn't have been shocked of the effects, the cold war could have turned into a whole different direction.
it made humanity aware of the catastophal consequences of an abomb

-:
kind of obvious.
I can only condamn it. And if i remember correctly Nagasaki? wasn't the first choice, but the sky was covered so this was the second choice.
To many civilian casulties, but this was the goal to frighten the japanese enough so they would surrender.


I find it more pertubating that the V-Day was so long present in the Us and what the US did with the Asiatic community afterwards (now with muslims, and not soly in Us, also here in Europe). That was the behavior they were fighting against in Europe.

I don't think a bombing attack on Japan finally saved a lot of lives of people in the countries which belonged to the Allies, the US just determined to do the attack because Japan ignored the Potsdam declaration, which was issued from the Allies to Japan to stop the war and then surrender. It didn't result saving their lives as it killed so many people in Japan.

But it could've truly been showed that the Atomic bomb had a massive power from the consequence two american nuclear bombs brought, it would've made us realize that humanity are capable of making such kinds of destructive weapons.

And, yes. They targetted Nagasaki as the next place they drop an A-bomb on after they dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima during their bombing campaign, it was the second(time) choice to destroy a city through doing that

 

[Dotini]

If it is correct to condemn the atomic bomb for taking so many lives, is it correct to condemn the machine gun for the same reason?

 

[Biggles]

If it is correct to condemn the atomic bomb for taking so many lives, is it correct to condemn the machine gun for the same reason?

Well, as we all know: "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Of course, I think Colonel Tibbets might have had a tougher time carrying out his mission if he had been asked to machine gun 160,000 men, women & children to death.

As most adult males were in the army, the vast majority of the victims of Hiroshima were women & children. Although many of the victims died instantly, tens of thousands were horribly burned & must have died an agonizing death, with virtually no medical personnel or infrastructure left to provide for the injured. After the war U.S. occupying authorities censored pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so most surviving images show the devastated buildings, very few show the terrible burns suffered by the dead & dying.

 

[Ibonibo]

As Biggles said : "...if he had been asked to machine gun 160,000 men, women & children to death. "

That´s the difference between the a-bomb and a gun.
The a-bomb is to much power for one person, which was the case during the cold war.
Crimson Tide is an exemple of what could have happend and this cases were a lot, with all the people in silos ready to push the red button, relying on coded messages written by an other person. And humans tend to fail taking wise decision a lot.
I think the step Obama took with Russia on the new Star agreement is a historical descision as the other agrements were.
When i said the a-bomb saved life on the allies side, i was talking mainly about americans as they were the most involved in the pacific conflict. And it is just a hypothesis based on the position Japan had back in the time. Japan would not have surrendered and the war would have continued maybe for months.

A long time ago (3-4y) i read an interessting article about the bombing told by a missionary who survived and tried to help as good as he could. There were some interesting photos. I will look if i find the paper and will upload the pics.
I would upload the whole article but it is in german.

 

[niky]

And yet, machine guns have killed more civilians in the past century than atom bombs. Go figure. (and the estimates place that at up to a million people a year from various small arms, pistols, rifles, grenades, etcetera... from armed conflicts... NOT from criminal activity...)

War is hell. Civilian casualties have always been seen as an unavoidable side effect.

The only difference between then and now is the level of casualty, and what is deemed "acceptable" by the military. World War II: Targetting of civilian population centers was deemed acceptable (the Axis started first) because population centers directly contributed to the enemy's war effort. Now: It is not.

Whenever you launch attacks on an enemy that is entrenched in a civilian population, you get casualties... from rocket shrapnel... stray bullets... etcetera. Nowadays, more accurate weapons minimize the "collateral damage", but it's still there.

 

[-MOPAR-]

America had no other option, we had to drop the bomb on them. If we didn't who knows how many more American soldiers would have died in combat.

The way I see it is it's just payback for Pearl Harbor. I also think it left a mark for the rest of the world to look at and see what will happen if you **** with the United States of America. For all we know dropping the bomb on Japan could have prevented other wars from ever happening.

Could we have won the war without the use of nuclear weapons? The answer is yes we could have, but at this point in the war over 400,000 American lives have been lost, and 600,000 wounded. America just didn't need to drag out the war longer than it should have. Anyway when they didn't surrender after the first bomb they were just begging for more, so we gave them more.

 

[LizMcQueen]

The way I see it is it's just payback for Pearl Harbor. I also think it left a mark for the rest of the world to look at and see what will happen if you **** with the United States of America.

Japanese army attacks american army, and american army responds massacring two cities, Who will want to attack United States in these conditions?

 

[dxm8975]

Japanese army attacks american army, and american army responds massacring two cities, Who will want to attack United States in these conditions?

Yeah, Japanese army(Air force) attacked an american battleship in Pearl Herbor by dropping a bomb, the ship was destroyed and went down under the sea. The Pacific war began by this bombing attack conducted by Japan.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Japanese army attacks american army, and american army responds massacring two cities, Who will want to attack United States in these conditions?

Except that very brief statement makes it seem like the Japanese Army never laid a finger on innocent civilians, which we all know not to be true.

 

[niky]

Japanese army attacks american army, and american army responds massacring two cities, Who will want to attack United States in these conditions?

Japanese air force attacks American Navy, sinking a bunch of ships.

Japanese Navy and Army go on an invasion spree. Invading China, parts of Indo-China, the Philippines, various Pacific islands and attempting same in Australia. Raping and killing civilians, looting the places they conquer for everything they're worth, and burning everything to the ground.

The US responds by waging a bloody war to gain territories back from Japan, freeing various countries and small territories from their grasp in bloody and very costly battles. After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Pacific campaign, they face a Japanese mainland that's battered but not beaten... with a population that's willing to take up arms against the Americans, willing to die, every last man, woman and child, to defend their country. Japanese soldiers fight till their last breath, and would rather commit suicide than face capture. Japanese factories still churn out kamikaze bombers and there's no lack of volunteers to man these guided death-missiles.

So... would you fight against elderly men and women hand to hand till you've pacified or killed the entire country, or try to force the government to surrender?

 

[Speedy Samurai]

America had no other option, we had to drop the bomb on them. If we didn't who knows how many more American soldiers would have died in combat.

There's always another option.

Japan no longer had a working navy, it's military forces were spread out, beaten all across the pacific theater, the country couldn't import anything it needed in the way of weapons, supplies, or even food.

The citizens were doing their best to try to survive through the day, considering themselves lucky if they found a nut they could eat.

America could have just waited them out. Russia was regrouping and taking over the northern territories and Japan would not have been able to put up resistance.

There are always choices.

I don't particularly consider the atomic bombings to be that horrendous or necessary. The loss of life was just more 'instantaneous'. Even Curtis Lemay admitted that the bombs weren't needed. He was doing an effective job of obliterating cities (64 up to that point) with his firebombings.

 

[McLaren]

The way I see it is it's just payback for Pearl Harbor. I also think it left a mark for the rest of the world to look at and see what will happen if you **** with the United States of America.

Back then, this might have been a "valid" argument or whatever. But, as we've learned from the Cold War up until now, it's no longer true. Even if the US possess a large stockpile of bombs, there is someone across the pond with an array as well. And with the way bombs have come today, it doesn't take many to completely shatter a country.

For all we know dropping the bomb on Japan could have prevented other wars from ever happening.

But, it didn't. The Cold War began 2 years later & the Korean War 5 years later.

The bomb didn't prevent anything besides America from deciding to send troops to Japan's mainland. What it did do is show the world what kind of weapons were now possible, weapons that didn't require any more than a small group of men.

 

[DK]

Russia was regrouping and taking over the northern territories and Japan would not have been able to put up resistance.

I wonder, what would've happened if the Soviets invaded Japan? Would it end up divided like Korea and Germany between Soviet-controlled and US/French/British-controlled areas (even though Korea was divided between the Soviets and the Americans, and the Brits and the French weren't involved in this). Would Tokyo end up divided between east and west, like Berlin?

 

[LizMcQueen]

Except that very brief statement makes it seem like the Japanese Army never laid a finger on innocent civilians, which we all know not to be true.

I know, but if japanese army was killing civilians, didn't justify that americans had to do it too.
The american army was superior, I don't know, but perhaps they could have destroyed only military targets.